Ephesians 4
14 That we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carrierd about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Some of my favorite passages from the scripture are those written by the Apostle whom we call John. He wrote again and again about truth and love. One reason that I especially like his message is that if there is anything that characterizes modern society it is a serious lack of both truth and love. As the scripture presents them, they are a complementary unit. You often hear people having a religious discussion and they will freely use the word 'love', but how often will you hear the word 'truth'. As a society we've fallen for the cunning craftiness that the Apostle writes about in this passage from Ephesians. Things haven't changed all that much in the past 2000 years or so, about the nature of man.
The truth that I am writing about here, is Divine Truth, and is what we find recorded in the text of scripture. The love that I am writing about here is Divine Love, and is what I see as an essential aspect of the idea of Divine Grace. So we have the problem and the antidote. The Truth is that we have broken Divine Law and are found guilty. The antidote is that Divine Grace is made available by the Divine Love Jesus demonstrated on the cross, paying in full the penalty for our transgression of Divine Law. That's Truth and Love.
But, as soon as you divorce Truth from this formula of Law and Grace (Truth and Love), then there is no point at all left to 'religion'. Truth is the key element. If there is no Divine Law, then Love has no meaning. We're left with emotion that is subject to any sort of conditioned response that we wish. Taking the right pill can make us feel good about almost anything. But it doesn't bring us any closer to the Truth or to Love.
Yes, it's true, Jesus Loves You. And it's true, Jesus is the only Way. There has to be Truth in Love.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The known unknown
Matthew 6
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and
where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and
where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your
heart be also.
There are some things we know that we don't know
anything about and there are some things we don't
know that we don't know anything about. Some
would say that it's presumptuous to claim that
you are in a state of grace, or in common terms,
that you are 'saved' and you are going to heaven.
They would say that you can't know for sure
whether you are 'going to heaven' or not. They
would say that we can't know for sure.
I'll admit that there are things unknown, things
that can't be known. But I'd say that there are
also things that we can know, about what we don't
know completely. We can know something about what
we don't know. And that's a starting point.
You see, if you don't know, if you don't have any
idea about the things that you don't know, then
you are set up for being fooled again. But you
have an advantage by knowing what you don't know.
Or in the immortal words of Dirty Harry, A man's
got to know his limitations.
"...Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she
answered: 'If I am not, may G-d put me there; and
if I am, may G-d so keep me.'" The question is a
scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one
could be certain of being in God's grace. If she
had answered yes, then she would have convicted
herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then
she would have confessed her own guilt..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
Joan of Arc answered the question well during the
course of her mock trial for heresy. The focus
of her response lies in the action of Providence
rather than the action of herself. She's saying,
in effect, that there's really nothing that I can
do in order to obtain Divine favor. The grace
that I've received has been given based on no
merit of my own. She knew about what she was not
able to know -- whether or not what she had
experienced was 'salvation', only that the exact
knowledge of her soul's destiny was in the hands
of Providence.
In my own view, this is exactly what occurs in
the course of salvation. That we come to the
place in our knowledge that we realize our only
hope of grace is to place ourselves into the
position of trusting in Jesus as our only hope,
rather than hoping to rely on our merit.
That brings me to the next point. From here we
exercise faith in the hope that we are 'saved'.
In the words of scripture, '...if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that G-d hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved...' Romans
10:9 What we can know is what we find in the
text of scripture. What we can't know is what
lies beyond this mortal existence. We can only
rely on the message of scripture and know that
the unknown is beyond our reach.
But I think we find a clue in the words of Jesus
taken from the three verses above. He said,
where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also. What we can know, to a certain degree is
where the affections of our heart lie. If we
find that our heart is drawn in by the
enticements of this world and the modern world
system, then we might expect that our treasure is
not in heaven, with the implication that heaven
is not our final destination. If on the other
hand, we find that this world holds little
appeal, and we find our heart longing for a
better place, then our heart is telling us that
we treasure the promise of heaven. The most
explicit clue is when we find that our heart
longs to know Jesus -- the treasure of heaven,
and the greatest of the known unknowns.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and
where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and
where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your
heart be also.
There are some things we know that we don't know
anything about and there are some things we don't
know that we don't know anything about. Some
would say that it's presumptuous to claim that
you are in a state of grace, or in common terms,
that you are 'saved' and you are going to heaven.
They would say that you can't know for sure
whether you are 'going to heaven' or not. They
would say that we can't know for sure.
I'll admit that there are things unknown, things
that can't be known. But I'd say that there are
also things that we can know, about what we don't
know completely. We can know something about what
we don't know. And that's a starting point.
You see, if you don't know, if you don't have any
idea about the things that you don't know, then
you are set up for being fooled again. But you
have an advantage by knowing what you don't know.
Or in the immortal words of Dirty Harry, A man's
got to know his limitations.
"...Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she
answered: 'If I am not, may G-d put me there; and
if I am, may G-d so keep me.'" The question is a
scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one
could be certain of being in God's grace. If she
had answered yes, then she would have convicted
herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then
she would have confessed her own guilt..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
Joan of Arc answered the question well during the
course of her mock trial for heresy. The focus
of her response lies in the action of Providence
rather than the action of herself. She's saying,
in effect, that there's really nothing that I can
do in order to obtain Divine favor. The grace
that I've received has been given based on no
merit of my own. She knew about what she was not
able to know -- whether or not what she had
experienced was 'salvation', only that the exact
knowledge of her soul's destiny was in the hands
of Providence.
In my own view, this is exactly what occurs in
the course of salvation. That we come to the
place in our knowledge that we realize our only
hope of grace is to place ourselves into the
position of trusting in Jesus as our only hope,
rather than hoping to rely on our merit.
That brings me to the next point. From here we
exercise faith in the hope that we are 'saved'.
In the words of scripture, '...if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that G-d hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved...' Romans
10:9 What we can know is what we find in the
text of scripture. What we can't know is what
lies beyond this mortal existence. We can only
rely on the message of scripture and know that
the unknown is beyond our reach.
But I think we find a clue in the words of Jesus
taken from the three verses above. He said,
where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also. What we can know, to a certain degree is
where the affections of our heart lie. If we
find that our heart is drawn in by the
enticements of this world and the modern world
system, then we might expect that our treasure is
not in heaven, with the implication that heaven
is not our final destination. If on the other
hand, we find that this world holds little
appeal, and we find our heart longing for a
better place, then our heart is telling us that
we treasure the promise of heaven. The most
explicit clue is when we find that our heart
longs to know Jesus -- the treasure of heaven,
and the greatest of the known unknowns.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Covenant
Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of G-d unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first,
and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of G-d
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by faith.
Over the holiday I dusted off a copy of The
Revelation Record and started to read it again.
It's been a while since I read it last, and I
wanted to read over the passages related to Gog,
which is usually interpreted as Russia. The
reason is that they play a role in end times
events recorded in both Ezekiel and Revelation.
One of the things that I was reminded of is that
Babylon in end times prophecy has often been
interpreted as the Roman Catholic Church. I've
always thought that this was a mistaken
interpretation if only because Babylon is used
symbolically long before the time that the Roman
Catholic Church came into existence. As I see
it, the only way to interpret the symbolic
Babylon is to recognize it as a way to represent
the entire world system under the rule of the
kingdom of man, in contrast to the symbolic
Jerusalem as a way to represent the heavenly
system under the rule of the kingdom of heaven.
In scripture, Jerusalem and Israel are the focus
of all prophetic scripture. G-d chose to reveal
himself, to this world, beginning with the
covenant of Abraham, choosing a people group with
which to identify himself, who were to be
characterized by their faith in him and the
historic covenant. Among other things, scripture
is the historic record of that unfolding covenant
relationship of the kingdom of heaven in its
relationship to men. You can see where we are
today. The covenant still stands, in modern form
as the New Covenant of grace, centered in the
salvation found only through faith in Jesus. But
you can see that in this world, it is as it has
always been. Just as it was in the time of King
Ahab, so it is in modern times, the kingdom of
man has little interest in any covenant of faith.
We wish to serve the little gods of 'self',
rather than our creator. Look at the passage
from Romans 1. It was written about 2000 years
ago and it accurately describes the way of man as
it stands in relation to the will of G-d.
Nothing's changed about the nature of man in 2000
years. Good for us that nothing's changed about
the nature of G-d in over 2000 years either. He
offers us the same saviour that he's offered 2000
years ago - salvation by faith in Jesus.
You see, the ONLY available righteousness is the
righteousness of faith offered by G-d. It's
something that we are not capable of on our own
merit. We lack that basic quality of
righteousness because of the condition we inherit
from Adam as original sin. We like to think that
we are only partly bad and partly good. But
that's only in comparison to other men. As we
compare to G-d, we are totally deficient in terms
of perfection. The standard is perfection, not
keeping up with the Jones'. Maybe I've lived a
sheltered life, but I've never seen anyone that I
recognize as perfection. On the other hand, I'm
haunted by the thought that because of my own
flawed nature, Would I even be able to recognize
perfection if it were shown to me? And my best
answer is that the closest thing to perfection
that we have at hand is the text of scripture.
But we can barely recognize it. Yet, it
describes for us that there is only one source of
perfection and righteousness and salvation in all
the earth, and it's in the person of Jesus.
The book of Romans is central to all of Christian
doctrine. It was when Martin Luther finally
recognized that the 'just shall live by faith'
that the Protestant Reformation got under way and
brought to the world another spiritual awakening.
I have nothing against the 'signs and wonders'
focus within the charismatic movement. But I
have to wonder where it leads after all the
emotion has run its course. What happens when
you wake up one morning and you just don't feel
all that great? Or your spouse is aggravating,
or your business fails or any number of
unpleasant emotions intrude? Is it over? The
Apostle Paul's life wasn't a bowl of cherries.
But he wrote this passage, since he knew that his
feelings were not the measure of his faith...
'The just shall live by faith', and this is one
of the unchanging elements of the covenant
between G-d and man.
Read the rest of this timeless passage from
Romans 1:
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be
an apostle, separated unto the gospel of G-d,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in
the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which
was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of G-d with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship,
for obedience to the faith among all nations, for
his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus
Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of G-d, called
to be saints: Grace to you and peace from G-d our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my G-d through Jesus Christ for
you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout
the whole world.
9 For G-d is my witness, whom I serve with my
spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without
ceasing I make mention of you always in my
prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length
I might have a prosperous journey by the will of
G-d to come unto you.
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with
you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,
that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but
was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit
among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the
Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach
the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of G-d unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of G-d
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of G-d is
manifest in them; for G-d hath shewed it unto
them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and G-dhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew G-d, they
glorified him not as G-d, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible G-d
into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things.
24 Wherefore G-d also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of G-d into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
26 For this cause G-d gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain G-d in
their knowledge, G-d gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of G-d, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers,
without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of G-d, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure in them that
do them.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of G-d unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first,
and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of G-d
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by faith.
Over the holiday I dusted off a copy of The
Revelation Record and started to read it again.
