JOLLYBLOGGER

Self-Pity as Narcotic

2009-11-04T10:50:50-05:00

I gotta agree with David Powlison here:

“Feeling sorry for yourself is one of the strongest, most addictive narcotics known to man. It feels so good to feel so bad. Self-pity arises so easily, seems so plausible, and proves so hard to shake off.”

Sadly, the reason I agree with this is that I know it well from personal experience.

The Passion of Christianity

2009-11-03T11:34:20-05:00

Here's Oswald Chambers from today:

The passion of Christianity is that I deliberately sign away my own rights and become a bond-slave of Jesus Christ. Until I do that, I do not begin to be a saint.

Logos 4 Is Here

2009-11-02T22:43:51-05:00

My most valuable bible study tool is my Logos Software. Their latest incarnation is out today and it looks to have a number of great new features. Here's a few screenshots. Here's an overall layout showing several of the tools you can use at one time:

Some nice graphics:

Here's a part of a passage guide:

I can't recommend Logos too highly and this new version looks to be better than ever.

Oswald Chambers on Being Saved by Christ

2009-10-28T10:38:02-04:00

I've told the story before of the man who asked a minister whether or not we are saved by works or by faith. To which the minister replied, "neither, we are saved by Christ." Here's a few words from Oswald Chambers along the same lines.

I am not saved by believing— I simply realize I am saved by believing. And it is not repentance that saves me— repentance is only the sign that I realize what God has done through Christ Jesus. The danger here is putting the emphasis on the effect, instead of on the cause. Is it my obedience, consecration, and dedication that make me right with God? It is never that! I am made right with God because, prior to all of that, Christ died. When I turn to God and by belief accept what God reveals, the miraculous atonement by the Cross of Christ instantly places me into a right relationship with God. And as a result of the supernatural miracle of God’s grace I stand justified, not because I am sorry for my sin, or because I have repented, but because of what Jesus has done. The Spirit of God brings justification with a shattering, radiant light, and I know that I am saved, even though I don’t know how it was accomplished.

The Roots of Our Evangelical Anxieties

2009-10-27T18:42:01-04:00

I am now contributing to a new group blog called Evangel. It's an evangelical presence hosted by the Catholic periodical First Things. I don't know how much I'll post there but I'll try to cross-post here when I do.

Here's the first post I did for them, under a new title with a couple of little modifications. There was a wee bit of discussion over there which you can follow if you care to.

Here's my topic/question for discussion?

Are some of the hottest issues in evangelicalism today rooted in long standing anxieties over our loss of privilege and status as described by Ann Douglas in her book "The Feminization of American Culture (Google Books/Amazon)."

I wanted to discuss this because 1) I'm reading the book right now and am finding it terribly interesting and stimulating, and 2) I assume, or at least hope, that some of the other contributors to this blog are more familiar with Douglas than I and thus can correct/enhance our understanding of the issues she raises. If any of you are familiar with scholarly responses to Douglas, how well accepted is her thesis? She wrote back in the 70's so I hope I'm not basing too much on either an out of date or discredited thesis. Assuming for now this is not the case I'll proceed.

To introduce this, here are some of her words on the loss of the intellectual rigor of the Calvinistic tradition in favor of an obsession with popularity in society.

In what follows her reference to "Edwardsean ministers" are those who held to this Calvinistic tradition:

For some time, roughly between 1740 and 1820 the rigor exhibited by the Edwardsean ministers seemed representative of the wider culture or at least welcomed by it. Edwardsean theology, however, outlived its popular support. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as in the twentieth, the vast majority of American Christians identified themselves as members of one of the various Protestant groups. Yet, the differences between the Protestants of, say, 1800 and their descendants of 1875 and after are greater than the similarities. The everyday Protestant of 1800 subscribed to a rather complicated and rigidly defined body of dogma; attendance at a certain church had a markedly theological function. By 1875 American Protestants were much more likely to define their faith in terms of family morals, civic responsibility, and above all, in terms of the social function of churchgoing. Their actual creed was usually a liberal, even a sentimental one for which Edwards and his contemporaries would have felt scorn and horror. In an analogous way, Protestant churches over the same period shifted their emphasis from a primary concern with the doctrinal beliefs of their members to a preoccupation with numbers. In ecclesiastical and religious circles, attendance came to count for more than genuine adherence. Nothing could show better the nineteenth-century Protestant Church's altered identity as an eager participant in the emerging consumer society than its obsession with popularity and its increasing disregard of intellectual issues.

