Oh Death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory? (1 Corinthians 15:55, KJV)
I've often said that if I were to ever teach a philosophy class my very first lesson would be about the consequences of ideas. Take an idea, or a philosophy, doctrine, whatever, and follow it to its ultimate logical end. Where does it lead? Obviously, a practice such as this may require a great deal of speculation as certain things are difficult to foresee, but the point of it is to force you to think carefully and critically about ideas that you might adhere to.
When it comes to the Gospel, the implications are far greater than anything else we can possibly imagine. Many things can be inspiring. Great music can move us to tears, the emergence of great men and women through difficult trials inspire us to persevere, and simply falling in love with someone can cause us to do do a great many things that we would never have done before. But there is nothing more powerful than the Gospel itself, something that has moved more people to martyrdom than anything else in history.
That's because the Gospel does more than motivate to higher levels of living, it gives us a promise that prepares us for death. It may seem counter-intuitive, in a world about living "Your Best Life Now" or the "Promise Driven Life" that, perhaps more than anything else, Christianity prepares you for the life to come more than the life we're now in. In this way, Christianity is more about death than life.
That isn't to say Christians stand around waiting to die, or even volunteer for it. Instead it displaces our hope in the temporary things of this life to the eternal promises of the future. In this way, perhaps paradoxically, Christians are more motivated to carry on the work that God has called them to now than those who's focus is only on their current situation.
As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity
Hope is one of the theological virtues. This means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do. It does not mean that we are to leave the present world as it is. If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven...
...Aim at Heaven and you will get earth "Thrown In"; aim at Earth and you will get neither.
As ideas go, then, this brings up some serious implications of its own. Christians, whether they be scholars and pastors, or lay-people, regular parishioners, or new to the faith, often quarrel amongst each other about the differing doctrines. But it's these doctrines which are so crucial to the faith that point us to Christ glorified in Heaven and in turn move us to serve one another in love.
More than that, it is our eyes cast upon Christ in Heaven that ultimately gives us hope. In a world in shambles, where families are torn apart by untold amounts of horror, what good is it to pour on the exhortations of good deeds, of self help, and of trying to live victoriously for ourselves. This leads us only to self righteousness and ultimately despair. Rather, our victory has already been accomplished for us, and in the end, that answers the deepest longings of our hearts. Through Christ's victory we can eagerly await the day of His return, and are ready to face the trials and temptations the world throws our way, even to the point of death. True confidence, courage, and hope lies ultimately not in ourselves, or anything we have or do, but that which has already been accomplished for us.
I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:20-21)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
What is the Gospel? Part 2
This is part 2 of 2 of the question, What is the Gospel? This is a brief summary of an address given by D. A. Carson at the Gospel Coalition national conference in 2007. To listen to the message, you click here. Part 1 of this summary can be found here.
What is the Gospel?
...D.A. Carson went on to explain what the Gospel is in 8 summarizing words.
1) It is Christological. By this he means that the Gospel centres not only on the person of Christ, but more specifically his atoning death and his resurrection. Christianity, then, isn't some bland theism. In fact, everything is irreducibly centred on Jesus such that he becomes the one and only name by which anyone can be saved.
2) It is Theological. The gospel has a definitive purpose, and speaks about what God has done through it. First, that God raised Jesus from the dead, thereby defeating our enemy - death. God's purpose for Jesus in this was to die for our sins and rise again for our justification. In it God poured out his wrath on our sin, and this demonstrates the very punishment we deserve. Since it is God who is the offended party, it is he who must be repaid.
3) It is Biblical. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised again according to the Scriptures.
4) It is Apostolic. To this, D.A. Carson credits Rev. John Stott. Look at the sequence of nouns in 1 Corinthians 15:11.
Whether, then, it is I (An Apostle), or they (The Apostles), this is what we (The Apostles) preach, and this is what you believed.
I, They, We, You.
5) It is Historical. I already mentioned this in part 1. Jesus' death and resurrection are tied down in history. This means we can study it as a historical event just like we would any other historical event. In fact, the central claims of Christianity are irreducibly historical. Unlike other religions where God supposedly passes on his enlightenment and wisdom to an individual, who then carries that message to others. Jesus is God's revelation. You can't, therefore, separate Jesus's revelation from who his historical events. To do so wouldn't make any sense.
6) It is Personal. The above events are not just historical events or theological precepts, but they set forth a way of personal salvation. This is the Gospel we received and upon which we now stand (1 Cor. 15:1)
7) It is Universal. It is universal in the sense that it is for every person, gender, race, ethnic group, societal group, etc. Not to be confused with universalism.
8) It is Eschatological. Eschatology refers to the last things in history. The Gospel brings out certain things given on at the end of the world, namely justification. God has begun the work of sanctification as well, but we look forward to its completion at the end of times.
Five Clarifying Sentences
D.A. Carson goes on to summarize everything as follows. First, that Gospel is normally disseminated through proclamation, that is, through a sermon. The good news is an announcement that must be explained and it's typically done in the context of the church's sermons. Second, it is received in and through faith and thus continues to produce results. Third, that it is properly disclosed through self-humiliation. You need to be aware of your own insufficiency and helplessness to be able to grasp it. Fourth, the Gospel, rightly asserted, becomes the bedrock confession of the entire worldwide church. And finally, that it is advancing boldly despite great opposition, and will one day see its final fruition when all God's enemies are under his feet.
Final Summary
"The Gospel is not exclusively cognitive. It is also affective and active. The word of the cross is not only God's wisdom which the world considers folly, but it is God's power, which the word considers weakness. This gospel transforms us - not by attempting to abstract social principles from the gospel, not by imposing new levels of rules, still less by focus on the periphery in the vain attempt to sound prophetic, but precisely by preaching and teaching the blessed gospel of our glorious redeemer." D. A. Carson
What is the Gospel?