It's been a while since I read it last, and I
wanted to read over the passages related to Gog,
which is usually interpreted as Russia. The
reason is that they play a role in end times
events recorded in both Ezekiel and Revelation.
One of the things that I was reminded of is that
Babylon in end times prophecy has often been
interpreted as the Roman Catholic Church. I've
always thought that this was a mistaken
interpretation if only because Babylon is used
symbolically long before the time that the Roman
Catholic Church came into existence. As I see
it, the only way to interpret the symbolic
Babylon is to recognize it as a way to represent
the entire world system under the rule of the
kingdom of man, in contrast to the symbolic
Jerusalem as a way to represent the heavenly
system under the rule of the kingdom of heaven.
In scripture, Jerusalem and Israel are the focus
of all prophetic scripture. G-d chose to reveal
himself, to this world, beginning with the
covenant of Abraham, choosing a people group with
which to identify himself, who were to be
characterized by their faith in him and the
historic covenant. Among other things, scripture
is the historic record of that unfolding covenant
relationship of the kingdom of heaven in its
relationship to men. You can see where we are
today. The covenant still stands, in modern form
as the New Covenant of grace, centered in the
salvation found only through faith in Jesus. But
you can see that in this world, it is as it has
always been. Just as it was in the time of King
Ahab, so it is in modern times, the kingdom of
man has little interest in any covenant of faith.
We wish to serve the little gods of 'self',
rather than our creator. Look at the passage
from Romans 1. It was written about 2000 years
ago and it accurately describes the way of man as
it stands in relation to the will of G-d.
Nothing's changed about the nature of man in 2000
years. Good for us that nothing's changed about
the nature of G-d in over 2000 years either. He
offers us the same saviour that he's offered 2000
years ago - salvation by faith in Jesus.
You see, the ONLY available righteousness is the
righteousness of faith offered by G-d. It's
something that we are not capable of on our own
merit. We lack that basic quality of
righteousness because of the condition we inherit
from Adam as original sin. We like to think that
we are only partly bad and partly good. But
that's only in comparison to other men. As we
compare to G-d, we are totally deficient in terms
of perfection. The standard is perfection, not
keeping up with the Jones'. Maybe I've lived a
sheltered life, but I've never seen anyone that I
recognize as perfection. On the other hand, I'm
haunted by the thought that because of my own
flawed nature, Would I even be able to recognize
perfection if it were shown to me? And my best
answer is that the closest thing to perfection
that we have at hand is the text of scripture.
But we can barely recognize it. Yet, it
describes for us that there is only one source of
perfection and righteousness and salvation in all
the earth, and it's in the person of Jesus.
The book of Romans is central to all of Christian
doctrine. It was when Martin Luther finally
recognized that the 'just shall live by faith'
that the Protestant Reformation got under way and
brought to the world another spiritual awakening.
I have nothing against the 'signs and wonders'
focus within the charismatic movement. But I
have to wonder where it leads after all the
emotion has run its course. What happens when
you wake up one morning and you just don't feel
all that great? Or your spouse is aggravating,
or your business fails or any number of
unpleasant emotions intrude? Is it over? The
Apostle Paul's life wasn't a bowl of cherries.
But he wrote this passage, since he knew that his
feelings were not the measure of his faith...
'The just shall live by faith', and this is one
of the unchanging elements of the covenant
between G-d and man.
Read the rest of this timeless passage from
Romans 1:
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be
an apostle, separated unto the gospel of G-d,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in
the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which
was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of G-d with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship,
for obedience to the faith among all nations, for
his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus
Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of G-d, called
to be saints: Grace to you and peace from G-d our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my G-d through Jesus Christ for
you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout
the whole world.
9 For G-d is my witness, whom I serve with my
spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without
ceasing I make mention of you always in my
prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length
I might have a prosperous journey by the will of
G-d to come unto you.
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with
you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,
that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but
was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit
among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the
Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach
the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of G-d unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of G-d
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of G-d is
manifest in them; for G-d hath shewed it unto
them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and G-dhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew G-d, they
glorified him not as G-d, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible G-d
into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things.
24 Wherefore G-d also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of G-d into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
26 For this cause G-d gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain G-d in
their knowledge, G-d gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of G-d, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers,
without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of G-d, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure in them that
do them.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Political Saturday
I Kings 16
30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight
of the LORD above all that were before him.
31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light
thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the
son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the
daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and
went and served Baal, and worshipped him.
32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the
house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.
33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to
provoke the LORD G-d of Israel to anger than all
the kings of Israel that were before him.
This has been a week busy with political events,
judging from the newspaper headlines. And on
Monday, we celebrate Labor Day.
Whenever the subject of politics comes to the
forefront, just as it does during these times,
the word hubris comes to mind.
"Aristotle defined hubris as follows: to cause
shame to the victim, not in order that anything
may happen to you, nor because anything has
happened to you, but merely for your own
gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past
injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in
hubris, its cause is this: men think that by
ill-treating others they make their own
superiority the greater."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
And that's the level of public discourse related
to modern politics. Say something negative about
the other candidate in order to make yourself
look more appealing. But in the end, it leaves
me with no sense of admiration for all concerned.
What I tend to pay closest attention to is which
candidates draw criticism from which
spokespersons. It's the clearest indication, to
me, of what candidates are really like. Those
outspoken members of the opposition let you know
what candidates are likely to believe. You can
tell who a person is by who their enemies are.
The thing that I dislike the most about politics
is the deception and compromise. One reason for
that is because I don't believe that it's always
that difficult to know the difference between
what's right and wrong. But that's not the
language of politics. As I understand it, the
language of politics is making deals. In other
words, it's nothing but a swamp of compromise.
I realize that there isn't
much interest in doing what's right. I realize
that many people are far too compromised
personally to ever be able to have even a faint
desire to do what's right. So in the end,
politics is simply a reflection of the corruption
that exists at the personal level. And it's
always been that way. I won't be able to fix it.
Whenever I think of politics, what often comes to
mind is the record of King Ahab in hebrew
scripture, and his charming wife Jezebel. The
story goes on over the course of several
chapters, the kingdom of man represented by Ahab
and Jezebel versus the kingdom of heaven
represented by Elijah. It seems that the general
populace was apathetic.
"Apathy (also called impassivity or
perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference,
where an individual has an absence of interest or
concern to certain aspects of emotional, social,
or physical life.
History
Apathy etymologically derives from the Greek
απάθεια (apatheia), a term used by the Stoics to
signify indifference for what one is not
responsible for (that is, according to their
philosophy, all things exterior, one being only
responsible of his representations and
judgments).
Many Christians believe that the concept was then
reappropriated by Christians, who adopted the
term to express a contempt of all earthly
concerns, a state of mortification, as (they
claim) the gospel prescribes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathy
I Kings 18
17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah,
that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that
troubleth Israel?
18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel;
but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have
forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou
hast followed Baalim.
19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all
Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of
Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets
of the groves four hundred, which eat at
Jezebel's table.
20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel,
and gathered the prophets together unto mount
Carmel.
21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,
How long halt ye between two opinions? if the
LORD be G-d, follow him: but if Baal, then follow
him. And the people answered him not a word.
Elijah was not the type given to apathy, even
though the popular majority showed indifference
toward Baal worship. '...the people answered him
not a word.' As I see it, things are not that
much different today. It's well known that many
eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.
One of the primary reasons is that people have
the sense that they are not being represented by
the 'system' and they sense that there is little
interest on the part of any within the power
structure to do what's right. In other words,
there are many people who recognize that the
nature of compromise, the compromise within
politics and personal compromise prevent
constructive action. On the other hand, Elijah
had the attitude that even if he was the only
one, he would take a stand against evil.
18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I
only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's
prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
Nothing's changed much over the years. Politics
is still mired in compromise, the public is mired
in apathy and personal compromise. And there are
still a few who can't sell out in spite of the
fact that they will be marginalized and socially
stigmatized. Another thing that hasn't changed
is that there is still a difference between right
and wrong, between truth and error. Political
process won't lead us there, popular apathy won't
take us there, but the kingdom of heaven will
eventually arrive in the fullness of time.
Elijah did what needed to be done, in his time.
He brought an end to Baal worship, although it
was not completely eliminated until years later
when Jehu became king.
Over the next few chapters, the story of Ahab and
Jezebel continues. It's a sad story of continued
compromise and apathy, characterized by endless
conflict. Corrupt leadership brings only misery
upon a nation. And during their reign, Ahab and
Jezebel brought a great deal of misery upon their
people. In other words, compromise is not the
virtue that it is advertised to be. It is a
practice that bears the fruit of misery, as it
was under the rule of Ahab and Jezebel.
You can come to your own conclusions about how
this carries over into modern society. Just like
me, you can examine the social metrics and take
stock of your own personal situation. Do you
believe that things are heading in the right
direction? Personally, I find evidence that the
misery index is already into the high-stress
range, and the kingdom of man is on a course that
will only generate more of the same and increased
conflict. Look around.
On the other hand, the kingdom of heaven offers
an alternative. And the day will come when Jesus
retuns to set the record straight. In the
definition of apathy, the wikipedia entry says
that christians... 'adopted the term to express a
contempt of all earthly concerns, a state of
mortification, as (they claim) the gospel
prescribes.' I don't know how anyone can arrive
at that conclusion, if they've ever read the
gospels. In fact Jesus taught that christians
were to pursue the kingdom of heaven while here
on earth, to do his will in the here and now.
Sure, it's at odds with popular culture. But the
Apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans, 'And be
not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye
may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of G-d.' Rom. 12:2 That would not
provide an excuse for personal compromise and
apathy or a 'state of mortification', as the wiki
entry suggests. In spite of the confusion that
rules the kingdom of man, christians are to be
ruled by the peace that characterizes knowing and
doing the 'will of G-d'. That's an alternative
to the kingdom of man.
30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight
of the LORD above all that were before him.
31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light
thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the
son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the
daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and
went and served Baal, and worshipped him.
32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the
house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.
33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to
provoke the LORD G-d of Israel to anger than all
the kings of Israel that were before him.
This has been a week busy with political events,
judging from the newspaper headlines. And on
Monday, we celebrate Labor Day.
Whenever the subject of politics comes to the
forefront, just as it does during these times,
the word hubris comes to mind.
"Aristotle defined hubris as follows: to cause
shame to the victim, not in order that anything
may happen to you, nor because anything has
happened to you, but merely for your own
gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past
injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in
hubris, its cause is this: men think that by
ill-treating others they make their own
superiority the greater."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
And that's the level of public discourse related
to modern politics. Say something negative about
the other candidate in order to make yourself
look more appealing. But in the end, it leaves
me with no sense of admiration for all concerned.
What I tend to pay closest attention to is which
candidates draw criticism from which
spokespersons. It's the clearest indication, to
me, of what candidates are really like. Those
outspoken members of the opposition let you know
what candidates are likely to believe. You can
tell who a person is by who their enemies are.