The "hottest issues" I referenced in my Edwardsean length intro are things like politics, mission, definition (i.e. "what is an evangelical?"), culture, church growth and maybe a few others. I deem these "hottest issues" based on the level of debate, writing, and speaking they generate. In addition to calling these the "hottest issues" I would also call these "biggest anxieties," based on the worry and effort we collectively expend to "get it right," on them.

All of these issues resonate with Douglas's words. I need to fill in a blank for you at this point in Douglas's thesis. Her larger concern is to show how an alliance between Victorian era clergy and women gave rise to the sentimentalism of today's larger culture. The Victorian era clergy and women shared a common societal disenfranchisement, loss of place and loss of status. With this loss of power and status, "influence" became the name of the game and they gained influence by enshrining feminine, sentimental virtues.

The eclipse of Calvinism and intellectual rigor mentioned in the above quote from Douglas was commensurate with this "sentimentalization." This leads to some comparisons. Modern debates about evangelical definition loosely center around creed vs. deed and correspond to the 19th century loss of dogma in favor of liberal/sentimental creeds. Today's concerns with politics and culture resonate with 19th century concerns with influence in view of the loss of societal power and status. Contemporary emphases on mission and church growth correspond to 19th century concern with numbers and church attendance. 19th century concern with family morals and civic responsibility anticipate the concerns of everything from Focus on the Family to the emergent church.

Church life itself deserves a special mention here. When it comes to membership, i.e. "what church will I join?" sentimental spirituality beats doctrine hands down every time (or so it seems to me from my own experience as a pastor). Also, note Douglas's comment that American Protestants define their faith above all in terms of the social function of churchgoing. She juxtaposes this to "theological function." Church membership as a "theological function" suggests that people join with those of like belief. Church membership as "social function" suggests that people join for the sake of relationship without regard to doctrine. The clearest expression of this attitude came from a member of my (Presbyterian) church who said "we're not Presbyterian, we just go to this church." It also explains the exasperation and sometimes disdain I have received from some members when I preach on Presbyterian distinctives.

Mike Horton has pointed out that the biblical church is means driven, whereas the modern church is outcome driven. The marks of a biblical church are the right administration of the means of grace, our practice of the preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments. The marks of a modern church are measurable outcomes in terms of the three "b's" - buildings, butts and budgets. The biblical church is supremely concerned with the integrity of its means, the modern church will use whatever means produce it's desired outcomes. The biblical church is authenticated by faithfulness, the modern church is authenticated by success.

Having said all of this I acknowledge that advocates of all of these "hot issues" can root them in biblical or prudential principles. I also know that it is common to say that we can be biblically based and outcome driven. Sure, that's possible, but I have two thoughts - 1) are those who say such things sure they aren't guilty of the "assumed evangelicalism" that Fred Sanders speaks about, and 2) you can tell whether the bible or the outcome is more important by how upset you get when the outcome doesn't go your way, i.e. your guy loses the election, you are denied a seat at a cultural table, or the church down the street gets bigger than yours.

I can't help but feel that this "outcome-drivenness" looks suspiciously like the "obsession with popularity" that Douglas speaks of. Further, Os Guiness has stated that anti-intellectualism is so identified with evangelicalism that it is hard to think of one without the other. This looks like the replacement of biblical dogma with liberal and sentimental creeds that Douglas speaks of.

So I wonder, for all of our up-to-dateness, is this the 19th century all over again?

A Great Summary of Gospel Ministry

2009-10-19T23:26:26-04:00

There is so much right with this quote in so many ways . . .

We declare what has been accomplished, not what we would like to be accomplished.

It's on a live blog of the Desiring God National Conference for a talk by Doug Wilson. Gospel ministry is all about what Christ has accomplished, yet it seems to me that most of what passes for life and ministry in the church is focused on what we would like to be accomplished, hence we miss Christ.

Of course I suppose you could argue that it is permissible, even necessary to discuss what could/should be accomplished based on what has been accomplished. But it would help if we discussed this in reference to what Christ would like to accomplish, and then make sure we limit ourselves in this regard to what is revealed in the Word, to keep our own imaginations out of it.