...D.A. Carson went on to explain what the Gospel is in 8 summarizing words.
1) It is Christological. By this he means that the Gospel centres not only on the person of Christ, but more specifically his atoning death and his resurrection. Christianity, then, isn't some bland theism. In fact, everything is irreducibly centred on Jesus such that he becomes the one and only name by which anyone can be saved.
2) It is Theological. The gospel has a definitive purpose, and speaks about what God has done through it. First, that God raised Jesus from the dead, thereby defeating our enemy - death. God's purpose for Jesus in this was to die for our sins and rise again for our justification. In it God poured out his wrath on our sin, and this demonstrates the very punishment we deserve. Since it is God who is the offended party, it is he who must be repaid.
3) It is Biblical. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised again according to the Scriptures.
4) It is Apostolic. To this, D.A. Carson credits Rev. John Stott. Look at the sequence of nouns in 1 Corinthians 15:11.
Whether, then, it is I (An Apostle), or they (The Apostles), this is what we (The Apostles) preach, and this is what you believed.
I, They, We, You.
5) It is Historical. I already mentioned this in part 1. Jesus' death and resurrection are tied down in history. This means we can study it as a historical event just like we would any other historical event. In fact, the central claims of Christianity are irreducibly historical. Unlike other religions where God supposedly passes on his enlightenment and wisdom to an individual, who then carries that message to others. Jesus is God's revelation. You can't, therefore, separate Jesus's revelation from who his historical events. To do so wouldn't make any sense.
6) It is Personal. The above events are not just historical events or theological precepts, but they set forth a way of personal salvation. This is the Gospel we received and upon which we now stand (1 Cor. 15:1)
7) It is Universal. It is universal in the sense that it is for every person, gender, race, ethnic group, societal group, etc. Not to be confused with universalism.
8) It is Eschatological. Eschatology refers to the last things in history. The Gospel brings out certain things given on at the end of the world, namely justification. God has begun the work of sanctification as well, but we look forward to its completion at the end of times.
Five Clarifying Sentences
D.A. Carson goes on to summarize everything as follows. First, that Gospel is normally disseminated through proclamation, that is, through a sermon. The good news is an announcement that must be explained and it's typically done in the context of the church's sermons. Second, it is received in and through faith and thus continues to produce results. Third, that it is properly disclosed through self-humiliation. You need to be aware of your own insufficiency and helplessness to be able to grasp it. Fourth, the Gospel, rightly asserted, becomes the bedrock confession of the entire worldwide church. And finally, that it is advancing boldly despite great opposition, and will one day see its final fruition when all God's enemies are under his feet.
Final Summary
"The Gospel is not exclusively cognitive. It is also affective and active. The word of the cross is not only God's wisdom which the world considers folly, but it is God's power, which the word considers weakness. This gospel transforms us - not by attempting to abstract social principles from the gospel, not by imposing new levels of rules, still less by focus on the periphery in the vain attempt to sound prophetic, but precisely by preaching and teaching the blessed gospel of our glorious redeemer." D. A. Carson
Saturday, April 09, 2011
What Is The Gospel? Part 1
Every student, scholar, and disciple of the word who has, at the very least, aspirations for Word and Sacrament ministry has some sort of hero. Or, if not a hero, then at least someone whom they admire for their wisdom, intellect, passion, or integrity, or anything else. They can probably list off several reasons why that particular person has been so influential. For myself one of them is Dr. Don A Carson. Every pastor brings their gifts to the table, and every congregation they serve benefits in some way from those gifts. My pastor in Grand Rapids, MI who served not only as Pastor but mentor to me as an intern, was very gifted in teaching through narrative. The beloved John Piper exudes such an enormous passion over Scripture, but (at least to my estimation) doesn't interact very much with competing philosophies, choosing instead to preach exegetically. While I can appreciate gifts and methods such as these, I happen to find myself among the types who think more propositionally and philosophically. That's where I've come to enjoy D. A. Carson's work. He's able to interact with alternative and secular ideas versus historic Christianity in ways that help discern that which is good and true, and that which is patently false. All that aside, however, one of the great pieces I've enjoyed from him most happens to be something rather elementary. It's his explaining of the question, "What is the Gospel?"
I want to mention I'm on a bit of an ongoing theme at the moment in case you haven't read the previous introductory post. As usual my posts are reflections of things I've learned over the years, but these next several in particular are about the gift of Truth. I use the word gift purposefully because, despite the enormous amounts of sophisticated arguments that shake our confidence thereof, it is truly a wonder that God has made himself known to us in such a way that we can enjoy his goodness and grace through a meaningful relationship. Christianity, by virtue of its nature, is inseparably linked to a view of epistemology that believes that people logically must be able to adequately understand and know of an objective reality outside of themselves, namely, God.
To put it simply, faith has an object. Does the object of our faith have any bearing on reality? If not, it's not only irrational, but just plain stupid. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul...
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)
This passage neatly demonstrates why a high view of Truth is so important to Christianity. Here we have something concrete and empirical for us, a genuine historical event. It becomes the very lynch pin upon which nearly everything else in Christian belief rests upon. What's more, it practically invites you to examine its credibility and explore its enormous implications.