The thing that I dislike the most about politics
is the deception and compromise. One reason for
that is because I don't believe that it's always
that difficult to know the difference between
what's right and wrong. But that's not the
language of politics. As I understand it, the
language of politics is making deals. In other
words, it's nothing but a swamp of compromise.
I realize that there isn't
much interest in doing what's right. I realize
that many people are far too compromised
personally to ever be able to have even a faint
desire to do what's right. So in the end,
politics is simply a reflection of the corruption
that exists at the personal level. And it's
always been that way. I won't be able to fix it.
Whenever I think of politics, what often comes to
mind is the record of King Ahab in hebrew
scripture, and his charming wife Jezebel. The
story goes on over the course of several
chapters, the kingdom of man represented by Ahab
and Jezebel versus the kingdom of heaven
represented by Elijah. It seems that the general
populace was apathetic.
"Apathy (also called impassivity or
perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference,
where an individual has an absence of interest or
concern to certain aspects of emotional, social,
or physical life.
History
Apathy etymologically derives from the Greek
απάθεια (apatheia), a term used by the Stoics to
signify indifference for what one is not
responsible for (that is, according to their
philosophy, all things exterior, one being only
responsible of his representations and
judgments).
Many Christians believe that the concept was then
reappropriated by Christians, who adopted the
term to express a contempt of all earthly
concerns, a state of mortification, as (they
claim) the gospel prescribes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathy
I Kings 18
17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah,
that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that
troubleth Israel?
18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel;
but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have
forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou
hast followed Baalim.
19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all
Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of
Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets
of the groves four hundred, which eat at
Jezebel's table.
20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel,
and gathered the prophets together unto mount
Carmel.
21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,
How long halt ye between two opinions? if the
LORD be G-d, follow him: but if Baal, then follow
him. And the people answered him not a word.
Elijah was not the type given to apathy, even
though the popular majority showed indifference
toward Baal worship. '...the people answered him
not a word.' As I see it, things are not that
much different today. It's well known that many
eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.
One of the primary reasons is that people have
the sense that they are not being represented by
the 'system' and they sense that there is little
interest on the part of any within the power
structure to do what's right. In other words,
there are many people who recognize that the
nature of compromise, the compromise within
politics and personal compromise prevent
constructive action. On the other hand, Elijah
had the attitude that even if he was the only
one, he would take a stand against evil.
18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I
only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's
prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
Nothing's changed much over the years. Politics
is still mired in compromise, the public is mired
in apathy and personal compromise. And there are
still a few who can't sell out in spite of the
fact that they will be marginalized and socially
stigmatized. Another thing that hasn't changed
is that there is still a difference between right
and wrong, between truth and error. Political
process won't lead us there, popular apathy won't
take us there, but the kingdom of heaven will
eventually arrive in the fullness of time.
Elijah did what needed to be done, in his time.
He brought an end to Baal worship, although it
was not completely eliminated until years later
when Jehu became king.
Over the next few chapters, the story of Ahab and
Jezebel continues. It's a sad story of continued
compromise and apathy, characterized by endless
conflict. Corrupt leadership brings only misery
upon a nation. And during their reign, Ahab and
Jezebel brought a great deal of misery upon their
people. In other words, compromise is not the
virtue that it is advertised to be. It is a
practice that bears the fruit of misery, as it
was under the rule of Ahab and Jezebel.
You can come to your own conclusions about how
this carries over into modern society. Just like
me, you can examine the social metrics and take
stock of your own personal situation. Do you
believe that things are heading in the right
direction? Personally, I find evidence that the
misery index is already into the high-stress
range, and the kingdom of man is on a course that
will only generate more of the same and increased
conflict. Look around.
On the other hand, the kingdom of heaven offers
an alternative. And the day will come when Jesus
retuns to set the record straight. In the
definition of apathy, the wikipedia entry says
that christians... 'adopted the term to express a
contempt of all earthly concerns, a state of
mortification, as (they claim) the gospel
prescribes.' I don't know how anyone can arrive
at that conclusion, if they've ever read the
gospels. In fact Jesus taught that christians
were to pursue the kingdom of heaven while here
on earth, to do his will in the here and now.
Sure, it's at odds with popular culture. But the
Apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans, 'And be
not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye
may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of G-d.' Rom. 12:2 That would not
provide an excuse for personal compromise and
apathy or a 'state of mortification', as the wiki
entry suggests. In spite of the confusion that
rules the kingdom of man, christians are to be
ruled by the peace that characterizes knowing and
doing the 'will of G-d'. That's an alternative
to the kingdom of man.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Solzhenitsyn and Russia - East and West
Ezekiel 38
1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land
of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,
and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I am
against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech
and Tubal:
4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into
thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all
thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them
clothed with all sorts of armor, even a great
company with bucklers and shields, all of them
handling swords:
5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of
them with shield and helmet:
6 Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah
of the north quarters, and all his bands: and
many people with thee.
Ezekiel 39
1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against
Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I
am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal:
2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the
sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come
up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon
the mountains of Israel:
3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand,
and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy
right hand.
4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel,
thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is
with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous
birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the
field to be devoured.
5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have
spoken it, saith the Lord G-D.
In the first verse Gog is interpreted to be
Russia, Meshech is Moscow and Tubal is the
province of Tobolsk. These passages describe an
army of six nations that will mount an invasion
against Israel in a sneak attack. They will
launch the attack from the north, out of the
country of Russia.
This is a prophetic passage that has not yet been
fulfilled. There is more detail about this
invasion in these two chapters, but I won't go
into the other details. I just want to look at
the fact that this is an invasion from the north,
that consists of an army from six different
countries. The motivation is that the Lord will
'put hooks into thy jaws', in order to draw these
nations together for an invasion.
What we see happening in this region right now,
is setting the stage for the fulfillment of
prophetic scripture. For now, there is no six
nation alliance gathering to mount an invasion of
the nation of Israel, as far as I know. Recent
events show that Russia is just putting the bear
hug on former Soviet states to secure its own
borders.
Walvoord offers these comments:
"The prophecy against Gog is one of the most
dramatic predictions of Ezekiel. Many details of
the prophecy are not entirely clear, but the man
thrust of the prediction is not difficult to
understand. The passage predicted an invasion of
Israel by a great army that will attack Israel
from the north...
This passage is a part of the predictions of the
great world conflict which will characterize the
years just before the Second Coming. Though
Bible expositors have differed as to when this
fits into the prophetic picture, it is plausible
that preceeding this event the prediction of the
revived Roman Empire, a ten-nation confederacy,
will be fulfilled...
As the battle described here is a disaster for
the invading countries, it may change the
political power structure to such an extent that
it will be possible for the Roman leader of the
ten nations to become a world dictator...
The Great Tribulation also records another
mammoth world war (Dan. 11:40-45; Rev. 16:12-16)
which will occur just before the Second Coming.
This should be distinguished from the war in
Ezekiel 38-39 which is not a world conflict but a
war between a select group of nations attacking
Israel.
In the quarter of a century since World War II
Russia has risen to be one of the great military
powers of the modern world. To a far greater
extent than ever before Russiahas become a
prominent nation, especially in its influence on
the Middle East...
According to Scripture the invaders will be
totally destroyed which, undoubtedly, will have
an effect on the world power struggle in which
Russia is now a major factor... (the ten-nation
confederacy will be free to act at this point)
The war centering in Armageddon is one which
involves all the nations of the world. The
Russian war is predominantly Russia with six
allies. The Armageddon struggle covers all the
Holy Land, but the war with Russia is settled on
the northern mountain of Israel... The scenes are
different." pp 188-191
The latest news of the Russian invasion of
Georgia is a reminder of the recent passing of
solzhenitsyn on August 8th of this year, and the
address that he made in 1978 at the Harvard
University commencement ceremony. It's worth
having another look at the address to guage how
events are unfolding in the east.
Solzhenitsyn said,"A decline in courage may be
the most striking feature that an outside
observer notices in the West today. The Western
world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole
and separately, in each country, in each
government, in each political party, and, of
course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in
courage is particularly noticeable among the
ruling and intellectual elites, causing an
impression of a loss of courage by the entire
society. There are many courageous individuals,
but they have no determining influence on public
life."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Solzhenits
ynHarvard.php
"Russian troops poured into South Ossetia on
August 8 to repel a Georgian attempt to regain
control of the breakaway region. After smashing
Georgia's small US-trained army in South Ossetia,
Russian troops then pushed deep into Georgia,
including through Abkhazia."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_afp/georg
iarussiaconflict
Russian military had been making preparations to
move into Georgia for a while. It wasn't a big
surprise to those who were paying attention. But
it sends a message to the world about the
direction of Russian interests. Even though the
Soviet Union fell apart in the 1980's, there are
still those in Russia whose idea of independence
is not that much different than the senile
alchoholics who ran the Soviet Union. I'm not a
student of Russian political personalities, but
from what little I read, Mr. Putin fully intends
that Russia control the region bordering Europe
and Middle Eastern countries. Of course, the
unspoken yet fully understood objective is
complete control of petroleum resources, and
therefore, complete control of western economies.
Look at what has happened to the West - Europe
and the U.S. For hundreds of years there was no
serious challenge to the leading role played by
Western Europe and the U.S. Economic control was
centered in the Western world. In times past,
the level of economic superiority of the west was
stunning. One indication of that was the fact
that you could travel almost anywhere in the
world and people would gladly accept U.S.
currency as payment. That's changing.
One of the primary reasons for change is the
energy dependence of western countries on the
petroleum resources of eastern countries. Mr.
Putin knows this. Western Europe and the U.S.
have a problem. They both have petroleum based
economies that rely on imported supplies. This
situation creates an opportunity for the
exploitation of East-West political tension.
Solzhenitsyn titled his address, 'A World Split
Apart' in reference to the conflict between
Eastern-Western worldviews. What he saw as he
viewed Western societies was a lack of moral
direction and courage. From his own experience,
he knew that this was a serious flaw. I would
suggest that one primary reason that we find
ourselves in this position is exactly because of
what Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his address to
Harvard as far back as 1978. There is a lack of
spiritual energy in Western society, that is not
lacking in the Eastern. As Schaeffer has pointed
out, Christian theology has been infiltrated by
modern western notions of 'truth'. What we have
left is only a shell of western christian
influence in society. In other words, we don't
have anything left to believe in. But the
Eastern worldview is fully energized by its envy
and loathing of Western society.
You see, if we had a shared sense of moral
clarity, we wouldn't question the idea of taking
and maintaining a leadership role in the world.
But we don't have that shared clarity, and we
don't desire a leadership role. We've become
irrelevant. And Russia just sent us that
message.
So we see world events unfolding before our eyes.
We see things taking shape in the Middle East,
Europe and Asia and we see what's happening in
this country. But how do we interpret the
significance of events? I'd suggest that for the
time being, in the U.S. there is a sense that
things are not well, but there isn't any desire
to address the real issues either at home or
offshore. Recent world events make us
uncomfortable, but we'd rather not confront the
realities, right now.
