[words]

Two quotes from two great thinkers. The first is from philosopher of science Karl Popper, from his intellectual autobiography Unended Quest:

Never let yourself be goaded into taking seriously problems about words and their meanings. What must be taken seriously are questions of fact, and assertions about facts: theories and hypotheses; the problems they solve; and the problems they raise.

The second is from man of letters G.K. Chesterton, from his hilarious novel The Ball and the Cross:

“Well, we won’t quarrel about a word,” said the other, pleasantly.

“Why on earth not?” said MacIan, with a sudden asperity. “Why shouldn’t we quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren’t important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn’t any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn’t there be a quarrel about a word? If you’re not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are only things worth fighting about.”

What say you? Chesterton or Popper? I think I tend to side with Chesterton…

[Christ-centered apologetics]

(Part two of a two-part series on Christ, the cross, and apologetics.)

Yesterday morning in my philosophy of religion class, we were studying a famous exchange between logical positivist A.J. Ayer and Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston. These two intellectual giants were tangling over the question of whether it was possible to have empirical knowledge of God. Copleston argued that one could, but the difficulty, Ayer maintained, was that intuitions or feelings of God’s presence were not quantifiable in terms of the five senses, and therefore not properly empirical.

“Because on Copleston’s view God doesn’t have a body, you can’t experience Him through the senses, although you may have a direct perception of Him with your mind,” my professor said. “Of course, you could experience Jesus empirically…”

I admit I kind of tuned out after this point in the lecture, because it set me off on a tangent resonating with my meditations on apologetics and the theology of the cross from this weekend. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between god and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Might it be the case that many of the “problems” in Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion come from trying to come to knowledge of God apart from His appointed Mediator? This was one of the prideful errors with which Luther indicted the theologians of glory. The thought stayed with me throughout the day.

How might this kind of Christ-centered approach to apologetics work in practice? Let’s consider the above problem of coming to knowledge of God’s existence and character. One might think, following Kant, that it is problematic or even impossible to know what God is like in Himself from our limited human perspective. It is not problematic, however, to believe that mere humans can come to the knowledge of an utterly transcendent God if that God Himself became a man. In fact it is utterly crucial that we have a God-Man Mediator in order to come to knowledge of God, as the context of 1 Timothy 2:5 is about coming to know the truth. Let us consider, too, the present tense of that verse: “There is one mediator.” Christ’s Incarnation is ongoing. As He sits at the right of His Father in Heaven right now, He is fully God and fully man. Is it strange to think, then, that He may reveal Himself to human beings? Christ’s Incarnation, Atonement, and ongoing Mediation mean that the epistemological and moral (because of the effects of sin on our minds) problems of coming to know God are not problems at all. Whenever God chooses to reveal Himself, He does. Scripture goes on to indicate that the way He does so is through His spoken word of the Gospel and His inscripturated word of the Bible, which includes the apostles’ testimony to their empirical experience of Jesus (Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:16-21, 1 John 1:1-3).

Or take the problem of evil. A Christ-centered approach to evil would include some of the following points:

1. Jesus suffered for sin. If God Himself suffers evil in Christ, then our suffering is not meaningless.
2. The cross of Christ shows that God undermines the greatest evil for His good end.
3. The cross shows God defeating and destroying evil and bringing justice, inviting us into His Kingdom.

I believe these three points have been argued by Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, and N.T. Wright, respectively. None of them argue in an abstract and, what is in at least one sense of the term, sub-Christian way. Neither do they offer a clean syllogism for an answer. I think that is a good thing.

Well, this is just a thought, a starting point for further discussion. What do you think? Might a Christ-centered approach alleviate some of the perennial problems of Christian apologetics?

[musing on government]

John Mark Reynolds has written this pleasant, thoughtful, and wise little musing on government. Enjoy it.

[reformational politics redux]

As election night draws to a close, I’ve got politics of a less practical, more philosophical/theological sort on the brain. I thought I’d repost this from last year: the conclusion of a research paper I wrote last year, “Toward an Evangelical Politics: Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and Beyond.”

