Abusing the Love of God - Another Example

Rembert G. Weakland was an archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church, but his career came quickly to an end (2002) when a man whom he had paid $450,000 to keep his mouth shut about their romantic involvement, appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America," claiming that Weakland had "raped" him. His story can be read here.

Archbishop Weakland was already a liberal voice in the RCC before his early "retirement," but after he resigned from his position as archbishop, he became even more outspoken against the church's teaching on homosexuality.

Interestingly enough, in an article from the NY Times we read Weakland's rationale:

"If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?”

Well, no Christian is surprised by Weakland's rationale. In fact, sinners have been (ab)using the love of God since the Fall. However, it is an abuse of the love of God to use the love of God as an excuse for sin. I wonder if the Arminian sentimentalism of the love of God has contributed to the use of the love of God as an excuse for sin... Just some food for thought.

John Piper Speaks Prophetically Against the Sin of Abortion

This is awesome. Listen here. John Piper says, "No, Mr. President, we stand for the sanctity of human life because human life is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Christians should weep for America because pro-life legislation is quickly overturned by our new President. Make no mistake about it. Mr. Obama is the strongest pro-death candidate ever to set foot in the White House. And make no mistake about it. The God of glory THUNDERS. May God help us all!

No Place for Truth

I never cease to be amazed at the constant disregard of absolute truth in the news media. This evening I read an article about the Hubble Space Telescope. In the article, I was shocked by the following sentence:

"In Hubble's photos, believers witness the hand of God, nonbelievers see astronomy in action, and artists discover galaxies worthy of galleries."

Now, when I read this sentence, I make the following observations:

1. The sentence avoids making any absolute truth claim whatsoever.

2. This is accomplished by placing a greater emphasis on experience.

3. In doing so, the sentence trivializes the reality of absolute truth.

Moreover, this sentence is strange. Think about the list of spectators: believers, unbelievers, and artists. Well, I suppose we can learn one important lesson from this sentence. In a postmodern world, truth is only found in "the eyes of the beholder." Clearly, there is no place for truth in the news media.

Sermons

My sermons are now available online. The website is still under construction, and the most recent sermon is from November. But you should be able to access the sermons soon. You can listen here.

Reclaiming the Arts: In Defense of a Calvinistic Poetic, Part I

In contradistinction to the elevation of reason that characterized the Enlightenment and Modernism, our post-everything culture has exchanged this edifice for one more befitting its "beyond propositional" mantra: art. Facing such a cultural milieu, Christians should rejoice that reason has been exchanged for art not because truth cannot be encapsulated in propositions, but because truth cannot only be encapsulated in propositions. There is a kind of knowledge in the gospel that while not against reason is essentially different from reason. God in his grace has disclosed certain truths about his character that we would not know apart from revelation. In many ways, the unfolding of this revelation in Scripture is best understood as art. This is not to deny the propositional truths of Scripture, but to say that they are most fully understood in the wider backdrop of the redemptive metanarrative. The Bible is not to be read as a systematic theology or we would not need systematic theologies. The Bible is literature or, rather, a variety of literary works. In this sacred text, we find the foundational inspiration for all art: the fusing of the transcendent and the imminent. It is this dichotomous union that leaves its traces throughout the story of redemption. The wedding of the transcendent and the imminent is found in nearly every tenet of Christianity: the deity and humanity of Christ, the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, the divine and human agency of inspiration, the old covenant and the new covenant, and, ultimately the reconciliation of heaven and earth. It is this fusion that serves both to explain and to guide a Christian approach to the arts. Not only does it address the artist's most difficult dichotomy of form and content, but it also ensures that art, as a representation of the human condition, depicts both beauty and truth. While the Reformation is typically stigmatized as a movement that was antithetical to artistic pursuits, this caricature fails under closer scrutiny. Though an explicit Calvinistic aesthetic is seldom articulated (much of later Calvinism has been preoccupied with polemics), the one that emerges is in fact informed by the dichotomous union of transcendence and imminence. Our focus will be a bit more myopic as we look not more broadly at aesthetics, which pertains to the arts in general, but to poetics, which is a philosophy of literature in particular.