This is why the Gospel becomes a fantastic starting point for understanding why we care so much about truth. It's not that people like myself have this nostalgic love for "the good ol' days" of modernism. Certainly not. Truth, in modernism, was determined entirely by man's own supposed enlightenment. Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) became the bedrock foundation of knowledge in modernity. In this way, truth is discovered in the direction of man to God, not the other way around. Postmodernism, despite its criticism of modernity, does exactly the same thing. In fact, what many people think is postmodernism is often just re-hashed modernism all over again. Instead, it is God who comes to us, by revealing himself to us, giving sight to the blind, and restoring us to him.
Even if you don't care about modernism, postmodernism, epistemology, or anything of the sort (explicitly, that is) than you should at least care about what the Gospel is. The Dr. D. A. Carson did a plenary address at the Gospel Coalition conference back in 2007. In it he gave an excellent breakdown of what the Gospel is, beginning with what the gospel is not....
The Gospel is Not...
...a narrow set of teachings. It's not a list of instructions. It's not a list of "do's" and "don'ts" that are there to help tip people into Salvation, with a set of doctrines and other things to follow. It's not the first and second commandments, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbour as yourself. And they are not ethical teachings of Jesus devoid of anything doing with his death and resurrection. These things are all important. Hugely important. But they do not constitute the gospel.
We can all get excited about these issues. The danger is when the Gospel becomes the assumptions, and our passions are ignited over peripheral issues. Not to downplay the importance of them (e.i. good marriages, community, social justice, etc) but when the Gospel is ignored you risk reducing things to moralism--a works righteousness. But what makes the Gospel so important is its literal meaning, good news.
The Gospel by which you are saved is bound up in the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the third day and appeared to many people - the apostles and others. (D. A. Carson, paraphrased)
More on what the Gospel is to be continued...
I want to mention I'm on a bit of an ongoing theme at the moment in case you haven't read the previous introductory post. As usual my posts are reflections of things I've learned over the years, but these next several in particular are about the gift of Truth. I use the word gift purposefully because, despite the enormous amounts of sophisticated arguments that shake our confidence thereof, it is truly a wonder that God has made himself known to us in such a way that we can enjoy his goodness and grace through a meaningful relationship. Christianity, by virtue of its nature, is inseparably linked to a view of epistemology that believes that people logically must be able to adequately understand and know of an objective reality outside of themselves, namely, God.
To put it simply, faith has an object. Does the object of our faith have any bearing on reality? If not, it's not only irrational, but just plain stupid. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul...
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)
This passage neatly demonstrates why a high view of Truth is so important to Christianity. Here we have something concrete and empirical for us, a genuine historical event. It becomes the very lynch pin upon which nearly everything else in Christian belief rests upon. What's more, it practically invites you to examine its credibility and explore its enormous implications.
This is why the Gospel becomes a fantastic starting point for understanding why we care so much about truth. It's not that people like myself have this nostalgic love for "the good ol' days" of modernism. Certainly not. Truth, in modernism, was determined entirely by man's own supposed enlightenment. Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) became the bedrock foundation of knowledge in modernity. In this way, truth is discovered in the direction of man to God, not the other way around. Postmodernism, despite its criticism of modernity, does exactly the same thing. In fact, what many people think is postmodernism is often just re-hashed modernism all over again. Instead, it is God who comes to us, by revealing himself to us, giving sight to the blind, and restoring us to him.
Even if you don't care about modernism, postmodernism, epistemology, or anything of the sort (explicitly, that is) than you should at least care about what the Gospel is. The Dr. D. A. Carson did a plenary address at the Gospel Coalition conference back in 2007. In it he gave an excellent breakdown of what the Gospel is, beginning with what the gospel is not....
The Gospel is Not...
...a narrow set of teachings. It's not a list of instructions. It's not a list of "do's" and "don'ts" that are there to help tip people into Salvation, with a set of doctrines and other things to follow. It's not the first and second commandments, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbour as yourself. And they are not ethical teachings of Jesus devoid of anything doing with his death and resurrection. These things are all important. Hugely important. But they do not constitute the gospel.
We can all get excited about these issues. The danger is when the Gospel becomes the assumptions, and our passions are ignited over peripheral issues. Not to downplay the importance of them (e.i. good marriages, community, social justice, etc) but when the Gospel is ignored you risk reducing things to moralism--a works righteousness. But what makes the Gospel so important is its literal meaning, good news.
The Gospel by which you are saved is bound up in the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the third day and appeared to many people - the apostles and others. (D. A. Carson, paraphrased)
More on what the Gospel is to be continued...
Monday, April 04, 2011
On Knowing Truth - An Introduction
"What is Truth?" Pilate asked (John 18:38).
No other group of people in the world should have a greater concern for Truth than Christians. Our calling is not to simply live an alternative lifestyle, on personal betterment, or to greater community, but to Truth. Truth that is ultimately only revealed to us by a God who sees fit to give it as he pleases. To answer Pilate's question then, is among our most daunting but important tasks as Christians. It's a challenge made greater by the many criticisms, and charges brought against it by a world that refuses to accept it. Having been continually pounded by skeptics, cynics, and our own existentialist situations, many have had serious doubts about whether we can even know it at all.
But, at the heart of Christianity is a God who interacts with our own human history. A God who has spoken generally of himself in what he has made, and specifically of himself in what he has done. A God, who, through His son Jesus Christ, shows that Truth that is not just an abstract notion, but a being who has brought us into an intelligible, coherent, and ultimately joyful relationship with Divine Reality. To know God is to know Truth...
to be continued....
No other group of people in the world should have a greater concern for Truth than Christians. Our calling is not to simply live an alternative lifestyle, on personal betterment, or to greater community, but to Truth. Truth that is ultimately only revealed to us by a God who sees fit to give it as he pleases. To answer Pilate's question then, is among our most daunting but important tasks as Christians. It's a challenge made greater by the many criticisms, and charges brought against it by a world that refuses to accept it. Having been continually pounded by skeptics, cynics, and our own existentialist situations, many have had serious doubts about whether we can even know it at all.