A Five-Point Proposal, Being a Starting Point for a Reformational/Evangelical Politics:

Theonomy: An Evangelical politics must embrace theonomy in its understanding of law. Abraham Kuyper calls for a subjective theonomy in the Lectures: “God’s Word must rule, but in the sphere of the state only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority.” (“Politics” 104) However, in our post-Christian culture there is very little of God’s Word in anyone’s conscience, let alone the politicians’. The “hard theonomy” of the Christian Reconstructionists, wherein the Old Testament law is adopted as the law of the land with its prescribed punishments, except where specifically superceded by the New Testament, seems to stray too far in the other direction. It smacks of theocracy. (Rogers) Francis Schaeffer’s “soft theonomy” has the constitutional law of the land resting consciously on Scripture as an unchanging standard of justice and right. This position maintains the Evangelical tension between the absolute authority of Scripture and the separation of church and state. It is also in line with the teaching of John Calvin himself. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin calls the idea of rule by the totality of the Mosaic Law “perilous and seditious,” but he affirms that the law of the land must rest on the “moral law,” which he boils down to the principles of charity and equity. The eternal standard of the moral law prevents destructive sociological law:
“But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.” (Institutes 910)
Under this conception, justice, ethics, morality, and religious conviction are inseparable. Evangelicals have the right and duty to continue to push for legislation on ‘moral’ issues like abortion and gay rights as the highest priority, because they undermine the very foundation of state authority, which rests in just law.

Uncompromised principles: An Evangelical politics must be principled, not pragmatic. This is a direct result of embracing a theonomic concept of law. A denial of Scriptural authority is concomitant to denying legislative goals that are directly based on God’s moral law. According to J. Budziszewski, the confession of biblical authority is the theological distinctive of Evangelicals. (“Evangelicals” 20) So a move like Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani effectively forfeits one’s status as an Evangelical.

Limited Sovereignty: An Evangelical politics must limit the sovereignty of the state by proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God and recognizing sovereignty within individual spheres. Proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God ensures that Evangelicals know the basic presupposition on which their politics is founded and creates a bottom line past which subjection to the state is no longer good or right. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 126-127) It seems from the Genesis account that Scripture recognizes at least four spheres, with separate sovereignties implied by the separate institutions of society (Gen. 1:26-28), family (Gen. 2:23-24), church (Gen. 4:26), and state (Gen. 9:5-6). Applying this principle would require the government to retract its authoritative position in areas like education, as in the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Act. Schaeffer writes, “[I]f the United States is to move back toward the original Reformation basis, this would mean severely limiting the scope of Federal State authority.” (Manifesto 114) In fact, it would mean a very nearly libertarian conception of federal authority. Evangelicals should seek constitutional amendments specifically delineating societal spheres and denying the state sovereignty therein. Evangelicals must also determine how the sphere sovereignty doctrine would apply on an international level. It precludes ceding state sovereignty to international organizations like the U.N. and prohibits an interventionist foreign policy, both as violations of the sovereignty of individual nations.

Identification with Christian heritage: An Evangelical politics must make explicit the historically demonstrable connection between Reformation Christianity and liberty. Both Kuyper and Schaeffer go to great lengths to show the direct correlation between the degree of ‘reformation’ and the degree of freedom in Northern Europe and the United States. Kuyper locates the democratizing effects of Calvinism in its Presbyterian polity (“Religion” 63) and doctrine of unconditional election. (“Art” 166) Evangelicals should point unbelievers to the oppressive public squares of France and Turkey as ample proof that secular humanism does not lead to freedom, but tyranny. Even those who do not share the Christian worldview should welcome, rather than abhor, a Christian state because a Christian state alone provides a stable guarantee of freedom. An Evangelical politics must not compel belief or establish a state church, but it must of necessity preserve freedom of expression in the public square to maintain evangelistic efforts. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 136-137).

Plan for action: An Evangelical politics must provide a comprehensive strategy for achieving its goals on all fronts. Recognizing that Evangelicals are in a battle of opposing total worldviews, the fight must be taken to every sphere of life. Ethical personal living, raising strong families, theologically-informed art and science, petition, litigation, civil disobedience, running for political office, proposing legislation, production in every academic field—all of these must be practiced if Evangelicals take Kuyper and Schaeffer’s worldview theory seriously. Unfortunately, this is where neither Kuyper, nor Schaeffer, nor this paper can take us any further. Delineating strict action in these spheres would rise above a foundation and begin to define a total Evangelical politics, even a comprehensive Christian philosophy—a monumental work that waits for another scholar and another day.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” John 16:13

Sources:

Budziszewski, J. “Evangelicals in the Public Square,” in Evangelicals in the Public Square, Budziszewski, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2002. <http://www.ccel.org/download.html?
url=/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf>
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943.

Rogers, Jay. “Van Tillian Presuppositional Theonomic Ethics.” The Forerunner. Accessed December 5, 2007. <http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0518_vantil.html>

Schaeffer, Francis. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester: Crossway. 1981.

[the yct carnival and the limits of civility]

My school, Texas A&M, has been in the news lately for a demonstration held by the Young Conservatives of Texas. Our student newspaper, The Battalion, covers the event in this article, and CNN Online even hosted a video. As you can see, the event has caused quite a stir.