Before considering how the dichotomous union is central to a Reformational poetic, let us address the common objection that the Reformed tradition is resistant to the arts. Though not an accurate assessment, such an objection is not completely without merit. In the early hours of the Reformation, there was much open hostility to the use of art in corporate worship as a reaction against the abuses of Rome. When the decisive break finally occurred, the Reformers rightly asked what should constitute Sabbath worship. The consensus was that Rome's use of visual art in corporate worship violated the second commandment. While Old Testament temple worship included sculptures of the celestial beings, the Reformers argued, New Testament worship should be patterned after the apostolic precedent of simplicity: Bible reading, prayer, singing, and the sacraments. Rome's incorporation of art in corporate worship undermined the truth that the ceremonial art of Old Testament temple worship were types of a heavenly copy that has been inaugurated in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. In addition, the Regulative Principle was determined to be the guiding force for the form and content of corporate worship. Only what God explicitly commands in Scripture should dictate the subject and manner of our worship. Thus, it was not so much that the Reformers eliminated art in corporate worship but they simply advocated it in a different form. For really there is the art of the homily, the art of singing, and the overarching art of the whole liturgy. In fact, it can be argued that the Reformational worldview liberated the Christian world from a utilitarian perspective on the arts. It is to this subject that we must turn our attention.

An Unfortunate Utilitarianism

The assertion that religious art pervaded the Pre-Reformation period goes largely uncontested. Rome, in its understanding of the sacred, esteemed art as having value only so far as it depicted subjects explicitly religious in nature, hence the ubiquitious Madonna and child paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries. With the emergence of the Reformed world-in-life view, the sacred/secular distinction was eradicated. According to the Reformers all of life was worship. Whether at work, church, or play, everything is to be done to the glory of God. A paradigm shift of this magnitude meant a complete redefining of what constituted Christian service. The blacksmith was not a Christian blacksmith, because he emblazoned the name "Jesus" on his tools but because he was a good blacksmith. We can see how this applies to the artist and more specifically the writer. A writer's work does not bring glory to God because he deals explicitly with matters of faith, but because he writes material that is beautiful and true. In our contemporary context, the "Christian" writer is often not taken seriously, because he is confined only to dealing with the explicitly religious. However, the Reformed view that all of life is sacred removes such an unnecessary burden. While books of theology, devotion, and much that is displayed as "Christian fiction" in bookstores talk about faith directly, literature uses faith as a lens through which to present the human condition. What gives the two branches of literature, fiction and poetry, such value is that they are able to do what theological books cannot: they make you feel faith rather than just understand it. Literature puts skin on theological truths. Even if we do not preoccupy ourselves with seeing evangelistic truths in literature, we can ruin our enjoyment of a piece if we focus too much on determining the meaning. The experience is the meaning. The reason literature is so powerful is because it communicates something that a simple statement could not. If a statement would have been sufficient, then the author would not need to write the piece.

Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself, the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction.
-Mystery and Manners, Flannery O'Connor (73)

The removal of the sacred/secular distinction releases the harness around the Christian imagination, and allows it to roam freely in the open plains of pleasure and experience. However, given the guiding principle of sola scriptura in the Reformers' life and thought, how did they seek to justify such a new perspective on the Christian calling? Drawing from the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28, the Reformers correctly understood that the message of redemption throughout Scripture included culture. Thus, a redeemed earth assumed a redeemed culture as well. This mandate and its implications for the Christian writer will be examined in further detail in Part II.

Ad Honorem: Logan Almy

In the next four hours, I will be flying to St. Louis where I will reconvene with friends and family to celebrate the ordination of my brother, Logan Almy. Ordination is a serious time in which men of sound doctrine and character are called to "rightly handle the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)." I could not think of a man for which this verse more aptly describes than Logan. In light of this milestone in his life, I would like to offer a brief tribute to this godly man.