But, at the heart of Christianity is a God who interacts with our own human history. A God who has spoken generally of himself in what he has made, and specifically of himself in what he has done. A God, who, through His son Jesus Christ, shows that Truth that is not just an abstract notion, but a being who has brought us into an intelligible, coherent, and ultimately joyful relationship with Divine Reality. To know God is to know Truth...
to be continued....
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
On Forgiveness
The heated debate sparked by Rob Bell's latest book is beginning to simmer down and it's allowing many of us to take pause over the controversy the last several weeks. There were a few general themes that flowed from the debates, and most of them surrounded the concept of Hell itself, and whether a loving God could possibly send anyone to a place of such torment. Not surprisingly accusations shot back and forth about who is and who isn't a heretic, about how one's views are ancient, primitive, and completely out-of touch with reality, and so on and so forth. It occurred to me that there wasn't a very thorough explanation of God's forgiveness in just about any of my recent readings. To be fair, it was mentioned now and then, but it's something so central to the resolution of the whole Hell debate.
The concept of God's forgiveness is, lets be serious, pretty easy to swallow. It feels like it fits perfectly well in our supposedly enlightened and progressive western society. Forgiveness is good. There's just very little argument to be had. Yet, ironically, it's far more radical than Hell. So why is it that we have such a hard time with Hell, and so little debate about forgiveness? Even though we intrinsically know that forgiveness is all of grace, it's not hard to imagine that we may have become used to the idea to the point where we not only expect it, we feel we deserve it. (Romans 6:1). If Rob Bell's book is an example of making a difficult doctrine more palatable to our itchy ears, could it be that we do the same thing with forgiveness without realizing it? And if so, how has that happened? May I offer just a handful of reasons...
A high sense of self
A few posts ago I briefly alluded to how pop-psychology changes our ideas about guilt. Self-esteem has become highly popularized in the last 50 years and psychologists are only now beginning to realize some of the disastrous consequences it's yielded. Respected psychologists Roy Baumeister and Albert Ellis have written extensively on how self-esteem theories are not only illogical (being based on arbitrary premises) but have become self-defeating, and ultimately destructive. A high view of the self, according to proponents, will make you more successful and less likely to engage in harmful behaviour. Therefore, anything that hinders this high view of self (such as guilt) leads to poor performance, bad relationships, and so on.
The problem, of course, is that it promotes an unrealistic view of the self. To put it in psychological terms, it means you're delusional. It's a bit ironic, then, that what psychology once so fervently recommended was, in fact, a recipe for psychological disaster. But even if self-esteem is now becoming relegated to the fringes, the wake of its influence is still seen all over society. School teachers have been discouraged from disciplining their students for wrongdoing for fear of lowering anyone's self-esteem. Tragically, even youth pastors are often pressured into helping kids feel better about themselves irrespective of anything to do with a Christian sense of identity.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the proper alternative is its polar opposite, or that any form of psychology is bad. What I am suggesting is more realistic examination of one's self, and self-esteem doctrine simply cannot deliver this. Our dignity and worth is found via a loving Creator God, and this in turn provides the basis for ethics and value. At the same time, having been called as stewards we also have a responsibility. When we are in error, we should not only be aware of it, but sanity dictates that we should have at least a sense of guilt.
Displacing Blame
For better or for worse, the penal system in western society has become increasingly therapeutic rather than atoning. Traditionally, a prison sentence was meant as a way for a person to pay his debt to society. But it's no secret that those who've spent time in prison are often the most likely to wind up right back in again. This has led many to change their mind about what a prison sentence should be. There's a new focus on rehabilitation for prisoners to help them work and live stable lives. This is not only a benefit to themselves but to society at large.
There's no reason to not welcome this, but at the same time it has also led to something interesting about the way we treat people's wrongdoings. In the traditional prison sentence, all blame rested on the criminal, and the punishment was considered appropriate to the crime. Now the blame is often shifted to somewhere else. A lack of education, poor family life, socio-economic status, etc. Studies show correlations between these situations and bad behaviour, so it's not entirely unreasonable to say they have a lot to do with it, but at the end of the day, only one person did the crime.
We've heard this excuse before. "It's not my fault, the devil made me do it." Yet it's just far too easy for us to pass the buck. Instead, Scripture demands that we own up to our misdeeds. And really, why should it not? In both an communal and individual sense, we've reaped what we've sown.
Tolerance, and the cost of our error
Even if we've come to accept a more realistic view of ourselves, and have learned to be honest about our own actions and responsibilities, it doesn't matter unless we begin to understand the magnitude of our sin. The heart of the hell debate centres not around God's love, but his justice. Again, intrinsically, we should already know this.
As a brief personal example, part of my job involves setting up quotes to do service and repair work in the fire protection recently. There's a lot riding on a quote because you need to ensure that it accurately reflects both the time and the material required to do the job properly. If the details aren't carefully thought out, you could set yourself up for a loss. That's exactly what I did recently, with the price I set being far too low.
Being that it's my first time, I was forgiven for making such a mistake. But even in forgiveness, the cost of my error still had to be eaten up. Forgiveness isn't just saying you ignore something, or try to forget it. That's unrealistic. In this simple but concrete example, whatever the difference is between the actual cost of the job and my poorly done estimate is counted as a loss against the company. Forgiveness costs something. It may be freely given, but it's not free.
The problem with my example, however, is that you can easily put a number to it. In the face of an infinitely Holy God, it's far too unfathomable. That's the whole point. People don't like hell because it's so unfathomably horrible, but it's no different than the cost of our sin. That's what makes hell a perfectly justifiable and appropriate punishment. And who are we to argue?