The first time, the “Anti-Obama Carnival” invited students to “throw away their nest egg” of retirement savings at a poster of Obama’s face. YCT indicated this was intended as a satirical attack on Obama’s “socialistic, liberal [economic] policies.” (CNN video) The policies, however, were not clearly displayed, and the carnival had the distinct appearance of an ad hominem attack. Lots of people were furious.

YCT responded to some constructive criticism, and a few days later re-worked the carnival. Students now threw their eggs “at a board with Obama’s policies listed on it, and underneath the policies were photos of Obama and other prominent figures of the Democratic Party.” (Battalion article) Despite this re-tooling, the crowd response was just as negative. Based on the Batt article and my own observations, the negative responses seem to fall into two main types:

The first response says, “Well, if all these guys can do is throw eggs at Obama, they must not have much of a counterargument to his economic policies.” This fundamentally misunderstands the obvious purpose of the carnival. It was a stunt, a marketing ploy, an attempt to engage people in conversation, not the conversation itself. Having spoken with YCT chairman Tony Listi at length about political matters before (we’re both University Scholars), I know that he can give a cogent apologia for a freer market than Obama proposes off the top of his head. You may not agree with their arguments, but they have them. These guys are not ignorant.

The second response cries “Foul!” and claims hate, pleads civility and champions respect. Check out the picture in the Batt article. I am all for a civil public discourse, but civility has its limits. It can quickly become opinion suppression if we’re not careful. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to only say nice things. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and abrasive political satire are emphatically not correlative.

Certainly, this means that means that people had the right to virulently protest the Anti-Obama Carnival, too. But even then the only protests mounted were against the style of the carnival, not its substance. Plenty of people were there pleading for a softer rhetoric, but no-one was there vindicating Obama’s fiscal policies. YCT was there saying, “This doesn’t work,” and they were the only ones even attempting to engage the issues and arguments.

This was not the case, however, with YCT’s first iteration of the carnival. Without the policies being the immediate subject of the attack, and Obama himself only by virtue of espousing such policies, the egg-throwing was distasteful. And this, I believe, lost them their audience and doomed the carnival’s second (and clever and cutting and legitimate) iteration.

But the greater issue revealed here is this: Obama has become something of a sacred cow, and that should worry you. Just imagine how different the reaction would be if this was the Young Liberals of Texas chunking eggs at a President Bush poster. Whenever satire is automatically off the table against someone, you should be concerned. If it is politically incorrect to criticize Obama, simply because he is Obama, civility may become a fast track to tyranny.

[reasonable faith]

Dr. William Lane Craig, a brilliant Christian philosopher and apologist, has some great resources at reasonablefaith.org. I don’t agree with him on all points, particularly the way he conceptualizes divine sovereignty, but these Q&A’s on the witness of the Holy Spirit I find extremely helpful.

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

Counterfeit Claims of the Spirit’s Witness

[the power of words and the wonder of God]

Video from the Desiring God national conference this weekend is up here:

Conference Video :: Desiring God

I watched Sinclair Ferguson’s message on James this afternoon, and it was good stuff.

[sanity, sin, and the gospel]

These articles by Dr. David Powlison at Boundless have been very pastoral for me. What do you think of Biblical counseling? And what do you think of this quote in particular, from part 3:

It’s crucial, by the way, to understand sin accurately. Most people think that to identify something as “sin” means saying that the person consciously chose to do some bad action. The person also has the power to Just Say No.

But the Bible comes at sin from the opposite direction. We do many wrong, unloving things without even knowing what we’re doing or why. Most sin is not a matter of conscious choice. The “high-handed” sins are conscious. But much of what we do, think and feel expresses that we are blind, self-deceived, metaphorically drunk or sleepwalking, calloused, acting like brute beasts, walking in the dark. So we do not have the power to Just Say No.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[making men with chests]

The following is an excerpt from my final paper in Art, Emotion, and Morality entitled “Fiction and Moral Education: Making Men With Chests”. The title is a reference to C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, a book I heartily recommend!

“When Socrates kicked poetry out of the Republic, he did it on the grounds that art, being a representation of the physical world which is itself a representation of the formal world, is two removes from the truth. Small wonder, then, that Homer is replete with errors about the gods and the afterlife. For anyone seeking to raise up a generation of ethically trained truth-seekers, education by fiction is, according to Socrates, counter-productive: These errors lead to the inculcation of false moral values like fear of death and doubt of the gods.