Scripture has something to say about the
significance of world events. As I've written
before about the book of Daniel, I believe that
one reason that we have the prophecy of scripture
related to end times is that in spite of all the
chaos and confusion caused by a world in crisis,
we can have the full assurance that it is under
Divine direction. Scripture provides us with
everything we need to know about the direction
and significance of world events as the end of
time draws near.
In the last post, I closed with the opening
passage of the book of Revelation. Looking at
developments in Europe and Asia over the past ten
or twenty years in light of prophetic scripture
leads to the conclusion that the time is very
soon at hand. The book of Ezekiel has a prophecy
that is directed toward Gog -- a nation whose
army will attack Israel from the north. Gog is
interpreted to be the modern nation of Russia.
Implications are that the West is totally corrupt
and rotting from the inside out. And the Church
of Jesus Christ will soon be taken out of the
earth to make way for the final assault of the
kingdom of man (Babylon) on the kingdom of heaven
(Jerusalem). But it will not succeed.
1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land
of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,
and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I am
against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech
and Tubal:
4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into
thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all
thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them
clothed with all sorts of armor, even a great
company with bucklers and shields, all of them
handling swords:
5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of
them with shield and helmet:
6 Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah
of the north quarters, and all his bands: and
many people with thee.
Ezekiel 39
1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against
Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I
am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal:
2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the
sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come
up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon
the mountains of Israel:
3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand,
and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy
right hand.
4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel,
thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is
with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous
birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the
field to be devoured.
5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have
spoken it, saith the Lord G-D.
In the first verse Gog is interpreted to be
Russia, Meshech is Moscow and Tubal is the
province of Tobolsk. These passages describe an
army of six nations that will mount an invasion
against Israel in a sneak attack. They will
launch the attack from the north, out of the
country of Russia.
This is a prophetic passage that has not yet been
fulfilled. There is more detail about this
invasion in these two chapters, but I won't go
into the other details. I just want to look at
the fact that this is an invasion from the north,
that consists of an army from six different
countries. The motivation is that the Lord will
'put hooks into thy jaws', in order to draw these
nations together for an invasion.
What we see happening in this region right now,
is setting the stage for the fulfillment of
prophetic scripture. For now, there is no six
nation alliance gathering to mount an invasion of
the nation of Israel, as far as I know. Recent
events show that Russia is just putting the bear
hug on former Soviet states to secure its own
borders.
Walvoord offers these comments:
"The prophecy against Gog is one of the most
dramatic predictions of Ezekiel. Many details of
the prophecy are not entirely clear, but the man
thrust of the prediction is not difficult to
understand. The passage predicted an invasion of
Israel by a great army that will attack Israel
from the north...
This passage is a part of the predictions of the
great world conflict which will characterize the
years just before the Second Coming. Though
Bible expositors have differed as to when this
fits into the prophetic picture, it is plausible
that preceeding this event the prediction of the
revived Roman Empire, a ten-nation confederacy,
will be fulfilled...
As the battle described here is a disaster for
the invading countries, it may change the
political power structure to such an extent that
it will be possible for the Roman leader of the
ten nations to become a world dictator...
The Great Tribulation also records another
mammoth world war (Dan. 11:40-45; Rev. 16:12-16)
which will occur just before the Second Coming.
This should be distinguished from the war in
Ezekiel 38-39 which is not a world conflict but a
war between a select group of nations attacking
Israel.
In the quarter of a century since World War II
Russia has risen to be one of the great military
powers of the modern world. To a far greater
extent than ever before Russiahas become a
prominent nation, especially in its influence on
the Middle East...
According to Scripture the invaders will be
totally destroyed which, undoubtedly, will have
an effect on the world power struggle in which
Russia is now a major factor... (the ten-nation
confederacy will be free to act at this point)
The war centering in Armageddon is one which
involves all the nations of the world. The
Russian war is predominantly Russia with six
allies. The Armageddon struggle covers all the
Holy Land, but the war with Russia is settled on
the northern mountain of Israel... The scenes are
different." pp 188-191
The latest news of the Russian invasion of
Georgia is a reminder of the recent passing of
solzhenitsyn on August 8th of this year, and the
address that he made in 1978 at the Harvard
University commencement ceremony. It's worth
having another look at the address to guage how
events are unfolding in the east.
Solzhenitsyn said,"A decline in courage may be
the most striking feature that an outside
observer notices in the West today. The Western
world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole
and separately, in each country, in each
government, in each political party, and, of
course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in
courage is particularly noticeable among the
ruling and intellectual elites, causing an
impression of a loss of courage by the entire
society. There are many courageous individuals,
but they have no determining influence on public
life."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Solzhenits
ynHarvard.php
"Russian troops poured into South Ossetia on
August 8 to repel a Georgian attempt to regain
control of the breakaway region. After smashing
Georgia's small US-trained army in South Ossetia,
Russian troops then pushed deep into Georgia,
including through Abkhazia."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_afp/georg
iarussiaconflict
Russian military had been making preparations to
move into Georgia for a while. It wasn't a big
surprise to those who were paying attention. But
it sends a message to the world about the
direction of Russian interests. Even though the
Soviet Union fell apart in the 1980's, there are
still those in Russia whose idea of independence
is not that much different than the senile
alchoholics who ran the Soviet Union. I'm not a
student of Russian political personalities, but
from what little I read, Mr. Putin fully intends
that Russia control the region bordering Europe
and Middle Eastern countries. Of course, the
unspoken yet fully understood objective is
complete control of petroleum resources, and
therefore, complete control of western economies.
Look at what has happened to the West - Europe
and the U.S. For hundreds of years there was no
serious challenge to the leading role played by
Western Europe and the U.S. Economic control was
centered in the Western world. In times past,
the level of economic superiority of the west was
stunning. One indication of that was the fact
that you could travel almost anywhere in the
world and people would gladly accept U.S.
currency as payment. That's changing.
One of the primary reasons for change is the
energy dependence of western countries on the
petroleum resources of eastern countries. Mr.
Putin knows this. Western Europe and the U.S.
have a problem. They both have petroleum based
economies that rely on imported supplies. This
situation creates an opportunity for the
exploitation of East-West political tension.
Solzhenitsyn titled his address, 'A World Split
Apart' in reference to the conflict between
Eastern-Western worldviews. What he saw as he
viewed Western societies was a lack of moral
direction and courage. From his own experience,
he knew that this was a serious flaw. I would
suggest that one primary reason that we find
ourselves in this position is exactly because of
what Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his address to
Harvard as far back as 1978. There is a lack of
spiritual energy in Western society, that is not
lacking in the Eastern. As Schaeffer has pointed
out, Christian theology has been infiltrated by
modern western notions of 'truth'. What we have
left is only a shell of western christian
influence in society. In other words, we don't
have anything left to believe in. But the
Eastern worldview is fully energized by its envy
and loathing of Western society.
You see, if we had a shared sense of moral
clarity, we wouldn't question the idea of taking
and maintaining a leadership role in the world.
But we don't have that shared clarity, and we
don't desire a leadership role. We've become
irrelevant. And Russia just sent us that
message.
So we see world events unfolding before our eyes.
We see things taking shape in the Middle East,
Europe and Asia and we see what's happening in
this country. But how do we interpret the
significance of events? I'd suggest that for the
time being, in the U.S. there is a sense that
things are not well, but there isn't any desire
to address the real issues either at home or
offshore. Recent world events make us
uncomfortable, but we'd rather not confront the
realities, right now.
Scripture has something to say about the
significance of world events. As I've written
before about the book of Daniel, I believe that
one reason that we have the prophecy of scripture
related to end times is that in spite of all the
chaos and confusion caused by a world in crisis,
we can have the full assurance that it is under
Divine direction. Scripture provides us with
everything we need to know about the direction
and significance of world events as the end of
time draws near.
In the last post, I closed with the opening
passage of the book of Revelation. Looking at
developments in Europe and Asia over the past ten
or twenty years in light of prophetic scripture
leads to the conclusion that the time is very
soon at hand. The book of Ezekiel has a prophecy
that is directed toward Gog -- a nation whose
army will attack Israel from the north. Gog is
interpreted to be the modern nation of Russia.
Implications are that the West is totally corrupt
and rotting from the inside out. And the Church
of Jesus Christ will soon be taken out of the
earth to make way for the final assault of the
kingdom of man (Babylon) on the kingdom of heaven
(Jerusalem). But it will not succeed.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
In These Things I Delight
Jeremiah 9
23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man
glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in
his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that
he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the
LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and
righteousness, in the earth: for in these things
I delight, saith the LORD.
So, we have to come to the point where we
recognize that there are two parallel, yet
overlapping dimensions that we live in. There is
the kingdom of man and the kingdom of heaven.
One of the things that we see in scripture is
that the sphere of man's influence is limited by
the higher order and authority of heaven's rule.
It ought to be obvious. We have a grasp of the
concept of the infinite, but we experience life
in terms of our finite personal relationship to
everything else, all the while knowing that there
is more out there that we haven't yet
encountered.
Let me suggest that one of the common desires of
man is immortality. It's expressed in a variety
of ways. One of the more personal ways that we
experience it is in our fear or loathing of
death. We wish to be remembered. But we will
soon be forgotten. Do you know who lives on the
other side of your back yard? They are not
immortal either, but they will want to be buried
with a grave marker.
One of the greatest contradictions of modern myth
is the impersonal view of man. And the promoters
of myth also wish to create an impersonal god in
their own contradictory view. This lies at the
foundation of the myth of evolution. There is a
desperate desire to portray man and god as
totally impersonal. And it's apparent that it
has nothing to do with science. Science can't
answer the question of whether or not personality
exist. Only religion or myth can. Yet, in
everyday experience, we see first-hand that our
lives revolve around an axis of personal
interaction. If you're like me, you may not
enjoy all the personal interaction, but I can't
deny that it's a central aspect of my daily
activity.
You would think that these folks are clever
enough to see that they are playing a game that
they can't win -- the dogmatic evolutionists.
Everyday people can see right through the myth of
an impersonal creation, because they experience
life surrounded by other people. The human
experience is deeply personal. Dogmatic
assertions can't change the human experience.
Human experience and the rejection of mythology
doesn't automatically imply that the ancient text
of scripture is true. The testimony of history
verifies the truth of scripture.
Unless, of course, you believe the other fantasy
known as relativism. In that case history was
true for them but may not be for me. And we have
to then go back to the idea that the only
validation of truth is how we experience it. Or,
your truth is different from my truth. The
fantasy of relativism leads only to chaos and
confusion, the normal state of the kingdom of
man.
But science shows that there is order in the
universe, and there is very little room for
error. Misplace one character in a computer
program, for instance, and it just won't work.
How much more elaborate is the design of
biological life? It's another aspect of the
contradiction of modern myth. Even though it
masquerades as science, it is just the opposite.
The prophet Jeremiah got this message a long time
ago. He put it all in one simple statement. It
is glorious to know the nature of who the Lord
is, who man is and what the earth is. There is
an established order that will never be subject
to the whim of men's fantasy.