We don't understand the cost. In an age where the great modern dogma is tolerance, forgiveness and love have fallen under its umbrella. But the Biblical concepts of forgiveness and love are far different than the superficial idea of tolerance preached today. Today, being tolerant simply means have a much greater threshold for allowing bad behaviour, and not letting differences of opinions be a concern. To be fair, tolerance used to be something different. It used to mean allowing people freedom of expression while disagreeing wholeheartedly. These days it means ignoring the differences, and not even being allowed to criticize. (It's an entirely incoherent concept of intolerance). But you have to be intolerant, because some things are just plain stupid. Where tolerance brushes things under the rug, forgiveness and love demand our utmost.
Forgiveness
I'm not trying to make the world an enemy. Society has many great things to offer, and many things we can be thankful for. But, as with the conventional wisdom of any age, it often flies in the face of Biblical wisdom. But forgiveness? Forgiveness on a cosmic level? That is radical. I don't believe we will ever fully understand forgiveness in this age. While society influences us, the bottom line still ends up with us giving ourselves far too much credit, excusing ourselves for our own faults, and never understanding the extent of the damage we cause.
Hell? That's easy. Grace? That's far too great. It involves a God who suffers on our behalf. We owed Him nothing, but cost Him dearly. His happiness did not depend on our existence, but he revealed his Love for us anyway, through the death of his own Son. It's unfathomable, but it's the Truth.
The concept of God's forgiveness is, lets be serious, pretty easy to swallow. It feels like it fits perfectly well in our supposedly enlightened and progressive western society. Forgiveness is good. There's just very little argument to be had. Yet, ironically, it's far more radical than Hell. So why is it that we have such a hard time with Hell, and so little debate about forgiveness? Even though we intrinsically know that forgiveness is all of grace, it's not hard to imagine that we may have become used to the idea to the point where we not only expect it, we feel we deserve it. (Romans 6:1). If Rob Bell's book is an example of making a difficult doctrine more palatable to our itchy ears, could it be that we do the same thing with forgiveness without realizing it? And if so, how has that happened? May I offer just a handful of reasons...
A high sense of self
A few posts ago I briefly alluded to how pop-psychology changes our ideas about guilt. Self-esteem has become highly popularized in the last 50 years and psychologists are only now beginning to realize some of the disastrous consequences it's yielded. Respected psychologists Roy Baumeister and Albert Ellis have written extensively on how self-esteem theories are not only illogical (being based on arbitrary premises) but have become self-defeating, and ultimately destructive. A high view of the self, according to proponents, will make you more successful and less likely to engage in harmful behaviour. Therefore, anything that hinders this high view of self (such as guilt) leads to poor performance, bad relationships, and so on.
The problem, of course, is that it promotes an unrealistic view of the self. To put it in psychological terms, it means you're delusional. It's a bit ironic, then, that what psychology once so fervently recommended was, in fact, a recipe for psychological disaster. But even if self-esteem is now becoming relegated to the fringes, the wake of its influence is still seen all over society. School teachers have been discouraged from disciplining their students for wrongdoing for fear of lowering anyone's self-esteem. Tragically, even youth pastors are often pressured into helping kids feel better about themselves irrespective of anything to do with a Christian sense of identity.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the proper alternative is its polar opposite, or that any form of psychology is bad. What I am suggesting is more realistic examination of one's self, and self-esteem doctrine simply cannot deliver this. Our dignity and worth is found via a loving Creator God, and this in turn provides the basis for ethics and value. At the same time, having been called as stewards we also have a responsibility. When we are in error, we should not only be aware of it, but sanity dictates that we should have at least a sense of guilt.
Displacing Blame
For better or for worse, the penal system in western society has become increasingly therapeutic rather than atoning. Traditionally, a prison sentence was meant as a way for a person to pay his debt to society. But it's no secret that those who've spent time in prison are often the most likely to wind up right back in again. This has led many to change their mind about what a prison sentence should be. There's a new focus on rehabilitation for prisoners to help them work and live stable lives. This is not only a benefit to themselves but to society at large.
There's no reason to not welcome this, but at the same time it has also led to something interesting about the way we treat people's wrongdoings. In the traditional prison sentence, all blame rested on the criminal, and the punishment was considered appropriate to the crime. Now the blame is often shifted to somewhere else. A lack of education, poor family life, socio-economic status, etc. Studies show correlations between these situations and bad behaviour, so it's not entirely unreasonable to say they have a lot to do with it, but at the end of the day, only one person did the crime.
We've heard this excuse before. "It's not my fault, the devil made me do it." Yet it's just far too easy for us to pass the buck. Instead, Scripture demands that we own up to our misdeeds. And really, why should it not? In both an communal and individual sense, we've reaped what we've sown.
Tolerance, and the cost of our error
Even if we've come to accept a more realistic view of ourselves, and have learned to be honest about our own actions and responsibilities, it doesn't matter unless we begin to understand the magnitude of our sin. The heart of the hell debate centres not around God's love, but his justice. Again, intrinsically, we should already know this.
As a brief personal example, part of my job involves setting up quotes to do service and repair work in the fire protection recently. There's a lot riding on a quote because you need to ensure that it accurately reflects both the time and the material required to do the job properly. If the details aren't carefully thought out, you could set yourself up for a loss. That's exactly what I did recently, with the price I set being far too low.