For those of us who reject Plato’s idealism, we may admit the possibility of stories that convey moral truth. But can such a story give us moral knowledge? Given that knowledge is justified true belief, it is not clear that fiction can provide epistemic justification except in special cases. As a Christian who accepts the divine inspiration of the Bible, I believe that Jesus’ parables can give moral knowledge. Their origin in God is justification for believing whatever ethical truth-claims are put forth or implied in the stories. But what about a novel like A Clockwork Orange, a short story like “Greenleaf” by Flannery O’Connor, or a movie like There Will Be Blood? Apart from divine inspiration, I am unsure that fictions can provide justification for believing the ethical content or accepting the ethical point of view represented therein.

But perhaps there is more to moral education than just the acquisition of moral knowledge. Perhaps the faculties we use to make moral choices based on such knowledge need development to be implemented effectively. After all, learning usually requires a transitional phase of training between the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and actual practice. For example, if you are teaching a student how to write critical essays for a standardized test, you will begin by teaching her the basic theory of literary criticism and essay writing. Then, you will have her hone her skills through writing practice essays. This practice will probably include reading and critiquing poor essays as well, so your student will know just what makes a bad essay bad. Only after this practice is she ready to put her theoretical knowledge, quite literally, to the test. Or one might think more readily of sport as an example. Coaches give their players theoretical knowledge of the skills required for their game. This knowledge is ingrained through drills, the repetition of correct actions until they become habit or ‘muscle memory’. The players supplement their drills with strength training, building up the muscle groups relevant to their sport through resistance. Thus trained, the players are ready to play an actual game where their actions count.

Just like writing a critical essay or making a rugby tackle, moral virtue must be learned through training if it is to be practiced in real life. This training includes both repetition, as in the practice essays and drills, and opposition, as in the bad essay critiques and strength training. Stories in the main may not provide knowledge to the head, but neither do they simply titillate the emotions of the gut. They work on what Plato called the ‘spirited element’, or what C.S. Lewis called, “The Chest—Magnanimity—Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man.” They can provide us with ethical training both through repetition and opposition. This position I call Virtue Training Theory.

“Repetition” in Virtue Training Theory means the process of positively rehearsing the patterns of right thought and emotion, or sentiments, necessary for good moral choice. This occurs when one reads (or watches, etc.) a work of fiction that manifests a true ethical attitude toward its content. It is important that it concerns the morality of the manifest attitude and not the content itself; reading a story that contains immoral content is still an exercise in repetition if the story calls a spade a spade. For example, reading A Clockwork Orange, though its anti-hero Alex perpetrates such immoral acts as rape and murder, is repetition because the immorality of his actions is implicitly acknowledged and even crucial to the novel’s exploration of the ethical dilemma of psychological conditioning and human free will.

“Opposition” in Virtue Training Theory means the process of negatively rehearsing right sentiments through engaging with a work of fiction that manifests a false ethical attitude towards its contents. The film There Will Be Blood manifests an attitude of moral nihilism, through twists and turns of plot getting the audience to feel sympathy for its reprehensible main character and, in the final scene, take pleasure in a brutal murder. In the end we are left feeling that statements about morality do not really say anything because they certainly cannot make sense of the situation presented in the film. Opposition to this film entails understanding its ethical viewpoint, considering its discrepancy with the truth that some attitudes and actions are actually wrong, and internally repudiating it. Both processes, repetition and opposition, contribute to moral education by inculcating just sentiments. [I believe the ideal fictional component of an ethical education would progress from total repetition in grammar school, exposing students only to works with true ethical viewpoints, to an even balance of repetition and opposition by the end of high school.]

I believe Virtue Training Theory finds a place for fiction in ethical education without wrestling with the tricky epistemological problem of grounding our moral knowledge in fiction…”

Throughout the rest of the paper I contrast Virtue Training Theory with another contemporary theory and answer possible objections. If anyone’s interested in reading it, e-mail me and I’ll send you a copy!

[notes toward a theory of art]

Metaphysics Chart:
(in other words, a chart representing what is)

Creation // God
||
The World // Man
||
Nature // Culture

[wolf // dog]

[forest // park]

[landscape // landscaping, landscape painting]

Where “// ” represents an antithesis,  “||” represents a subdivision, and what is in brackets “[]” is a concrete example. In sentence form:
Whatever is not God is Creation; whatever in Creation is not Man is The World; whatever in The World is not Culture is Nature. God is distinguished from Creation by His aseity and its contingency; Man is distinguished from The World by the imago Dei; Culture is distinguished from Nature by Man’s creative action upon the stuff of Nature.

