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…

Something I think I’ve been learning lately is that Christian discipleship is largely growth in being satisfied in Jesus. We were created in God’s image to glorify and enjoy Him as the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism so directly reminds us:

Q. What is the chief end of man?

A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

The tragedy is that, as sinners, we are bent and deviant from this end. We take God’s good created things–other people, our abilities and talents, prestige, sex, food, whatever–and try to make enjoying one or many of those created things our chief end. We are idolators. And we self-destruct in pursuit of these things that, divorced from the enjoyment of God, can never satisfy. Whenever delight in God is first, all of these lesser delights fall into their proper place and can be truly enjoyed with gratefulness toward their Creator.

The Gospel is the good news that God has given us Himself in the life, death, and resurrection of the God-Man Jesus Christ. He has paid the price of our idolatry, and wants to put away our sin so that He, the only One Who can satisfy, can be the treasure of our hearts again. As John Piper has put it, God Himself is the Gospel.

Once God has rescued our idolatrous hearts, we begin the painful and joyful process of cultivating joy in Him above all. We are all trying to get to the place where we can say with Asaph in Psalm 73,

25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

There is nothing that I desire besides You; that is, literally, there is nothing I want as much as You. We have other good desires, but all of them ought to pale in comparison to our desire for God Himself and be tempered by gratitude towards Him.

So this song is a musical meditation on that Psalm, and hopefully it will be of some use to us in cultivating satisfaction in Christ. You can get the audio by clicking on the title.

All I Want (Psalm 73)
music and lyrics by Jonathan McGregor
I’ve looked around, and I’ve seen
All the violence and the riches of the proud.
I’ve looked around, and I’ve seen
That righteousness is vanity.
I’ve felt the rod of wrath,
And I have walked a hard and narrow path,
And I have found no rest,
Just a bitter bleeding in my chest.

[tag]

I look to You, and I see
Your glory in the sanctuary.
I look to You, and I see
You governing with equity.
You hold my hand, and I know
To be near You is good for me.
And You will spare no cost to bring
Me with You into glory.

[tag]

Oh, all I want is You.
Oh, all I want is You.

(It cost the cross to bring me near to You.
It costs my life for me to come to You.
My heart, my flesh will fail, but You will not.
You are the Rock Who bears up my heart.
You are my refuge; I will hide in You.
There is no one for me in heaven but You,
And none on earth I want beside You.
You are Your gift, and I receive You.)

Today is the five-hundredth birthday of Reformation pastor and theologian John Calvin. I can think of at least five reasons to thank God for his life and ministry:

5. In the political sphere, Calvin argued for limited government.

I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. Institutes, IV.20.viii

4. By writing the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin systematized the teaching of the Reformation. He left us a great example of writing theology that is relentlessly Biblical, not speculative.

3. Calvin’s commentaries on Scripture continue to provide a wealth of insight to students of God’s Word.

2. Calvin’s Geneva gave refuge to English-speaking Protestants during the reign of “bloody Mary.” With the help of Calvin, his successor Theodore Beza, and the Scottish reformer John Knox, these scholars produced the Geneva Bible, the most important translation of the Bible in English before the King James. The Geneva Bible also included many annotations, making it the first “study Bible” of sorts. Bruce Metzger writes,

For about three-quarters of a century the Geneva version was the household Bible of a large section of English-speaking Protestantism. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I alone, seventy editions of it were published. About 150 editions, either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament alone, were printed between 1560 and 1644…In England the Geneva Bible was the version used by Shakespeare, by John Bunyan, by the men of Cromwell’s army, and was brought to America by the Pilgrims and other early settlers, many of whom would have nothing to do with the more “modern” King James version of 1611…In short, it was chiefly owing to the dissemination of copies of the Geneva version of 1560 that a sturdy and articulate Protestantism was created in Britain, a Protestantism which made a permanent impact upon Anglo-American culture.

1. Calvin points us incessantly, in his life and work, to the glory of God. John Piper writes,

“to set before [man], as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God”. I think this would be a fitting banner over all of John Calvin’s life and work – zeal to illustrate the glory of God. The essential meaning of John Calvin’s life and preaching is that he recovered and embodied a passion for the absolute reality and majesty of God.

Ah Lord! this mercy I humbly beg, that whatever thou givest me up to, thou wilt not give me up to the ways of my own heart; if thou wilt give me up to be afflicted, or tempted, or reproached, I will patiently sit down and say, It is the Lord; let him do with me what seems good in his own eyes. Do anything with me, lay what burden thou wilt upon me, so thou dost not give me up to the ways of my own heart.

Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, pp. 50-51

“The human mind is a perpetual forge of idols.” -John Calvin

The theme of idolatry has figured greatly in my meditations of late. Here are some resources I have found helpful in seeing how the Gospel smashes the false gods of our hearts so that we may worship the true God.

Tim Keller:

Gospel Realization

Gospel Communication

Gospel Incarnation

These three sermons on Jonah come from The Evangelists’ Conference 2007: Smashing False Idols.

The Grand Demythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry

This sermon comes from The Gospel Coalition Conference 2009.

C.J. Mahaney:

Discern Your Heart

This sermon comes from the New Attitude (now known as Next) Conference 2007.

David Clarkson:

Soul Idolatry Excludes Men Out of Heaven

Clarkson was a Puritan pastor who lived from 1621-1686.

Martin Luther:

The First Commandment

This study comes from the Reformer’s Large Catechism.

(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?

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

The week of Easter is always a sweet time. With all of Christendom, we focus our hearts with rapt attention on those things that Paul said are of first importance, the heart of the Gospel: Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection, all according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

In my meditations this weekend, I came across this sentence from Martin Luther: Crux probat omnia. “The cross is the test of everything.”  That set me thinking on what an apologetic tested by the cross–a defense of the Christian faith that is true to the mysterious, humiliating, glorious first principle of that faith–would look like.

These thoughts led me to the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. Paul writes,

For the word of the cross is folly those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (vv.18-25)

The cross is a scandal, an offense to every human mind whether Jew or Gentile. What does this mean for the apologist? Do we then abandon the project of making a reasonable case for the Christian faith?

I don’t think so. In 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, Paul makes clear that God uses us as means in His destruction of worldly wisdom. I think the import of this text for those who would defend and commend the Gospel of the offensive cross is this: It is a critique of the motives of our own hearts. Do we study arguments and evidences for Christianity in order to make ourselves more respectable to the world? Are seeking to carve out a niche of comfort for ourselves in the face of skepticism? Are we capitulating to the City of Man instead of contending for the City of God? If this is what we expect from the apologetic project, we will be disappointed. Rather, as we soundly reason in support of the Gospel, we will only make clear that Christ claims the whole man–that the cross is indeed the test of everything, the mind as well as the heart. And though many will surrender to the claims of our King as we do so, the general opposition of the world will increase. Our folly and humiliation and weakness will increase. And so will the power of Christ upon us (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

In his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther famously contrasted the “theologian of the cross” with the “theologian of glory.”

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.
22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

Would we use apologetics to avoid suffering the shame and ignominy of the way of the cross? Then we are apologists of glory. Would we proclaim the Lordship of Christ over every area of thought and life, and so draw the ire of the City of Man? Then we are propounding an apologetic of the cross.

Iconoclast! I would bear
asdfthat name–
Smashing my heart’s high
asdfplaces and
Hacking her Asherah
asdfto bits.
Let no pagan-passion King
asdfAgag
Live in my consecrated
asdfseat of
Thought and affect.
asdfI stand
Destructive with that man
asdfof God,
Dread Samuel, bearing a
asdffell blade.

Where do you run for
asdfcomfort,
O my soul? At what
asdfaltars
Do you offer up
asdfyour plea?
What ghost-town Gilead
asdfhaunts my
Heart in search of balm?
asdfFrom forth
What broken cisterns gushing
asdfgood do
I expect? O idolatrous,
asdfGentile
Heart, be circumcised:
asdfBelieve.

RIP, John Updike. (1932-2009)

“Seven Stanzas at Easter”
by John Updike

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that—pierced—died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

More (and Moore) here.

HT: Justin Taylor

I’m currently reading a book by the Puritan divine Thomas Brooks entitled Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices. The work includes a brief biography of Brooks in its front matter. In the biography, I read that Charles Spurgeon’s first published work was a compendium of quotations by Brooks, collected by Spurgeon and his fiancee Susannah Thompson. Cleverly, he called the book Smooth Stones Taken from Ancient Brooks.

I have found Brooks so far to be sweet, convicting, and pithy. So I thought I would follow Spurgeon’s lead and share with you some quotes in a series of posts.

The first, of the enemy’s method of temptation, seizing the opportunities given him by our circumstances and personalities:

Whatever sin the heart of man is most prone to, that the devil will help forward…Satan loves to sail with the wind, and to suit men’s temptations to their conditions and inclinations. If they be in prosperity, he will tempt them to deny God (Prov. 30:9); if they be in adversity, he will tempt them to distrust God; if their knowledge be weak, he will tempt them to have low thoughts of God; if their conscience be tender, he will tempt to scrupulosity; if large, to carnal security; if bold-spirited, he will tempt to presumption; if timorous to desperation; if flexible, to inconstancy; if stiff, to impenitency. (16)