Being that it's my first time, I was forgiven for making such a mistake. But even in forgiveness, the cost of my error still had to be eaten up. Forgiveness isn't just saying you ignore something, or try to forget it. That's unrealistic. In this simple but concrete example, whatever the difference is between the actual cost of the job and my poorly done estimate is counted as a loss against the company. Forgiveness costs something. It may be freely given, but it's not free.
The problem with my example, however, is that you can easily put a number to it. In the face of an infinitely Holy God, it's far too unfathomable. That's the whole point. People don't like hell because it's so unfathomably horrible, but it's no different than the cost of our sin. That's what makes hell a perfectly justifiable and appropriate punishment. And who are we to argue?
We don't understand the cost. In an age where the great modern dogma is tolerance, forgiveness and love have fallen under its umbrella. But the Biblical concepts of forgiveness and love are far different than the superficial idea of tolerance preached today. Today, being tolerant simply means have a much greater threshold for allowing bad behaviour, and not letting differences of opinions be a concern. To be fair, tolerance used to be something different. It used to mean allowing people freedom of expression while disagreeing wholeheartedly. These days it means ignoring the differences, and not even being allowed to criticize. (It's an entirely incoherent concept of intolerance). But you have to be intolerant, because some things are just plain stupid. Where tolerance brushes things under the rug, forgiveness and love demand our utmost.
Forgiveness
I'm not trying to make the world an enemy. Society has many great things to offer, and many things we can be thankful for. But, as with the conventional wisdom of any age, it often flies in the face of Biblical wisdom. But forgiveness? Forgiveness on a cosmic level? That is radical. I don't believe we will ever fully understand forgiveness in this age. While society influences us, the bottom line still ends up with us giving ourselves far too much credit, excusing ourselves for our own faults, and never understanding the extent of the damage we cause.
Hell? That's easy. Grace? That's far too great. It involves a God who suffers on our behalf. We owed Him nothing, but cost Him dearly. His happiness did not depend on our existence, but he revealed his Love for us anyway, through the death of his own Son. It's unfathomable, but it's the Truth.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Upcoming topics
Trying to keep up a blog among many other projects isn't easy. Perhaps that why I stopped my old blog 3 years ago. I had just forgotten about the difficulties of keeping something like this up. I'm beginning to think that those prolific bloggers out there are able to spend far more time writing than I can.
Anyway, I've had quite a number of positive comments through the grapevine. A lot of those comments have come from people I have a great deal of respect for, and it's been very re-affirming personally. If nothing else, I'd like to thank you for even bothering to read any of this. It's certainly helped motivate me to keep writing. So, to motivate you to actually keep reading, here is a short list of upcoming topics...
Forgiveness - a brief expose of how society makes it easier for us to accept a doctrine of forgiveness rather than hell, even though forgiveness is a far more radical concept than hell.
Knowing Truth - I take my lead on this topic from several people, including the well known German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and the French deconstructionist/postmodern philosophers Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. These important philosophers have articulated what many people today take as conventional wisdom, but have they serious implications, particularly for Christians. I promise to make it less boring than it sounds.
Christianity vs Secularism - sort of a spin-off of the above topics. I want to reveal how secularism (as a philosophy) has taken upon itself to be the arbiter of truth, attempting to relegate Christianity to the fringes of irrationality, and how secularism takes on the very characteristics it criticizes.
Anyway, I've had quite a number of positive comments through the grapevine. A lot of those comments have come from people I have a great deal of respect for, and it's been very re-affirming personally. If nothing else, I'd like to thank you for even bothering to read any of this. It's certainly helped motivate me to keep writing. So, to motivate you to actually keep reading, here is a short list of upcoming topics...
Forgiveness - a brief expose of how society makes it easier for us to accept a doctrine of forgiveness rather than hell, even though forgiveness is a far more radical concept than hell.
Knowing Truth - I take my lead on this topic from several people, including the well known German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and the French deconstructionist/postmodern philosophers Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. These important philosophers have articulated what many people today take as conventional wisdom, but have they serious implications, particularly for Christians. I promise to make it less boring than it sounds.
Christianity vs Secularism - sort of a spin-off of the above topics. I want to reveal how secularism (as a philosophy) has taken upon itself to be the arbiter of truth, attempting to relegate Christianity to the fringes of irrationality, and how secularism takes on the very characteristics it criticizes.
Monday, March 21, 2011
On Hell and C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis is probably most famously known for his book series "The Chronicles of Narnia," especially given its relative success in its recent theatrical adaptations. But C.S. Lewis has had a far greater influence on Christian thought than from just his allegorical Narnia series. A case in point, rather personally I might add, is from his book, "The Great Divorce." Although the title had originally been a response to a book called, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" by William Blake, it has since become a classic in helping many Christians understand the Biblical notions of salvation and damnation. Now, in particular, in the midst of a fury of debate thanks in part to Rob Bell's new book, "Love Wins," it serves as a great resource for those disillusioned by one of the most controversial doctrines of the Bible.
The thing about hell, like many other doctrines, is that on its face it seems entirely illogical, inhumane, and downright evil. That is, devoid of context, it looks incredibly cruel. It's a bit like trying to explain the doctrine of predestination. You can't simply start with predestination itself because the reason for its existence stems from other doctrines. The same is true for Christ's redemptive work on the cross. I've heard some people call it divine child-abuse, as though it were not only evil and unjust, but entirely unnecessary. The doctrine of hell is no different. The nature and reason for its existence is predicated on other realities.
Traditionally, the doctrine of hell refers to the eternal damnation for the reprobate. The keywords surrounding the controversy are eternal and reprobate. For the latter word, the debate usually entails the question of whether God would even send anyone to hell in the first place, if it even existed. The former is the question of whether hell is suffered for a finite period of time, and if those who suffer it are eventually annihilated or redeemed. There's also the question of the nature of hell itself. Is it a place where God's wrath is poured out on the unrepentant, or is it a situation that we create for ourselves when we don't order our lives as God would like? There are at least as many views of hell as their proponents, but they usually fit into one of a few streams of thought. And although they may be historical, that doesn't mean they're historically orthodox.