I believe this consideration of what exists undermines “Art” as an ontological category. To divide artifacts of Culture into “Art” and “Non-art” is a spurious distinction. The artist and the engineer are both culture-makers, and airplanes may have beauty just as sculptures may have function. The Aesthetic is rather a hermeneutical-ethical aspect, a set of lenses through which we perceive an object to determine a specific meaning and value. Every piece of culture, from a rubbish bin to the Mona Lisa, has an aesthetic meaning and value, but some objects have more aesthetic value than others. Aesthetic meaning and value are based on the criteria of harmony (relation of parts to whole and form to content) and surprise (or nuance). For these criteria I am indebted to Herman Dooyeweerd’s Theory of Modal Aspects in his New Critique of Theoretical Thought, and I am generally indebted to Henry Van Til for his Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[total war]

So often I confute the Spirit/flesh conflict that Paul talks about with a Greek idea of spirit versus body. That was the error of the Gnostics in the first century church! (Think about this: If Spirit versus flesh means spirit versus body, then Paul is talking nonsense when he speaks of “spiritual bodies” in 1 Cor. 15.) I make sanctification into a process of my mind’s high reason mastering my body’s low passion… which is a deadly simplification. The reality is that the corruption of sin extends much deeper than just bodily desires. My reason, will, and affections are, apart from Christ, just as corrupt as my bodily senses. There are sanctified, “spiritual” bodily desires, like that of a husband for his wife, and there are fleshly desires, like lust for a woman not your wife. There are spiritual affections, like the “joy inexpressible and full of glory” that Peter talks about (see Jonathan Edwards for more on that), and there are fleshly ones like the anxiety against which Paul warns in Philippians 4. And there is godly reasoning that recognizes the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7), and there are “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5).

And all of these reside in me. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24-25)

Jesus paid the penalty for all my sins–sins of reason, emotion, and cupidity. And he broke the power of sin, even though it still abides in me in this life, so that my outer man, the fleshly man, is wasting away, and my inner man, quickened by the Holy Spirit, is being renewed day by day. So I can be confident to go after my sin in total war, on every front fighting in the power of the Spirit.

So with reference to this truth, I’m going to post a couple of things from my Art, Emotion, and Morality class on the blog–because Christian scholarship is spiritual warfare.

[tractatus, wordled]

Check out this Wordle I’ve made of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Wordle is so cool… I foresee a lot of homework-dodging on this site.

[uk update 2 // london, cambridge, edinburgh]

Hey guys! Well, this update is overdue, and I don’t have a ton of time, but I feel I should let you know what’s up with me…

Well, I arrived safely in London on the morning of Thursday, June 26. I spent the next few days being orientated by Arcadia University staff, getting to know 7 other peeps who applied for the Cambridge program through Arcadia, doing a crash course of Tube-riding London tourism (minding the gap, of course!), and catching a little Eric Clapton in Hyde Park for the Nelson Mandela birthday concert. I particularly enjoyed the architecture of Westminster Hall and Big Ben, and seeing Poet’s Corner in Westminster Abbey. I also snuck over to Elephant and Castle to Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, still faithfully proclaiming the Gospel in London. I even met a couple of people there who were on a church workday, improving the facilities!

Sunday saw us boarding a 1:15 train for Cambridge at King’s Cross station (watch out, Harry Potter fans!). When we arrived at King’s College, Cambridge, I was blown away: perfectly manicured grass with a copper-green fountain running in the middle, a striking Gothic chapel, and a lovely blue sky streaked with clouds made a very picturesque greeting for us indeed. Sunday night I caught the end of the Eurocup football (that’s soccer to us!) finals in a pub down the street, and then classes started on Monday. Monday night we had a fantastic formal dinner. Tuesday I spent the afternoon reading Titus Andronicus on the grass by the River Cam, and then trekked over to the Orchard Tea Room, a place frequented by such figures as Virginia Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein in the 1920s, for a pot of tea and a scone! Wednesday evening I enjoyed an Anglican choral service at the King’s Chapel, complete with blasting pipe organ.

Thursday saw about 200 of us head off to Edinburgh, Scotland for the weekend. Friday I hiked in the Trossachs, beautiful heather-covered hills over-looking Loch Lomond where my thieving, murderous, but dashing ancestor Rob Roy MacGregor used to roam. Friday night we had a 4th of July party in the University of Edinburgh debate hall, and Saturday I saw most of downtown Edinburgh, including John Knox’s house and the cathedral where he ignited the Scottish Reformation, the Scottish Parliament building, and Edinburgh Castle. Sunday we headed back to Cambridge, stopping on the way at the ruins of Fountains Abbey, a monastery built in the twelfth century.