This passage implies that the things that really
matter are not wisdom, strength or riches (the
goals of 'evolution'), but rather a well ordered
relationship between man, his Creator and fellow
man. The Lord requires that there needs to be
recognition that the personal level is where we
find our true identity. Lovingkindness,
judgement and righteousness are aspects of
relationship to our Creator and fellow man.
You can see right away that the kingdom of man
has it all wrong.
Some suggest that we need a revolution. I'd
settle for a revelation, although revolution is
the more likely course of events, judging from
the past. The revelation will arrive at its
appointed time. The time is at hand.
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which G-d gave
unto him, to shew unto his servants things which
must shortly come to pass; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of G-d, and of the
testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that
he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for the time is at
hand.
23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man
glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in
his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that
he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the
LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and
righteousness, in the earth: for in these things
I delight, saith the LORD.
So, we have to come to the point where we
recognize that there are two parallel, yet
overlapping dimensions that we live in. There is
the kingdom of man and the kingdom of heaven.
One of the things that we see in scripture is
that the sphere of man's influence is limited by
the higher order and authority of heaven's rule.
It ought to be obvious. We have a grasp of the
concept of the infinite, but we experience life
in terms of our finite personal relationship to
everything else, all the while knowing that there
is more out there that we haven't yet
encountered.
Let me suggest that one of the common desires of
man is immortality. It's expressed in a variety
of ways. One of the more personal ways that we
experience it is in our fear or loathing of
death. We wish to be remembered. But we will
soon be forgotten. Do you know who lives on the
other side of your back yard? They are not
immortal either, but they will want to be buried
with a grave marker.
One of the greatest contradictions of modern myth
is the impersonal view of man. And the promoters
of myth also wish to create an impersonal god in
their own contradictory view. This lies at the
foundation of the myth of evolution. There is a
desperate desire to portray man and god as
totally impersonal. And it's apparent that it
has nothing to do with science. Science can't
answer the question of whether or not personality
exist. Only religion or myth can. Yet, in
everyday experience, we see first-hand that our
lives revolve around an axis of personal
interaction. If you're like me, you may not
enjoy all the personal interaction, but I can't
deny that it's a central aspect of my daily
activity.
You would think that these folks are clever
enough to see that they are playing a game that
they can't win -- the dogmatic evolutionists.
Everyday people can see right through the myth of
an impersonal creation, because they experience
life surrounded by other people. The human
experience is deeply personal. Dogmatic
assertions can't change the human experience.
Human experience and the rejection of mythology
doesn't automatically imply that the ancient text
of scripture is true. The testimony of history
verifies the truth of scripture.
Unless, of course, you believe the other fantasy
known as relativism. In that case history was
true for them but may not be for me. And we have
to then go back to the idea that the only
validation of truth is how we experience it. Or,
your truth is different from my truth. The
fantasy of relativism leads only to chaos and
confusion, the normal state of the kingdom of
man.
But science shows that there is order in the
universe, and there is very little room for
error. Misplace one character in a computer
program, for instance, and it just won't work.
How much more elaborate is the design of
biological life? It's another aspect of the
contradiction of modern myth. Even though it
masquerades as science, it is just the opposite.
The prophet Jeremiah got this message a long time
ago. He put it all in one simple statement. It
is glorious to know the nature of who the Lord
is, who man is and what the earth is. There is
an established order that will never be subject
to the whim of men's fantasy.
This passage implies that the things that really
matter are not wisdom, strength or riches (the
goals of 'evolution'), but rather a well ordered
relationship between man, his Creator and fellow
man. The Lord requires that there needs to be
recognition that the personal level is where we
find our true identity. Lovingkindness,
judgement and righteousness are aspects of
relationship to our Creator and fellow man.
You can see right away that the kingdom of man
has it all wrong.
Some suggest that we need a revolution. I'd
settle for a revelation, although revolution is
the more likely course of events, judging from
the past. The revelation will arrive at its
appointed time. The time is at hand.
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which G-d gave
unto him, to shew unto his servants things which
must shortly come to pass; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of G-d, and of the
testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that
he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for the time is at
hand.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Schedule Change
Beginning this Monday, I have a new schedule and will post weekly rather than daily.
I'll be able to write either Saturday or Sunday afternoon. We'll see how the new schedule works out.
I'll be able to write either Saturday or Sunday afternoon. We'll see how the new schedule works out.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Eyewitness
I Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye
have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in
memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have
believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all
the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of
one born out of due time.
Hmmm. After rereading the post from Saturday, I
see a couple mistakes that need correction. But
the central message is as clear as a bell. In my
view, Schaeffer did an excellent job of sorting
through the confusion of modern ideas. And I'm
left with the observation that theology, an
accurate view of G-d, man and the world, is
absolutely required in order to make sense of any
activity that men are busy with. Without being
properly centered around the Creator, the
activity of man leads to confusion,
meaninglessness and vanity.(This is
characteristic of what Schaeffer calls
'despair'.) If you read the founding documents
of this country you'll see that the authors of
those documents held the same opinion, since
they were mostly if not all, theologically
literate men. They clearly understood the
difference between the kingdom of heaven and the
kingdom of man.
One of the glaring omissions in public and
private life in the modern age is the lack of
theological literacy. I'm completely baffled by
the effort that men make, in order to ignore the
record of scripture and the record of secular
history. They can't really believe that in the
present age that we will be successful in
efforts that always failed in the past? You'd
think that especially in a technically advanced
society that there would be recognition of the
fact that there is a rule of Law in every
dimension of the universe. The physical universe
is orderly, but the social universe, ruled by the
kingdom of man shows no respect for the Law. Can
anyone really believe that the result is going to
be good? Has it ever worked out in the past? To
some degree, it depends on what you mean by
'worked out'. What I mean by 'worked out' is the
never ending military activity and social
conflict that characterizes every chapter in the
history of the kingdom of man. In the absence of
theological literacy, the failures of the kingdom
of man are impossible to accurately understand --
nothing will ever be gained from the experience.
What I can see is that without theological
literacy, all of human activity is centered in
immediate gratification. The rule is, I have to
take whatever I can at any cost, and I have to do
it as quickly as possible without any concern for
the welfare of others. This rule is applied
across the board. The measure of success is only
the immediate gratification. Focus becomes very
short term in most cases. And any sense of
satisfaction is immediately lost on the next urge
that demands gratification. It's a junkie
mindset that results from the lack of theological
literacy.
What troubles me is that as time passes, modern
social activities are looking more and more like
they revolve around the junkie behavioral model.
It's not just me making this up. Over the past
couple years, I've been clued-in to the changes
taking place in social behavior by some of the
things that I read. I seldom watch TV, but it
offers further evidence of the prevalence of the
junkie mindset.
This is all written in generalizations, but I can
be specific. I can go on at the personal level,
about my marriage and the toll it's taken there.
And I've seen enough to know that it's not just
me. I can go on about the present condition of
the financial world, but Lowenstein already did a
book on Enron/Arthur Anderson that accurately
characterizes the condition there. I can go on
about the political situation, but that's water
under the bridge. I can go further down the path
with observations about the entertainment/media
conplex. Or I can relate my experience traveling
across the country from coast to coast. In every
area of social life, across the entire spectrum
of American experience there is a decline induced
by what I identify as the junkie mindset of
self-centered immediate gratification.
My conclusion is that it will all end badly, and
this country is no longer a safe and healthy
environment for raising children. Oh, we've
managed to build a massive house of cards, but
where do we go from here? The stage is set for
social decline. The only question in my mind is
whether the decline will be a sudden collapse or
a long drawn out series of social conflicts.
History shows that it can go either way, but I
don't have any insight into the factors that
determine the course of events or where a tipping
point might be or a possible catalyst for
accelerating the inevitable. Some of the
conspiracy theories offer different views as to
the source and motivation for change, but I'm
more inclined to believe that the flaws are found
in human nature, as it is accurately described in
theological terms. The kingdom of man wishes to
worship the god of this world -- satan. And
satan is eager to destroy the souls of men, with
the empty promise of worldly pleasure and power.
Always, in the end, that path leads to the junkie
mindset. And that mindset cannot provide a safe
and healthy environment.
In my travels, I saw that the safest and
healthiest environments were in those locales
that would be considered 'backwards' in the naive
perspective of the modern mind. I never saw gang
grafitti in an Amish community, for instance.
But in any region where there is an abundance of
'adult entertainment', you will also find
grafitti and bars on windows and doors, or other
types of security measures required. It doesn't
require any genius to figure it out. It's
obvious. Personally, I don't want to live in a
neighborhood or region that's littered with
grafitti or has criminal activity of any kind.
(In fact, I personally dislike any area that's
littered with billboards.) But that's the most
obvious signal of the general decline in social
standards from coast to coast. The 'adult
entertainment' that used to be confined in ghetto
areas across the country has come to be
acceptable in almost every urban setting. There
was a time when it was considered to be
undesireable to have an 'adult' establishment in
a community. The ghetto, along with the junkie
mindset is no longer contained within the
confines of undesireable neighborhoods. On the
other hand, it might be that there are just more
undesireable neighborhoods, and the extent of
that undesireability is reflected by the
ubiquitous presence of 'adult' establishments.
The entire country has been turned into a
'ghetto'. I prefer 'backwards' to 'ghetto' any
day of the week.
It seems my preference puts me firmly in the
minority position. The transformation of the
urban landscape into oversized ghettos doesn't
seem to bother most people very much, unless I'm
just not aware of a silent majority. I'd suspect
that there are other metrics that could be
applied in order to make a case for the expansion
of ghetto Amerika. You know, high school dropout
rates, teen pregnancy, unemployment, petty crime,
drug use, general incidence of police activity
and other social trends. Maybe someone's already
written a book. I don't know what sociologists
study these days. All I know is what I've seen
traveling from coast to coast, and if that is any
indication of the majority position, then I'm
clearly in the minority.
If the rise of ghetto culture in this country is
any indication of what's to come, then it's hard
to be solidly optimistic about the future of this
country. Of course, the kingdom of man has no
future, but that's another topic. To draw any
conclusion about the future rate of decline is to
speculate. But if my observations are accurate,
one thing that is characteristic of the ghetto
culture is that it is inherently unstable. It's
a world that revolves around 'me'. That
instability tends to be a destructive and
volatile force, if the past is any indication.
So if I were to speculate about the decline that
lies ahead, I'd have to expect that it will be an
accelerating trend. Unless events make a sudden
and unexpected turnaround, there is little reason
for optimism about the most likely outcome for
ghetto Amerika.
The question to answer is, Will ghetto Amerika be
contained? My guess is that it will be widely
contained, but probably absent in many of the
more rural (backward) areas of the U.S.
Here's another quote from Schaeffer:
"There is a real tension in being a modern man
because no one can live at ease in the area of
despair. A Christian knows that this is because
man has been made in the image of G-d and though
man is fallen, separated from G-d by his true
guilt, yet nevertheless he has not become a
machine. The falleness of man does not lead to
'machineness', but to 'fallen-manness'.
Therefore, when people feel this utter despair,
there is a titanic pressure, like being extruded
against all the long history of reasoned thinking
to accept a dichotomy, and then later to accept
some mysticism which gives an illusion of unity
to the whole."