Today's cultural ideals of pluralism, tolerance, and even democracy and fairness, have caused an increasing number of people to question the legitimacy of Hell's orthodoxy. The topic of hell has been, well, hot for quite some time now. The controversy over Rob Bell's new book, "Love Wins" is indicative of current cultural climate. At any rate, whatever camp you find yourself in, what you believe about the Hell speaks volumes about what you believe about a great many other things, not least of which is your view of God's love. That's because the doctrine of hell is so inseparably intertwined with other doctrines. You cannot divorce it from God's other attributes.
Let's be serious about one thing though. The usual alternatives to hell (i.e. universalism, annihilationism) from as early as Origen or Gregory of Nyssa have never been accepted as orthodoxy. From the earliest of creeds, to Rome, to Eastern Orthodoxy, or to Protestant evangelicalism, these views of always been rejected outright. They've never passed the rigours of proper exegesis, and their arguments have always fallen flat, regardless of how attractive they may seem. To include them as sound doctrine doesn't mean expanding the borders of orthodoxy, it means moving them somewhere else entirely. More importantly, however, if you don't like the traditional view, your quarrel is not with the theologians who argue for it, but with Jesus himself. Jesus talked more frequently, more seriously, and more earnestly about hell than any other person in Scripture. And let's be honest, for someone who went through it, why wouldn't he?
My suspicion is that a lot of people cringe when they hear about hell not because it's in Scripture, but because people who endorse it have often abused it. The BBC once featured a documentary called, "The Problem of Evil" based on the works of the atheist and Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins. In it was a segment that showed a pastor of a church deep in America's Bible-Belt who would put on plays about how awful hell was. The whole idea of it was to (quite literally) scare the hell out of the youth group kids so they would turn to Jesus. While people can come to a knowledge of Christ after learning about only about hell, a presentation like this served as nothing more than a blatant abuse of power. Kids would repent out of fear of reprisal, not out of a genuine understanding of God's infinite grace. Jesus is a sort of "fire insurance" if you will.
But for those who struggle with hell because it confronts them in Scripture, the first problem is its awful nature. As Tim Keller notes, the idea of hell-fire is probably metaphorical. That is to say, it's probably metaphorical for something far worse. We cannot escape the Biblical descriptions of hell. It really must be that bad, and for all we know, it could very well be even worse.
To some, however, this creates a problem of theodicy. How could a good and loving God possibly send someone to hell, if not for a short time, but eternally? But this isn't a question of God's love, it is a question of God's justice. If we believe God to be perfectly just, then it must follow that what befalls those going to Hell is befitting of the crimes committed. On the other hand, if a hell like this is simply too severe, then either our sin isn't that serious, or God is unjust. An unjust God is a God who, in the end, provides no hope for those who put their trust in him. In fact, he cannot be trusted in the first place. So it must be a question of the seriousness of sin.
Is sin so bad then? Imagine if Jesus himself made the slightest of slips on earth. Imagine if Jesus himself gave into the temptations of Satan. Imagine, if even for a moment, Jesus decided it wasn't worth the pain, everything that he had set out to do on Earth would've failed. At the end of the beatitudes, Jesus declares with finality, "...be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." That is the standard by which Jesus had to live. Thank the Lord, Jesus did. In the face of an infinitely good God then, the insult of sin is infinitely serious.
And why is it eternal? The answer to that is as simple as it is profound. It's because our very nature dictates it. Some people depict hell as being unjust, as though people in hell are clamouring to get out, begging for mercy while an insidious and sadistic God throws them back in. The problem is, they may look for an escape, but it's not out of a repentant heart. The story of the rich man and Lazarus depicts this better than any other story. The rich man has absolutely no acknowledgment of his sinfulness. Having entered hell, the sinning doesn't cease, it carries on like an addiction that endlessly spirals further and further into a bottomless pit. C.S. Lewis describes it this way...
Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others . . . but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God 'sending us' to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.
(The Great Divorce)
So what about the charge that this somehow denies God's love? Hell does not, in any way, take away from God's love. On the contrary, it strengthens it because it demonstrates how deep and powerful it is. At the heart of Christianity is a God who suffers for us, and has become victorious for us. It's one thing for a man to go through hell deserving it. It's an entirely different matter when someone so obviously perfect goes through it voluntarily in place of the other. Perfect justice, then, does not demean love. It makes love all that much more profound. Both God's love and his justice are fully satisfied through Jesus Christ, and is continually satisfied for us.
Does God, in the end, save us all? The Bible clearly says no. But this too does not make God any less just, even if he had chosen just one person in all mankind to be saved. We all deserve to be wiped out in the flood, to never return to Eden, and be cast away. To us, it's not fair. But to be fair, God would just send us all to hell. It's the fact that he has mercy on any of us in the first place that's so amazing. So it's not a question of how God could send anyone to hell, but how he would bother to redeem anyone at all.
Again, as C.S. Lewis writes
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.
The thing about hell, like many other doctrines, is that on its face it seems entirely illogical, inhumane, and downright evil. That is, devoid of context, it looks incredibly cruel. It's a bit like trying to explain the doctrine of predestination. You can't simply start with predestination itself because the reason for its existence stems from other doctrines. The same is true for Christ's redemptive work on the cross. I've heard some people call it divine child-abuse, as though it were not only evil and unjust, but entirely unnecessary. The doctrine of hell is no different. The nature and reason for its existence is predicated on other realities.