Today saw classes resume in rainy Cambridge, and I spent the afternoon in the library and a coffee shop across the street reading Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Phiosophicus, a short but intriguing and important text of 20th century philosophy, in one sitting. The cool thing is, he was studying under Bertrand Russell at Cambridge when he wrote it!

My time in the UK has been fantastic so far, and praise the Lord for safe travel. My heart, however, has been a battleground where temptation, anxiety, and unbelief have raged. The Lord is faithful, though, and He has preserved me for His name’s sake. Praise Him for that! He is growing me by teaching me to trust Him more everyday, and not to lean on things like my emotional state, which ultimately can’t support the weight of my need. Only the cross of Christ can. I was unfaithful in the first few days with opportunities to share the gospel, but I have repented of that, and the Lord has graciously provided more. He has also started to grow friendships, including some with brothers and sisters who are on the program, and that has been invaluable. Here’s some specifics you can pray for:

-Protection from spiritual attack. That I would be strong in the Lord to go to war everyday in the fight for faith.

-For my friends Zach, Armando, Jane, and Keshia that I’ve gotten to have spiritual conversations with.

-That I would be sensitive to opportunities to speak the truth of the gospel and trust the Holy Spirit to give me words.

-For my friend Justin, a brother that I’ve gotten to spend some quality time with.

-For church this Sunday. I’m planning to go to Eden Baptist Church, a Reformed Baptist church in Cambridge. The past two Sundays I’ve not been able to attend church. Podcasted sermons are a great resource, but they can’t match the (comm)unity of the Body!

-For my Art, Emotion, and Morality test on Thursday…it’s coming so quickly!

-Pray that I would not just have conversations about the gospel, but get involved in people’s lives while I’m over here. (1 Thess. 2:8 )

Thank you for your prayers. Grace and peace to you; our God is good and faithful.

[what is education?]

Mohler here.

[love and knowledge]

In my Logos small group Bible study, we are going through the Sermon on the Mount. One of the more puzzling passages in there for me has always been Matthew 6:19-23:

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

The relationship between the “storing up treasures in heaven” and the “eye is the lamp of the body” parts has always been a little mysterious to me. The connection seems to be this: the question of knowledge is fundamentally an ethical question. Perceiving God, ourselves, and our world truly and rightly is contingent upon valuing all of those things rightly.

For example, if our values are skewed, we will tend to make the cross of Jesus Christ an expression of our own worth, a sort of nuclear-option self-esteem booster. “Look here, now. Don’t get down on yourself! God thinks you’re worth so much, He sent His Son to die for you!”

That’s a very subtle corruption of the truth. If we are ethically in line, we will see that God is infinitely valuable. The cross, then, can’t be an expression of our worth. If God valued us more highly than Himself, He would be an idolator! The cross must instead be “to the praise of His glorious grace,” an expression of His glorious, merciful character. It’s not about us.

In his book The Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til extends that truth in this way: “Christ’s work as priest cannot be separated from his work as prophet. Christ could not give us true knowledge of God and the universe unless he died for us as priest. The question of knowledge is an ethical question at the root. It is indeed possible to have theoretically correct knowledge about God without loving God. The devil illustrates this point. Yet what is meant by knowing God in Scripture is knowing and loving God: this is true knowledge of God: the other is false.”

The view of the cross that makes it a testament to our own worth is correct on some theoretical points. It realizes our sin and the need for atonement that we cannot provide. But this view doesn’t love God; it doesn’t display Him as supremely valuable. It loves us. Therefore it is false knowledge, because it misses the fundamental truth of God’s value.

This is a good reminder for a guy like me who loves to think and read and coldly consumes theoretical knowledge without being moved to love God. It’s not that I have good knowledge that just needs to “get moved from my head to heart.” I have bad knowledge if I don’t have love!

Love and knowledge

Go together like a horse and carriage…

or something like that!

[mohler on manhood]

Examine yourself.

[sound doctrine pt. 2]

How can we know anything at all?

How can we know Who God is or who we are or anything about the purpose and progress of history? How do we know the answers we pose to these questions are correct?

We don’t have to guess and hope at these matters because God has revealed Himself. In the order and beauty of creation, the laws of physics that govern motion, the moral truths that we recognize intuitively about the value of human life and private property, God shows His character. But more than this, from the very beginning God has revlealed Himself in language that humans can understand. In the Garden of Eden, He spoke and gave Adam instructions. He gave the Ten Commandments at Sinai. He delivered prophecies throughout the ages.

And He gave His final revelation in His Son, Jesus Christ.

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Hebrews 1:1-3a.

We can know God because He has revealed Himself to us in creation, His Word, and the Word made flesh- Jesus Christ.