"I remember sitting in a Lyons' Corner House near
Marble Arch in London some years ago, talking to
a brilliant young physicist. I asked him about
the latest work he was doing, and he told me
about a new idea that he thought might solve
Einstein's problem concerning electromagnetism
and gravity. He became very enthusiastic about
this, because I knew enough about the subject to
stimulate him, and he was far away in thought.
Then I brought him back by saying, 'This is fine
for the Christian, who really knows who he is, to
say that the material universe may finally be
reduced to energy particles moving in opposite
directions in a vortex, but what about your
naturalistic colleagues? What happens to them
when they go home to their wives and families at
night?' "
"He paused for a moment and then said, 'Oh, Dr.
Schaeffer, they just have to live in a
dichotomy.'"
"The very 'mannishness' of man refuses to live in
the logic of the position to which his humanism
and rationalism have brought him. To say that I
am only a machine is one thing; to live
consistently as if this were true is quite
another." pp 67-8
Another simplistic way to understand what
Schaeffer says here is to realize that even
though a person believes in evolution, except in
rare instances they live with the contradiction
between what they want to believe about evolution
and how they relate to others on a personal
level. You see, evolution says that we have no
purpose or meaning in this life except to eat,
sleep, reproduce and die. That's it. But at the
personal level, we know that others, especially
those whom we love, are more important than, for
instance, our car, our lawn mower or our
parakeet. 'Mannishness' includes the idea that
we are more than just machines with the ability to reproduce.
You might know of people who don't provide much
evidence of 'mannishness', in the sense that it
is a reflection of the image of their Creator,
but the very fact that you recognize that man is
meant for more than reproduction is evidence of
the Divine nature planted in man. So the
naturalist lives with that contradiction between
what he wants to believe and what he does; the
dichotomy that creates tension.
I mention evolution because it's the popular
mythology. Schaeffer mentions field theory in
this quote. But the unifying concept is the same
as far as how the personal nature of man fits
into the physical universe. Cosmology can't
explain the personal nature of man any better
than the theory of evolution. The dichotomy is
still there. It just gets brushed aside. A
clever cosmologist will carefully avoid the
question because he knows that he doesn't have an
answer. Jesus made some people uncomfortable
because he confronted them with their own nature.
(Jesus kept telling them, I am your answer.)
Christians still do the same today because they
don't live with the dichotomy that creates so
much tension within modern man and his popular
mythology.
"On the basis of biblical Christianity a rational
discussion and consideration can take place,
because it is fixed in the stuff of history.
When Paul was asked whether Jesus was raised from
the dead, he gave a completely nonreligious
answer, in the twentieth-century sense. He said,
'There are almost 500 living witnesses; go and
ask them!' This is the faith that involves the
whole man, including his reason; it does not ask
for a belief into the void. As the
twentieth-century mentality would understand the
concept of religion, the Bible is a nonreligious
book." pp 69-70
In other words, in the passage of scripture above
the Apostle says that what he experienced is
something that has also been the experience of
500 or more other people. It is not some kind of
mystical experience that can't be communicated or
was experienced in a different way by each of the
500 other people. It is a concrete fact of
historical record that Jesus arose from the tomb
and was seen by at least 500 eyewitnesses. Jesus
demonstrated his power over death, hell and the
grave. Given that level of demonstrated
authority, we ought to be listening to what Jesus
had to say about who G-d is, who man is and what
the world is.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye
have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in
memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have
believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all
the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of
one born out of due time.
Hmmm. After rereading the post from Saturday, I
see a couple mistakes that need correction. But
the central message is as clear as a bell. In my
view, Schaeffer did an excellent job of sorting
through the confusion of modern ideas. And I'm
left with the observation that theology, an
accurate view of G-d, man and the world, is
absolutely required in order to make sense of any
activity that men are busy with. Without being
properly centered around the Creator, the
activity of man leads to confusion,
meaninglessness and vanity.(This is
characteristic of what Schaeffer calls
'despair'.) If you read the founding documents
of this country you'll see that the authors of
those documents held the same opinion, since
they were mostly if not all, theologically
literate men. They clearly understood the
difference between the kingdom of heaven and the
kingdom of man.
One of the glaring omissions in public and
private life in the modern age is the lack of
theological literacy. I'm completely baffled by
the effort that men make, in order to ignore the
record of scripture and the record of secular
history. They can't really believe that in the
present age that we will be successful in
efforts that always failed in the past? You'd
think that especially in a technically advanced
society that there would be recognition of the
fact that there is a rule of Law in every
dimension of the universe. The physical universe
is orderly, but the social universe, ruled by the
kingdom of man shows no respect for the Law. Can
anyone really believe that the result is going to
be good? Has it ever worked out in the past? To
some degree, it depends on what you mean by
'worked out'. What I mean by 'worked out' is the
never ending military activity and social
conflict that characterizes every chapter in the
history of the kingdom of man. In the absence of
theological literacy, the failures of the kingdom
of man are impossible to accurately understand --
nothing will ever be gained from the experience.
What I can see is that without theological
literacy, all of human activity is centered in
immediate gratification. The rule is, I have to
take whatever I can at any cost, and I have to do
it as quickly as possible without any concern for
the welfare of others. This rule is applied
across the board. The measure of success is only
the immediate gratification. Focus becomes very
short term in most cases. And any sense of
satisfaction is immediately lost on the next urge
that demands gratification. It's a junkie
mindset that results from the lack of theological
literacy.
What troubles me is that as time passes, modern
social activities are looking more and more like
they revolve around the junkie behavioral model.
It's not just me making this up. Over the past
couple years, I've been clued-in to the changes
taking place in social behavior by some of the
things that I read. I seldom watch TV, but it
offers further evidence of the prevalence of the
junkie mindset.
This is all written in generalizations, but I can
be specific. I can go on at the personal level,
about my marriage and the toll it's taken there.
And I've seen enough to know that it's not just
me. I can go on about the present condition of
the financial world, but Lowenstein already did a
book on Enron/Arthur Anderson that accurately
characterizes the condition there. I can go on
about the political situation, but that's water
under the bridge. I can go further down the path
with observations about the entertainment/media
conplex. Or I can relate my experience traveling
across the country from coast to coast. In every
area of social life, across the entire spectrum
of American experience there is a decline induced
by what I identify as the junkie mindset of
self-centered immediate gratification.
My conclusion is that it will all end badly, and
this country is no longer a safe and healthy
environment for raising children. Oh, we've
managed to build a massive house of cards, but
where do we go from here? The stage is set for
social decline. The only question in my mind is
whether the decline will be a sudden collapse or
a long drawn out series of social conflicts.
History shows that it can go either way, but I
don't have any insight into the factors that
determine the course of events or where a tipping
point might be or a possible catalyst for
accelerating the inevitable. Some of the
conspiracy theories offer different views as to
the source and motivation for change, but I'm
more inclined to believe that the flaws are found
in human nature, as it is accurately described in
theological terms. The kingdom of man wishes to
worship the god of this world -- satan. And
satan is eager to destroy the souls of men, with
the empty promise of worldly pleasure and power.
Always, in the end, that path leads to the junkie
mindset. And that mindset cannot provide a safe
and healthy environment.
In my travels, I saw that the safest and
healthiest environments were in those locales
that would be considered 'backwards' in the naive
perspective of the modern mind. I never saw gang
grafitti in an Amish community, for instance.
But in any region where there is an abundance of
'adult entertainment', you will also find
grafitti and bars on windows and doors, or other
types of security measures required. It doesn't
require any genius to figure it out. It's
obvious. Personally, I don't want to live in a
neighborhood or region that's littered with
grafitti or has criminal activity of any kind.
(In fact, I personally dislike any area that's
littered with billboards.) But that's the most
obvious signal of the general decline in social
standards from coast to coast. The 'adult
entertainment' that used to be confined in ghetto
areas across the country has come to be
acceptable in almost every urban setting. There
was a time when it was considered to be
undesireable to have an 'adult' establishment in
a community. The ghetto, along with the junkie
mindset is no longer contained within the
confines of undesireable neighborhoods. On the
other hand, it might be that there are just more
undesireable neighborhoods, and the extent of
that undesireability is reflected by the
ubiquitous presence of 'adult' establishments.
The entire country has been turned into a
'ghetto'. I prefer 'backwards' to 'ghetto' any
day of the week.
It seems my preference puts me firmly in the
minority position. The transformation of the
urban landscape into oversized ghettos doesn't
seem to bother most people very much, unless I'm
just not aware of a silent majority. I'd suspect
that there are other metrics that could be
applied in order to make a case for the expansion
of ghetto Amerika. You know, high school dropout
rates, teen pregnancy, unemployment, petty crime,
drug use, general incidence of police activity
and other social trends. Maybe someone's already
written a book. I don't know what sociologists
study these days. All I know is what I've seen
traveling from coast to coast, and if that is any
indication of the majority position, then I'm
clearly in the minority.
If the rise of ghetto culture in this country is
any indication of what's to come, then it's hard
to be solidly optimistic about the future of this
country. Of course, the kingdom of man has no
future, but that's another topic. To draw any
conclusion about the future rate of decline is to
speculate. But if my observations are accurate,
one thing that is characteristic of the ghetto
culture is that it is inherently unstable. It's
a world that revolves around 'me'. That
instability tends to be a destructive and
volatile force, if the past is any indication.
So if I were to speculate about the decline that
lies ahead, I'd have to expect that it will be an
accelerating trend. Unless events make a sudden
and unexpected turnaround, there is little reason
for optimism about the most likely outcome for
ghetto Amerika.
The question to answer is, Will ghetto Amerika be
contained? My guess is that it will be widely
contained, but probably absent in many of the
more rural (backward) areas of the U.S.
Here's another quote from Schaeffer:
"There is a real tension in being a modern man
because no one can live at ease in the area of
despair. A Christian knows that this is because
man has been made in the image of G-d and though
man is fallen, separated from G-d by his true
guilt, yet nevertheless he has not become a
machine. The falleness of man does not lead to
'machineness', but to 'fallen-manness'.
Therefore, when people feel this utter despair,
there is a titanic pressure, like being extruded
against all the long history of reasoned thinking
to accept a dichotomy, and then later to accept
some mysticism which gives an illusion of unity
to the whole."
"I remember sitting in a Lyons' Corner House near
Marble Arch in London some years ago, talking to
a brilliant young physicist. I asked him about
the latest work he was doing, and he told me
about a new idea that he thought might solve
Einstein's problem concerning electromagnetism
and gravity. He became very enthusiastic about
this, because I knew enough about the subject to
stimulate him, and he was far away in thought.
Then I brought him back by saying, 'This is fine
for the Christian, who really knows who he is, to
say that the material universe may finally be
reduced to energy particles moving in opposite
directions in a vortex, but what about your
naturalistic colleagues? What happens to them
when they go home to their wives and families at
night?' "
"He paused for a moment and then said, 'Oh, Dr.