And of course there is one thing yet for Christ to accomplish - the second coming and the bringing in of the new heavens and new earth.

Paul the Supreme Libertarian

2009-10-06T11:16:15-04:00

The following is lifted from "The Confessional Outhouse." I was able to chase down the citation - it is from F. F. Bruce's "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free" (Amazon/Google Books), p. 189. Note Bruce's words on what Paul "insisted" on. He insisted that our lives be governed by the law of love, not "prudential rules and regulations." Does this lead to antinomianism, to liscentiousness? Bruce implies that moralists of his day and ours would say yes, but that Paul would say no.

“This insistence on the law of love, instead of prudential rules and regulations, was felt by many of Paul’s Christian contemporaries to come unrealistically near to encouraging moral indifferentism; and many Christians since his day have shared their sentiments. But, unlike Paul’s contemporary critics, Christian moralists since Paul’s day have tended to hold that, in insisting on prudential rules and regulations, they are following the implications of his teaching, if not his express judgments. But we should appreciate that Paul conforms no more to the conventions of religious people today than he conformed to the conventions of religious people around A.D. 50; it is best to let Paul be Paul. And when we do that, we shall recognize in him the supreme libertarian, the great herald of Christian freedom, insisting that man in Christ has reached his spiritual majority and must no longer be confined to the leading-strings of infancy but enjoy the birthright of the freeborn sons of God. Here if anywhere Luther entered into the mind of Paul: “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” “Subject to none” in respect of his liberty; “subject to all” in respect of his charity. This, for Paul, is the law of Christ because this was the way of Christ. And in this way, for Paul, the divine purpose underlying Moses’ law is vindicated and accomplished.”

The Earthly City is Ruled By It's Lust of Rule

2009-10-05T18:23:22-04:00

I started reading/listening to Augustine's City of God today - we'll see how far I go with it as it is a daunting book to read.

At the beginning, in the preface, Augustine makes the following comment about the earthly city.

we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.

I've got a discussion here of power in human relationships and I make the following reference to Genesis 3:16 which I believe offers a pretty good paradigm for understanding the dynamics involved in relational breakdown, on a large and small scale.

5. The first discussion of the use of power in a human to human sense is in Genesis 3:16, where Eve is told:
Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.
In this passage the "desire" which Eve will have for her husband is a desire to control. The word for "desire" here is used in Genesis 4:7 of sin's desire to "have" Cain. This desire is not a benevolent desire, it is the original "will to power." So, Eve will desire to control her husband and the husband will "rule" over her. Again, because this is in the context of the fall, it is difficult to see this desire to rule on the part of the man as being a benevolent desire. It seems to be more of a desire to conquer the woman.
Again, my point is not that the exercise of power in human relationships is always in and of itself sinful. But we must keep in mind that the fall introduced a kind of desire for power that is tyrannical and despotic by nature.

Augustine seems to back this up, and this offers all kinds of implications for life, particularly our public life. If Augustine is correct then the rules of the game for the world center around a lust for rule. As such, when Christians try to influence the powers and authorities of our world, at least those on a human scale, we've got to realize they play by a set of rules that are foreign to the Christian (i.e. the Christian's identity is that of servant, not ruler Phil. 2:5ff). We have to be careful to not think we can adopt their presuppositions, their ways and their "rules of the game," and then think we'll be able to persuade them to change all of that. We also have to understand that if we are faithful to our own presuppositions, ways and "rules of the game" we'll be largely unintelligible to them.

Oswald Chambers on Sin as "Disposition"

2009-10-05T12:07:50-04:00

This is the quote/explanation I have been looking for! In trying to explain the concept of sin to people I've looked for a short explanation which best sums up the nature of sin. I've never been quite happy with the standard explanations of the nature of sin because they usually somehow make their way to the idea that sin is something you do.

In my overeagerness to counter that I have sometimes thought that sin is something you are, not that you do, but that's not right either. We "are" not sin - we are image bearers. So the definition of sin falls somewhere in between or outside of those two things and I think Oswald Chambers nails it here - this is from the October 5 reading in "My Utmost for His Highest."