As the Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us, “The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” There can be no other source for our knowledge about His purpose in history. The Bible is the only foundation for everything in [sound doctrine].

Psalm 19 is one of the most potent statements of the doctrine of God’s self-revelation in Scripture. Let us apply ourselves to the study of the Word. As a pastor of mine once said, “How can you know the God of the Word without the Word of the God?”

For your joy in the God Who reveals Himself,

Jonathan

http://www.mediafire.com/?eydxxectoct

Psalm 19

The heavens declare the glory of God;
The sky proclaims His handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech;
Night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, there are no words
Whose voice is not heard.

Their measuring line goes out through the earth;
Their words go to the end of the world.
In them He set the sun a tent.
It comes out radiant, like a bridegroom,
And runs its course with strength and joy;
From its heat nothing is hidden.

The law of the Lord is perfect,
Reviving the soul.
His testimony is true,
Making wise the simple.
His precepts are right,
Rejoicing the heart.
His commandment is pure,
Enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is clean,
Enduring forever.
The rules of the Lord are right
And righteous altogether.

Your rules are more precious than gold,
Sweeter than drippings from the honeycomb.
Even more, by them I’m warned.
In keeping them is great reward.
Who can know his errors, Lord?
Declare me innocent, declare me innocent.
Keep me back from willful sin;
Let it not reign over me.
Then I shall be blameless
And innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth
And my heart’s meditations
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.

[based on the ESV text]

[common grace]

“Chaos is dull.” -Chesterton

I slept and slept in fevered dreams
Of unmoored ships and wandering travelers,
Fierce seas and tangled roads,
Nights too black and days too grey,
Blizzards overwhelmingly white,
And felt the fallenness deep in my soul
Like a crack in the foundation of Self
Life, a slumping construction, rests on.

I woke to find the World instead infuriating order,
Lying down in a dampened meadow.
I found that though it drizzled,
The sun shone through a little,
Laid my hand upon a compass and a map.
On map the roads in grid arrayed,
Like engineering paper,
Indicated bridges out and blockage of the way.

Corruption could not undo Order;
Though all the marching feet of Time
Had trampled it for unknown years,
It, scarred, held fast and true.
Against all Sin and indication
Of thermodynamic law,
A Hand unseen upholds the World,
Or else a Word unheard.

[the five points of politics]

I recently wrote a research paper for a class in religion and politics entitled “Toward an Evangelical Politics: Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and Beyond.” The worldview theory of Kuyper and Schaeffer really helped me toward defining my own political philosophy. What follows is the final section of my paper, the personal conclusions I drew. And as a good Calvinist, I offer it in five points, with an acronym you might recognize…

Theonomy: An Evangelical politics must embrace theonomy in its understanding of law. Abraham Kuyper calls for a subjective theonomy in the Lectures: “God’s Word must rule, but in the sphere of the state only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority.” (“Politics” 104) However, in our post-Christian culture there is very little of God’s Word in anyone’s conscience, let alone the politicians’. The “hard theonomy” of the Christian Reconstructionists, wherein the Old Testament law is adopted as the law of the land with its prescribed punishments, except where specifically superceded by the New Testament, seems to stray too far in the other direction. It smacks of theocracy. (Rogers) Francis Schaeffer’s “soft theonomy” has the constitutional law of the land resting consciously on Scripture as an unchanging standard of justice and right. This position maintains the Evangelical tension between the absolute authority of Scripture and the separation of church and state. It is also in line with the teaching of John Calvin himself. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin calls the idea of rule by the totality of the Mosaic Law “perilous and seditious,” but he affirms that the law of the land must rest on the “moral law,” which he boils down to the principles of charity and equity. The eternal standard of the moral law prevents destructive sociological law:
“But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.” (Institutes 910)
Under this conception, justice, ethics, morality, and religious conviction are inseparable. Evangelicals have the right and duty to continue to push for legislation on ‘moral’ issues like abortion and gay rights as the highest priority, because they undermine the very foundation of state authority, which rests in just law.

Uncompromised principles: An Evangelical politics must be principled, not pragmatic. This is a direct result of embracing a theonomic concept of law. A denial of Scriptural authority is concomitant to denying legislative goals that are directly based on God’s moral law. According to J. Budziszewski, the confession of biblical authority is the theological distinctive of Evangelicals. (“Evangelicals” 20) So a move like Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani effectively forfeits one’s status as an Evangelical.