I have repeated this several times, but it is worth being said again: Logan is a friend to me before he is a brother. By this I mean that he has gone above and beyond mere filial obligations by rebuking, encouraging, and edifying me. He has hidden Proverbs 28:23 in his heart and sought to incarnate it in his actions. Through daybreak and noon, times of laughter and times of weeping, Logan has demonstrated true friendship through his loyalty. A man could give him no higher praise than to say that he proves his love for God by his love for his brother (cf.1 John 4:20-21).

This Sunday Logan will be preaching during the AM sermon at Sutter Presbyterian Church. The title of his message will be: "The Supreme Joy of the Justified Sinner" taken from Phil. 3:1-11. I eagerly look forward to another God-saturated, Spirit-filled sermon. Logan's commitment to expository preaching and bold proclamation of the truth is unmatched by anyone I have met and I pray the Lord would continue to increase his resolve. Soli deo gloria!

What is Baptism?

When we consider the sacred rite of baptism, it is necessary to understand both its significance and its application. First, the significance of baptism.

As a result of the emergence of a man-centered view of redemption, there has been a corresponding rise in a man-centered view of the sacrament of baptism. This should really come as no surprise since baptism is the initiatory rite of being ushered into the visible people of God. If the church's view of redemption is man-centered, then baptism which points to redemption will be seen in a man-centered way. In other words, baptism is seen in many evangelical circles as pointing to the individual's personal faith and repentance. This is exactly the opposite of what baptism, or any other covenant sign in Scripture, is meant to do. Signs are markers which serve to remind (however anthropromorphic it may sound) the suzerain God of his objective promise. It is not a sign of some inward change. This was the case in every covenant in the OT and continues to be so with baptism. Let us look at some examples:

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 “It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 “When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” -Genesis 9:8-17

Notice, the purpose of the sign of the covenant is so that God "will remember" his covenant (v.15. The sign of the covenant (i.e. the rainbow) is not pointing to some subjective, inward disposition within Noah. It is not a sign of Noah's personal faith in the promise of the covenant. It is a sign to remind God of God's promise. To put another way, it is outward and objective rather than inward and subjective. Here is another one:

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” -Genesis 17:9-14

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant is the bloody rite of circumcision. Was circumcision a sign of the inward, subjective disposition of the recipient? Verses 12-13 clearly demonstrate it was not, because every male in Israel was circumcised even those who would later demonstrate unbelief. What exactly does circumcision then signify? Paul, who also calls the Abrahamic covenant the gospel in Galatians 3:8, says this regarding what circumcision signifies:

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. -Colossians 2:11-12

While many credobaptists may want to object and say that Paul does not say that baptism replaces circumcision in this text, that is not the point. The point is that what Paul does state is that both circumcision and baptism convey the same spiritual reality, that is, the objective work of Christ in dying and purging us of the sinfulness of the flesh. Circumcision is the bloody rite which looks forward to this event while baptism is the bloodless rite which looks back. Neither, however, are necessarily intended to signify something about the individual recipient.

In regards to the application of the sign of baptism, I will propose this. When we correctly understand the significance of baptism, then the application of baptism flows from it. What I mean by this is that a God-centered view of baptism's significance results in a corporate-oriented view of baptism's application. If the significance of baptism is really meant to point to the outward, objective work of God in Christ and as a reminder to God and His people of that work, then the administration of baptism is not dependent upon knowing the internal disposition of the recipients. To clarify, no one who supports covenant baptism would advocate baptizing someone who is demonstrating unbelief and hatred towards the gospel. Such an idea is monstrous! With the case of infants, we do not know if they possess saving faith or not. Fortunately, this is not the criterion upon which we must determine whether or not to baptize an individual. The criterion is based upon God's objective promise through the gospel to believing households! This enables us then to take Peter's promise seriously in Acts 2:39 that the promise of the New Covenant is to believers and their children. Soli deo gloria!