The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of selfrealization—I am my own god (italics mine). This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself. When Our Lord faced men with all the forces of evil in them, and men who were clean living and moral and upright, He did not pay any attention to the moral degradation of.the one or to the moral attainment of the other; He looked at something we do not see, viz., the disposition.

Interestingly, in the rest of the reading for the day I think he is pretty weak on the concept of original sin, but I think he is right on in these words. I've always thought that one of the best bible verses for explaining the concept of sin is Luke 19:14:

19:14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to be king over us!’

In that light I think Chambers nails it.

The True Israelite is a Man of Peace Even in the Midst of Battle

2009-10-03T14:38:43-04:00

There has been an exchange going on between Joe Carter and a few other blogs and commenters on the present state of conservatism centered around this post. I'd encourage all of you to read that for some good thoughts on the state of modern conservatism, but for now I'd call your attention to this comment on the trouble with inflammatory rhetoric. This is a good caution/warning for all who are passionate about their cause, whether it be a spiritual, ecclesiastical, political or any other cause:

A more formal, serious tone is (at least in my opinion) appropriate for serious matters. Accusations may be emotionally satisfying to us when we are troubled and even frightened with the way matters of state are tending but violent speech can have very serious, unintended consequences. The greater the danger, the more we need clear thinking, a “steady hand at the helm”. A passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux makes an impression: “When the battle is at hand … They think not of glory and seek to be formidable rather than flamboyant. At the same time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but soberly, prudently and providently drawn up into orderly ranks, as we read of the fathers. Indeed the true Israelite is a man of peace, even when he goes forth to battle.” If there are times when inflammatory rhetoric presents no great danger, that time is not now. Setting one unsettled mind afire is all that it takes; that spark can be the beginning of a conflagration.

The Story of Mark Herzlich

2009-10-03T11:39:38-04:00

Here's a story that relates to two of the most significant aspects of my life - football and cancer. It was because of football that I met the man who would lead me to Christ and have probably the greatest impact on my life - Jim Scroggins. And, as all of you who have followed me over the last year know, cancer has also had a great impact on my life.

So, here on football Saturday, I hope this story encourages you.

Health Update 10-2-09

2009-10-02T16:51:20-04:00

Here's that health update I've been promising you for awhile. I got the results of my CT scan from the doctor today and the news is good.

At worst, the tumors have remained stable over the last few months. I say "at worst" because apparently (and you medical people would know more about this than I do) different doctors at different facilities can have slightly different ways of measuring tumors so there could be some slight discrepancies. My last scan was at a different facility with a different radiologist reading it and measuring the tumors.

Having said that, the tumors they are watching and measuring all seem to be about the same or maybe slightly smaller. I have two nodules they are watching in my lungs which are less than a centimeter. Our biggest concern is that I have two tumors in my liver. The largest one measured 2.5 cm last time and 2.4 cm this time. The smaller one was 1.5cm last time and 1.4 cm this time. Since the last one was at a different facility the doctor didn't seem to want to say that the tumors are definitely shrinking because the difference is so small, but it seems very apparent that they are at least stable.

So, we give thanks to God and to all of you who are praying for us. I'll breathe easy for awhile and will devote some serious effort to enjoying my life these next few months and hopefully much longer! The next CT scan will be in two months so we'll keep you posted.

Be Careful About Saying "That's of the Devil"

2009-10-01T11:02:28-04:00

I'm reading Craig Blomberg on heresy this morning (HT - City of God) and am only on the second or third page of the article, but wanted to stop and take a break to quote something that I find of interest.

It's not uncommon, or at least it hasn't been in the circles I have run in to hear people saying that certain things are of the devil. Blomberg offers a pretty good warning/caution about such declarations here:

Portraying perhaps the harshest interchange between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in all the Synoptics, Mark 3:22–30 and parallels depict cer- tain scribes who accuse Jesus of exorcising by the power of the devil. After pointing out how self-defeating this would be, Jesus in turn implies that his accusers come perilously close to committing an unforgivable sin—blas- pheming against the Holy Spirit. The context enables us to define this sin fairly precisely as being so out of touch with the true God of the universe as to attribute patently obviously divine manifestations to the power of God’s arch-enemy. This exchange should make us extraordinarily cautious about using the language of diabolical influence on a fellow Christian, since to do so mistakenly places us in the identical position of those Jesus warned against unforgivable blasphemy (Italics mine).