Limited Sovereignty: An Evangelical politics must limit the sovereignty of the state by proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God and recognizing sovereignty within individual spheres. Proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God ensures that Evangelicals know the basic presupposition on which their politics is founded and creates a bottom line past which subjection to the state is no longer good or right. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 126-127) It seems from the Genesis account that Scripture recognizes at least four spheres, with separate sovereignties implied by the separate institutions of society (Gen. 1:26-28), family (Gen. 2:23-24), church (Gen. 4:26), and state (Gen. 9:5-6). Applying this principle would require the government to retract its authoritative position in areas like education, as in the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Act. Schaeffer writes, “[I]f the United States is to move back toward the original Reformation basis, this would mean severely limiting the scope of Federal State authority.” (Manifesto 114) In fact, it would mean a very nearly libertarian conception of federal authority. Evangelicals should seek constitutional amendments specifically delineating societal spheres and denying the state sovereignty therein. Evangelicals must also determine how the sphere sovereignty doctrine would apply on an international level. It precludes ceding state sovereignty to international organizations like the U.N. and prohibits an interventionist foreign policy, both as violations of the sovereignty of individual nations.

Identification with Christian heritage: An Evangelical politics must make explicit the historically demonstrable connection between Reformation Christianity and liberty. Both Kuyper and Schaeffer go to great lengths to show the direct correlation between the degree of ‘reformation’ and the degree of freedom in Northern Europe and the United States. Kuyper locates the democratizing effects of Calvinism in its Presbyterian polity (“Religion” 63) and doctrine of unconditional election. (“Art” 166) Evangelicals should point unbelievers to the oppressive public squares of France and Turkey as ample proof that secular humanism does not lead to freedom, but tyranny. Even those who do not share the Christian worldview should welcome, rather than abhor, a Christian state because a Christian state alone provides a stable guarantee of freedom. An Evangelical politics must not compel belief or establish a state church, but it must of necessity preserve freedom of expression in the public square to maintain evangelistic efforts. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 136-137).

Plan for action: An Evangelical politics must provide a comprehensive strategy for achieving its goals on all fronts. Recognizing that Evangelicals are in a battle of opposing total worldviews, the fight must be taken to every sphere of life. Ethical personal living, raising strong families, theologically-informed art and science, petition, litigation, civil disobedience, running for political office, proposing legislation, production in every academic field—all of these must be practiced if Evangelicals take Kuyper and Schaeffer’s worldview theory seriously. Unfortunately, this is where neither Kuyper, nor Schaeffer, nor this paper can take us any further. Delineating strict action in these spheres would rise above a foundation and begin to define a total Evangelical politics, even a comprehensive Christian philosophy—a monumental work that waits for another scholar and another day.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” John 16:13
Sources:

Budziszewski, J. “Evangelicals in the Public Square,” in Evangelicals in the Public Square, Budziszewski, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2002. <http://www.ccel.org/download.html?
url=/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf>
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943.

Rogers, Jay. “Van Tillian Presuppositional Theonomic Ethics.” The Forerunner. Accessed December 5, 2007. <http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0518_vantil.html>

Schaeffer, Francis. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester: Crossway. 1981.

[poetic apologetic]

I’m taking American Lit, 1860-present this semester, and lately we’ve been covering modernist poetry. It’s some of my favorite stuff because it deeply investigates the culture in which it was written. But it’s also generally anti-Christian, written in the aftermath of WWI when people thought the old philosophies and religions just didn’t make sense of reality anymore. One of the most fascinating modernists is Wallace Stevens. He worked a steady job as an insurance man and wrote on the side. He was obsessed with the impossibility of objective truth and instead stressed the importance of belief in story. Crazy how much of that viewpoint has worked its way into the church. His work is exactly the kind of stuff Francis Schaeffer was aiming at with The God Who Is There. Anyway, here’s a brief quote, a poem by Stevens, and a poem I wrote in response.

“The final belief is to believe in a fiction, which you know to be a
fiction, there being nothing else. The exquisite truth is to know that
it is a fiction and that you believe in it willingly.”

The Snow Man

by Wallace Stevens

One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

Snow Man Redux 10.23.07

by Jonathan McGregor

A snowman melts in Texas’ mild January,
And Wallace Stevens is trying to destroy me.
Here are the briquettes that were his eyes,
Trickling away in dirty little rivers
On the brittle lawn
The broom is slumped,
The carrot haphazard,
The water returns to the earth.
A brief glance of sunlight shimmers on the slushy surface,
Inviting me to stoop and see
The faintest pink reflection of my curious face,
And I know that I exist.
His images of irritum are themselves brought to nothing
By inexorable turnings
Of the Word-ruled world.
I kick the crumbling corpse
And a lump of watery snow
Falls harmlessly to the ground.

*irritum = Latin for ‘nothingness’