Schaeffer, they just have to live in a
dichotomy.'"
"The very 'mannishness' of man refuses to live in
the logic of the position to which his humanism
and rationalism have brought him. To say that I
am only a machine is one thing; to live
consistently as if this were true is quite
another." pp 67-8
Another simplistic way to understand what
Schaeffer says here is to realize that even
though a person believes in evolution, except in
rare instances they live with the contradiction
between what they want to believe about evolution
and how they relate to others on a personal
level. You see, evolution says that we have no
purpose or meaning in this life except to eat,
sleep, reproduce and die. That's it. But at the
personal level, we know that others, especially
those whom we love, are more important than, for
instance, our car, our lawn mower or our
parakeet. 'Mannishness' includes the idea that
we are more than just machines with the ability to reproduce.
You might know of people who don't provide much
evidence of 'mannishness', in the sense that it
is a reflection of the image of their Creator,
but the very fact that you recognize that man is
meant for more than reproduction is evidence of
the Divine nature planted in man. So the
naturalist lives with that contradiction between
what he wants to believe and what he does; the
dichotomy that creates tension.
I mention evolution because it's the popular
mythology. Schaeffer mentions field theory in
this quote. But the unifying concept is the same
as far as how the personal nature of man fits
into the physical universe. Cosmology can't
explain the personal nature of man any better
than the theory of evolution. The dichotomy is
still there. It just gets brushed aside. A
clever cosmologist will carefully avoid the
question because he knows that he doesn't have an
answer. Jesus made some people uncomfortable
because he confronted them with their own nature.
(Jesus kept telling them, I am your answer.)
Christians still do the same today because they
don't live with the dichotomy that creates so
much tension within modern man and his popular
mythology.
"On the basis of biblical Christianity a rational
discussion and consideration can take place,
because it is fixed in the stuff of history.
When Paul was asked whether Jesus was raised from
the dead, he gave a completely nonreligious
answer, in the twentieth-century sense. He said,
'There are almost 500 living witnesses; go and
ask them!' This is the faith that involves the
whole man, including his reason; it does not ask
for a belief into the void. As the
twentieth-century mentality would understand the
concept of religion, the Bible is a nonreligious
book." pp 69-70
In other words, in the passage of scripture above
the Apostle says that what he experienced is
something that has also been the experience of
500 or more other people. It is not some kind of
mystical experience that can't be communicated or
was experienced in a different way by each of the
500 other people. It is a concrete fact of
historical record that Jesus arose from the tomb
and was seen by at least 500 eyewitnesses. Jesus
demonstrated his power over death, hell and the
grave. Given that level of demonstrated
authority, we ought to be listening to what Jesus
had to say about who G-d is, who man is and what
the world is.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Schaeffer's Answer
Matthew 5
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,
saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be
comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst
after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain
mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see G-d.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be
called the children of G-d.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is
your reward in heaven:
As I read this passage, I have the image of Jesus
pulling his disciples aside at this point in time
to remind them what it's all about. You see,
they had a huge mob of people following after
them about this time. As an analogy, they were
inside groupies of the hottest act in the
country. They were gaining celebrity status. So
Jesus sits them down away from the teeming masses
to remind them of who they really are, who he
really is and what the world is really about. I
imagine him with a big smile on his face, trying
to get the attention of the disciples away from
the distraction of the crowds, so he could take
this opportunity to remind them that this earth
and the kingdom of man, is not Paradise it's just
the opposite. He's saying, in effect, that all
of the images of greatness that they imagine
right now, have nothing to do with the kingdom of
heaven. Nowhere does he say, Blessed are you if
the world treats you well. He says just the
opposite. If the world treats you poorly, it's
then that you are reminded that you have a great
reward awaiting you in the coming kingdom. Jesus
was all about the coming kingdom.
Schaeffer goes on to write of a 'new theology' as
an expression of modern philosophy and culture,
and titles the chapter 'Modern Mysticism: Despair
Beyond Despair'. In the passage above, Jesus
gave one answer, because he IS the answer. When
you meet him, there is no reason to despair,
because the reward is never going to be found in
this world. Jesus is all about the coming
kingdom. I can't hope to attempt an explanation
of all the technical details, but as he makes his
case to describe the present world system,
Schaeffer offers this view:
"...philosophy, art, music, theatre, and so on --
differ in details, and these details are
interesting and important, but in a way they are
only incidental. The distinctive mark of the
twentieth-century intellectual and CULTURAL
climate does not lie in the differences, but in
the unifying concept. The unifying concept is
the concept of a divided field of knowledge.
...the concept of truth and the method of
attaining truth." p 43
If I were to put it in simple terms, I would say
that the unifying concept is simply an absence of
truth. We live in an anything goes society, and
that is self evident to any casual observer who's
had any experience with the 'real world'. It's
usually considered to be naive if you even
mention the possibility of 'absolute truth'.
What strikes me as even more naive is failure to
recognize that truth remains a stubborn presence,
especially in the 'real world'. Yet so many will
swear to its absence.
I don't know how it strikes you, but whenever I
begin to think about the cultural conflict with
'truth', my mind goes to images of Abbott and
Costello's 'Who's on first' routine. The
statement 'there are no absolutes' is a
'first-order' experience of the level of
confusion that characterizes the kingdom of man.
You have to laugh, or you will cry. Oh, never
mind.
So we've come to the point that we've arrived at
a 'new theology' modeled to conform to the
unifying concept (we can't know truth), and the
technique that's been applied is the same that's
used liberally across the social spectrum -- the
misuse of words and symbols. Schaeffer uses the
term 'semantic mysticism' to describe the modern
religious experience that lacks an ability to
describe what the experience is (we can't really
know).
"Real communication is not in fact established,
but an illusion of communication is given by
employing words rich in connotations... Every
word has two parts. There is the dictionary
definition, and there is the connotation... the
new theology uses such words, without
definition... useful in arousing deep
motivations. " p 59
"This is something beyond emotion. An illusion
of communication and content is given so that
when a word is used in this deliberately
undefined way, the hearer 'thinks' he knows what
it means. The use of the word pantheism is a
good example. Though it really speaks of
something absolutely and finally impersonal, yet
the theism part of the word causes a reaction of
acceptance, since theism carries overtones of
personality. Now suppose you were to substitute
the word pan-everythingism (which is what it
really means). The whole reaction would be
different." p 59-60
And then there is the critical point to take away
from this -- "To the new theology, the
usefullness of a symbol is in direct proportion
to its obscurity." p 60 If you don't get
anything else from this discussion, this is the
point to always remember when approaching modern
religion. Symbols have meaning. New theology
does its best to make sure that the authentic
meaning is hidden, so that it can mean something
different to every person. The crucifix is an
example of a popular symbol almost completely
lacking authentic meaning in modern culture. The
crucifix was an instrument used by the ancient
Romans to inspire terror and dread. It's like
wearing a miniature electric chair around your
neck. The meaning of the crucifix is that OUR
guilt before G-d resulted in the wrongful
substitutionary conviction and brutal sacrifice
of Jesus. Yet, he willingly bore OUR guilt and
paid the penalty of OUR rightful death sentence.
There is the obscure meaning -- it means nothing
or it means whatever you want it to mean. And
there is the authentic meaning, that Jesus took
upon himself the guilt of all mankind, and the
paid the full penalty for OUR sin.
"At first acquaintance this concept gives the
feeling of spirituality. 'I do not ask for
answers, I just believe.' This sounds spiritual,
and it deceives many fine people." p 60
And here is what I take away as a very good
response or answer to the situation where we find
ourselves when confronted with new theology:
"Whenever men say they are looking for greater
reality, we must show them at once the reality of
TRUE Christianity. This is real because it is
concerned with the G-d who is there and who has
spoken to us about Himself, not just the symbol
god or christ which sounds spiritual but is not."
p 61
What Schaeffer is getting at in this statement is
the fact that TRUE Christianity relies ONLY on
the doctrines of scripture and not on the
subjective experience of others. ONLY scripture
is able to communicate the essential message
about who we are, who G-d is and what the world
is. Period.
'The symbol god or christ' that Schaeffer refers
to above is represented in the pantheistic idea
that all religions have different names for gods
and christs, but are all the same spiritual
entity. Yet we know that can't be accurate,
since there was only one Jesus, and only one
Bhudda, and only one Mohammed, etc. and they
never claimed to be united as a spiritual entity.
They would be the ones to know about that. In
fact, Jesus claimed just the opposite. He
claimed to have an identity unique from all
others. That was one of the excuses used to turn
him over to the Roman authorities for
crucifixtion -- he claimed to be Divine. On his
cross, Pilate wrote: This is the King of the
Jews. There was no secret about what Jesus
claimed to be. He was not a symbol. He was
authentic. (Proven by the resurrection.)
One of the Jesus People groups from the 60's
called themselves 'Christ Is The Answer'. Now,
we are given the line about experiencing Jesus.
But what Jesus do we want to experience? Are we
looking for the experience of the one mystical
spiritual entity that is supposed to represent
ALL spiritual enlightenment? Or are we looking
for the one authentic Lamb of G-d? You see, man
and the world don't really NEED another
experience so much as they need a Savior. As far
as I know, the only religion that offers an
authentic Savior is the personal G-d who we find
revealed in the pages of scripture. It's just
like the Jesus freaks said in the 60's -- Jesus
IS the answer.
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,
saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be
comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst
after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain
mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see G-d.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be
called the children of G-d.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is
your reward in heaven:
As I read this passage, I have the image of Jesus
pulling his disciples aside at this point in time
to remind them what it's all about. You see,
they had a huge mob of people following after
them about this time. As an analogy, they were
inside groupies of the hottest act in the
country. They were gaining celebrity status. So
Jesus sits them down away from the teeming masses
to remind them of who they really are, who he
really is and what the world is really about. I
imagine him with a big smile on his face, trying
to get the attention of the disciples away from
the distraction of the crowds, so he could take
this opportunity to remind them that this earth
and the kingdom of man, is not Paradise it's just
the opposite. He's saying, in effect, that all
of the images of greatness that they imagine
right now, have nothing to do with the kingdom of
heaven. Nowhere does he say, Blessed are you if
the world treats you well. He says just the
opposite. If the world treats you poorly, it's
then that you are reminded that you have a great
reward awaiting you in the coming kingdom. Jesus
was all about the coming kingdom.
Schaeffer goes on to write of a 'new theology' as
an expression of modern philosophy and culture,
and titles the chapter 'Modern Mysticism: Despair
Beyond Despair'. In the passage above, Jesus
gave one answer, because he IS the answer. When
you meet him, there is no reason to despair,
because the reward is never going to be found in
this world. Jesus is all about the coming
kingdom. I can't hope to attempt an explanation
of all the technical details, but as he makes his
case to describe the present world system,
Schaeffer offers this view:
"...philosophy, art, music, theatre, and so on --
differ in details, and these details are
interesting and important, but in a way they are
only incidental. The distinctive mark of the
twentieth-century intellectual and CULTURAL
climate does not lie in the differences, but in
the unifying concept. The unifying concept is
the concept of a divided field of knowledge.