This is not to say that the devil has no influence in the world today, it's just a fair caution not to play fast and loose with our rhetoric.

Exulting in Monotony

2009-09-24T11:56:30-04:00

Hi, me again, for your once whenever I get around to it blog update. Sorry that I break every promise to keep you updated and blog more. On the health front I'm feeling good, waiting on results of a CT Scan, so I promise (and by promise I mean "maybe") I will update you when I hear.

But that's not why I'm blogging today. I was looking for a Chesterton quote today and came across the one below - it's from Chesterton but unfortunately it goes un-cited on the page on which I found it. But it fits well with some things I have been thinking thoughtfully about lately, when I have time to think.

I once heard it said, and this may come from Chesterton, that all of the problems in the world are caused by man's inability to sit still in a room. In other words, we are restless, always trying to make things happen - it is as if we treat it as our moral obligation to be perpetually dissatisfied. Of course we spiritually spruce up our language and call it "striving for excellence," or "pursuing a more passionate spiritual walk," or "being relevant," but I've come to believe all of that is a smokescreen for the fact that we have acquiesced to the spirit of the age, ergo, the newer and more flashy is always better.

The greatest blessing of the Noahic Covenant is God's promise to not destroy the world with a flood, but the second and only slightly less well known is God's promise of a regularly ordered world - Genesis 8:22

“As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

In other words, as long as life endures we will live in a world governed by regularity and sameness.

So, enough of my rambling, here's the quote I loved so much this morning:

A child kicks its legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough... It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again," to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again," to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike: it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.

Grown ups are not strong enough to exult in monotony - think about that one for awhile!.

May God bless you greatly today!

A Theology of Illness

2009-09-06T15:58:46-04:00

Hi everyone. To all three of you who remain faithful readers let me say thanks an apologies for still checking in here and checking your rss feeds for me. In recent months most of my posts have been health updates and have been a bit infrequent, but lately I have taken infrequency (if that's not really a word I claim it as my invention) to extremes.

Sadly, for my blogging career I've been re-reading a bit of Neil Postman, finally read Brave New World by Huxley, and those things coupled with the serious ramifications of my declining health, have weakened my love for technology a bit lately, and all of the things you can do with said technology have lost quite a bit of their sex-appeal.

Still, I remain grateful for all of the friends I have made through blogging and Facebook so I hope to not go completely silent and may even post more frequently in the future, then again I may not. At the least I do hope to give a health update soon, maybe this week. Suffice it to say that aside from kicking a piece of furniture yesterday and breaking a toe (for which I have moaned and groaned like a woman in labor) I'm feeling very well these days.

But that's not what today's post is about. I came across a wonderful commentary from Rod Dreher on praying for distasteful people like Bernie Madoff, and in this he quotes a wonderful passage from a book called A Theology of Illness by Jean-Claude Larchet. Even us hard boiled Presbyterians ought to be able to appreciate the perspective on illness that is here attributed to Orthodoxy.

For illness always calls into question the basis, the framework an the shape of our lives, including the life-patterns we have acquired, the free use of our bodily and psychological faculties, our system of values, our relations with other people, even life itself. This is because in times of illness the inevitability of death becomes a stark reality. ... Far from being an event that touches only our body, and that for a limited time, illness often forces us to assume a spiritual struggle that involves our whole being, and destiny. ...
...Orthodox Christianity brings to the holistic treatment of a sick person a philosophically ascetic orientation increasingly alien to the way we live and think in the modern West.
For example, Orthodoxy encourages believers to pray for good health, but more importantly, to pray for what is most spiritually useful. Orthodoxy enjoins the patient to see his illness in the entire context of his life, and how it can be used to deepen his relationship with God. Elder Zacharias, a monk from the Orthodox monastery in Essex, England, tells of a woman who approached him with a diagnosis of six months to live. She had incurable cancer. "Wonderful," he told her. "You have six months to prepare for the most important encounter of your life." She used that time to work with him, in prayer and counseling, to meet God. He reports that on his final visit with her, her body was ravaged, but her face was luminous. She told the elder that she didn't feel worthy of the grace of having that illness. Orthodox Christianity could not prevent death, but it helped this woman imbue her suffering with meaning, and to bear it with grace, dignity, and even, in the end, joy.