Traditionally, the doctrine of hell refers to the eternal damnation for the reprobate. The keywords surrounding the controversy are eternal and reprobate. For the latter word, the debate usually entails the question of whether God would even send anyone to hell in the first place, if it even existed. The former is the question of whether hell is suffered for a finite period of time, and if those who suffer it are eventually annihilated or redeemed. There's also the question of the nature of hell itself. Is it a place where God's wrath is poured out on the unrepentant, or is it a situation that we create for ourselves when we don't order our lives as God would like? There are at least as many views of hell as their proponents, but they usually fit into one of a few streams of thought. And although they may be historical, that doesn't mean they're historically orthodox.
Today's cultural ideals of pluralism, tolerance, and even democracy and fairness, have caused an increasing number of people to question the legitimacy of Hell's orthodoxy. The topic of hell has been, well, hot for quite some time now. The controversy over Rob Bell's new book, "Love Wins" is indicative of current cultural climate. At any rate, whatever camp you find yourself in, what you believe about the Hell speaks volumes about what you believe about a great many other things, not least of which is your view of God's love. That's because the doctrine of hell is so inseparably intertwined with other doctrines. You cannot divorce it from God's other attributes.
Let's be serious about one thing though. The usual alternatives to hell (i.e. universalism, annihilationism) from as early as Origen or Gregory of Nyssa have never been accepted as orthodoxy. From the earliest of creeds, to Rome, to Eastern Orthodoxy, or to Protestant evangelicalism, these views of always been rejected outright. They've never passed the rigours of proper exegesis, and their arguments have always fallen flat, regardless of how attractive they may seem. To include them as sound doctrine doesn't mean expanding the borders of orthodoxy, it means moving them somewhere else entirely. More importantly, however, if you don't like the traditional view, your quarrel is not with the theologians who argue for it, but with Jesus himself. Jesus talked more frequently, more seriously, and more earnestly about hell than any other person in Scripture. And let's be honest, for someone who went through it, why wouldn't he?
My suspicion is that a lot of people cringe when they hear about hell not because it's in Scripture, but because people who endorse it have often abused it. The BBC once featured a documentary called, "The Problem of Evil" based on the works of the atheist and Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins. In it was a segment that showed a pastor of a church deep in America's Bible-Belt who would put on plays about how awful hell was. The whole idea of it was to (quite literally) scare the hell out of the youth group kids so they would turn to Jesus. While people can come to a knowledge of Christ after learning about only about hell, a presentation like this served as nothing more than a blatant abuse of power. Kids would repent out of fear of reprisal, not out of a genuine understanding of God's infinite grace. Jesus is a sort of "fire insurance" if you will.
But for those who struggle with hell because it confronts them in Scripture, the first problem is its awful nature. As Tim Keller notes, the idea of hell-fire is probably metaphorical. That is to say, it's probably metaphorical for something far worse. We cannot escape the Biblical descriptions of hell. It really must be that bad, and for all we know, it could very well be even worse.
To some, however, this creates a problem of theodicy. How could a good and loving God possibly send someone to hell, if not for a short time, but eternally? But this isn't a question of God's love, it is a question of God's justice. If we believe God to be perfectly just, then it must follow that what befalls those going to Hell is befitting of the crimes committed. On the other hand, if a hell like this is simply too severe, then either our sin isn't that serious, or God is unjust. An unjust God is a God who, in the end, provides no hope for those who put their trust in him. In fact, he cannot be trusted in the first place. So it must be a question of the seriousness of sin.
Is sin so bad then? Imagine if Jesus himself made the slightest of slips on earth. Imagine if Jesus himself gave into the temptations of Satan. Imagine, if even for a moment, Jesus decided it wasn't worth the pain, everything that he had set out to do on Earth would've failed. At the end of the beatitudes, Jesus declares with finality, "...be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." That is the standard by which Jesus had to live. Thank the Lord, Jesus did. In the face of an infinitely good God then, the insult of sin is infinitely serious.
And why is it eternal? The answer to that is as simple as it is profound. It's because our very nature dictates it. Some people depict hell as being unjust, as though people in hell are clamouring to get out, begging for mercy while an insidious and sadistic God throws them back in. The problem is, they may look for an escape, but it's not out of a repentant heart. The story of the rich man and Lazarus depicts this better than any other story. The rich man has absolutely no acknowledgment of his sinfulness. Having entered hell, the sinning doesn't cease, it carries on like an addiction that endlessly spirals further and further into a bottomless pit. C.S. Lewis describes it this way...
Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others . . . but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God 'sending us' to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.
(The Great Divorce)
So what about the charge that this somehow denies God's love? Hell does not, in any way, take away from God's love. On the contrary, it strengthens it because it demonstrates how deep and powerful it is. At the heart of Christianity is a God who suffers for us, and has become victorious for us. It's one thing for a man to go through hell deserving it. It's an entirely different matter when someone so obviously perfect goes through it voluntarily in place of the other. Perfect justice, then, does not demean love. It makes love all that much more profound. Both God's love and his justice are fully satisfied through Jesus Christ, and is continually satisfied for us.
Does God, in the end, save us all? The Bible clearly says no. But this too does not make God any less just, even if he had chosen just one person in all mankind to be saved. We all deserve to be wiped out in the flood, to never return to Eden, and be cast away. To us, it's not fair. But to be fair, God would just send us all to hell. It's the fact that he has mercy on any of us in the first place that's so amazing. So it's not a question of how God could send anyone to hell, but how he would bother to redeem anyone at all.
Again, as C.S. Lewis writes
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.
(The Great Divorce)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)