...the concept of truth and the method of
attaining truth." p 43
If I were to put it in simple terms, I would say
that the unifying concept is simply an absence of
truth. We live in an anything goes society, and
that is self evident to any casual observer who's
had any experience with the 'real world'. It's
usually considered to be naive if you even
mention the possibility of 'absolute truth'.
What strikes me as even more naive is failure to
recognize that truth remains a stubborn presence,
especially in the 'real world'. Yet so many will
swear to its absence.
I don't know how it strikes you, but whenever I
begin to think about the cultural conflict with
'truth', my mind goes to images of Abbott and
Costello's 'Who's on first' routine. The
statement 'there are no absolutes' is a
'first-order' experience of the level of
confusion that characterizes the kingdom of man.
You have to laugh, or you will cry. Oh, never
mind.
So we've come to the point that we've arrived at
a 'new theology' modeled to conform to the
unifying concept (we can't know truth), and the
technique that's been applied is the same that's
used liberally across the social spectrum -- the
misuse of words and symbols. Schaeffer uses the
term 'semantic mysticism' to describe the modern
religious experience that lacks an ability to
describe what the experience is (we can't really
know).
"Real communication is not in fact established,
but an illusion of communication is given by
employing words rich in connotations... Every
word has two parts. There is the dictionary
definition, and there is the connotation... the
new theology uses such words, without
definition... useful in arousing deep
motivations. " p 59
"This is something beyond emotion. An illusion
of communication and content is given so that
when a word is used in this deliberately
undefined way, the hearer 'thinks' he knows what
it means. The use of the word pantheism is a
good example. Though it really speaks of
something absolutely and finally impersonal, yet
the theism part of the word causes a reaction of
acceptance, since theism carries overtones of
personality. Now suppose you were to substitute
the word pan-everythingism (which is what it
really means). The whole reaction would be
different." p 59-60
And then there is the critical point to take away
from this -- "To the new theology, the
usefullness of a symbol is in direct proportion
to its obscurity." p 60 If you don't get
anything else from this discussion, this is the
point to always remember when approaching modern
religion. Symbols have meaning. New theology
does its best to make sure that the authentic
meaning is hidden, so that it can mean something
different to every person. The crucifix is an
example of a popular symbol almost completely
lacking authentic meaning in modern culture. The
crucifix was an instrument used by the ancient
Romans to inspire terror and dread. It's like
wearing a miniature electric chair around your
neck. The meaning of the crucifix is that OUR
guilt before G-d resulted in the wrongful
substitutionary conviction and brutal sacrifice
of Jesus. Yet, he willingly bore OUR guilt and
paid the penalty of OUR rightful death sentence.
There is the obscure meaning -- it means nothing
or it means whatever you want it to mean. And
there is the authentic meaning, that Jesus took
upon himself the guilt of all mankind, and the
paid the full penalty for OUR sin.
"At first acquaintance this concept gives the
feeling of spirituality. 'I do not ask for
answers, I just believe.' This sounds spiritual,
and it deceives many fine people." p 60
And here is what I take away as a very good
response or answer to the situation where we find
ourselves when confronted with new theology:
"Whenever men say they are looking for greater
reality, we must show them at once the reality of
TRUE Christianity. This is real because it is
concerned with the G-d who is there and who has
spoken to us about Himself, not just the symbol
god or christ which sounds spiritual but is not."
p 61
What Schaeffer is getting at in this statement is
the fact that TRUE Christianity relies ONLY on
the doctrines of scripture and not on the
subjective experience of others. ONLY scripture
is able to communicate the essential message
about who we are, who G-d is and what the world
is. Period.
'The symbol god or christ' that Schaeffer refers
to above is represented in the pantheistic idea
that all religions have different names for gods
and christs, but are all the same spiritual
entity. Yet we know that can't be accurate,
since there was only one Jesus, and only one
Bhudda, and only one Mohammed, etc. and they
never claimed to be united as a spiritual entity.
They would be the ones to know about that. In
fact, Jesus claimed just the opposite. He
claimed to have an identity unique from all
others. That was one of the excuses used to turn
him over to the Roman authorities for
crucifixtion -- he claimed to be Divine. On his
cross, Pilate wrote: This is the King of the
Jews. There was no secret about what Jesus
claimed to be. He was not a symbol. He was
authentic. (Proven by the resurrection.)
One of the Jesus People groups from the 60's
called themselves 'Christ Is The Answer'. Now,
we are given the line about experiencing Jesus.
But what Jesus do we want to experience? Are we
looking for the experience of the one mystical
spiritual entity that is supposed to represent
ALL spiritual enlightenment? Or are we looking
for the one authentic Lamb of G-d? You see, man
and the world don't really NEED another
experience so much as they need a Savior. As far
as I know, the only religion that offers an
authentic Savior is the personal G-d who we find
revealed in the pages of scripture. It's just
like the Jesus freaks said in the 60's -- Jesus
IS the answer.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Return To Schaeffer IV
Matthew 5
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,
saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be
comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst
after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain
mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see G-d.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be
called the children of G-d.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is
your reward in heaven:
We've taken a little sidetrack in order to get a
closer look at the description of man, from the
perspective of how he sees himself in terms of
the modern world. When we look back at times
past, we are amused at the mythologies that were
developed to describe man and this world and its
Creator. But what we find is that modern man has
made little progress since then. In fact, my own
view is that we have gotten even farther from any
hope of discovery because now we have come to the
place where we even deny the level of our own
experience. We've come to the point where we can
comfortably reject the validity of formal logic.
The kingdom of man has entered a modern Dark Age.
(This is where Schaeffers 'Escape From Reason'
takes its starting point.)
What Schaeffer does is to bring into focus the
current position of the kingdom of man in
relation to the kingdom of heaven. That allows
us to get a firm grip on the ways that the
kingdom of man has been able to influence modern
man's perception of the world, of himself and of
his Creator. Once we can see that there is a
subtle yet very distinct difference between the
way that scripture describes these two kingdoms
and the way that the kingdom of man describes
them, we are brought to the point where a debate
and a decision can begin. In other words, as
things are described by the kingdom of man, man's
kingdom describes itself in a way such that there
are no other choices. The kingdom of man is all
there is. Man totally rejects the kingdom of
heaven. But Schaeffer makes the point that based
on our own experience, we find that what the
kingdom of man has to say about itself is just
not true, EVEN at the level of experience.
Remember yesterday's post about the man who
experiences love, but he doesn't believe that
love exists? The reasonable conclusion about the
kingdom of man is that its mythology is full of
holes. The kingdom of man is riddled with
confusion -- about EVERYTHING. And one reason
that the kingdom of heaven escapes this dilemma
is that the kingdom of heaven is about a person,
who we call Jesus.
The kingdom of heaven worships its Creator and
the kingdom of man worships man. That's the
manifestation we see in the homage given to
celebrity status. We worship celebrity status
because we also wish to acheive a place in the
modern pantheon. But Jesus said that the meek
shall inherit the earth. It seems that such a
simple statement wouldn't be so hard to arrive
at. But taking the long way around, is where we
have to confront the situation that we face right
now, as it always was and always will be, the
only question is, Whom will you serve? Or the
terms that Jesus puts it in, Whom do men say that
I am?
Well, since we're asking the question... let's
see what else Schaeffer might have to add about
the kingdom of man. We have the passage of
scripture above, where Jesus fills us in on
certain aspects of the kingdom of heaven. I'd
say that there is a stunning contrast presented
between modern ideas and Jesus' declarations.
Schaeffer published this originally in 1968.
This last paragraph was apparently added in a
later edition. I think he hit the nail on
the head:
"Our culture is largely marked by relativism and
ultimate meaninglessness, and when many in the
1980s 'join the system' they do so because they
have nothing worth fighting for. For most, that
was ended by the 1970s. It is significant that
when 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'
was made a Broadway play (1974, Beacon Theatre)
it no longer had the ferment; it was 'camp' and
nostalgia -- a museum piece of a bygone time." p
42.
Jesus gets the last word in. It's a statement
that rings with antithetical truth:
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,
saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be
comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst
after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain
mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see G-d.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be
called the children of G-d.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is
your reward in heaven:
We've taken a little sidetrack in order to get a
closer look at the description of man, from the
perspective of how he sees himself in terms of
the modern world. When we look back at times
past, we are amused at the mythologies that were
developed to describe man and this world and its
Creator. But what we find is that modern man has
made little progress since then. In fact, my own
view is that we have gotten even farther from any
hope of discovery because now we have come to the
place where we even deny the level of our own
experience. We've come to the point where we can
comfortably reject the validity of formal logic.
The kingdom of man has entered a modern Dark Age.
(This is where Schaeffers 'Escape From Reason'
takes its starting point.)
What Schaeffer does is to bring into focus the
current position of the kingdom of man in
relation to the kingdom of heaven. That allows
us to get a firm grip on the ways that the
kingdom of man has been able to influence modern
man's perception of the world, of himself and of
his Creator. Once we can see that there is a
subtle yet very distinct difference between the
way that scripture describes these two kingdoms
and the way that the kingdom of man describes
them, we are brought to the point where a debate
and a decision can begin. In other words, as
things are described by the kingdom of man, man's
kingdom describes itself in a way such that there
are no other choices. The kingdom of man is all
there is. Man totally rejects the kingdom of
heaven. But Schaeffer makes the point that based
on our own experience, we find that what the
kingdom of man has to say about itself is just
not true, EVEN at the level of experience.
Remember yesterday's post about the man who
experiences love, but he doesn't believe that
love exists? The reasonable conclusion about the
kingdom of man is that its mythology is full of
holes. The kingdom of man is riddled with
confusion -- about EVERYTHING. And one reason
that the kingdom of heaven escapes this dilemma
is that the kingdom of heaven is about a person,
who we call Jesus.
The kingdom of heaven worships its Creator and
the kingdom of man worships man. That's the
manifestation we see in the homage given to
celebrity status. We worship celebrity status
because we also wish to acheive a place in the
modern pantheon. But Jesus said that the meek
shall inherit the earth. It seems that such a
simple statement wouldn't be so hard to arrive
at. But taking the long way around, is where we
have to confront the situation that we face right
now, as it always was and always will be, the
only question is, Whom will you serve? Or the
terms that Jesus puts it in, Whom do men say that
I am?
Well, since we're asking the question... let's
see what else Schaeffer might have to add about
the kingdom of man. We have the passage of
scripture above, where Jesus fills us in on
certain aspects of the kingdom of heaven. I'd
say that there is a stunning contrast presented
between modern ideas and Jesus' declarations.
Schaeffer published this originally in 1968.
This last paragraph was apparently added in a
later edition. I think he hit the nail on
the head:
"Our culture is largely marked by relativism and
ultimate meaninglessness, and when many in the
1980s 'join the system' they do so because they
have nothing worth fighting for. For most, that
was ended by the 1970s. It is significant that
when 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'
was made a Broadway play (1974, Beacon Theatre)
it no longer had the ferment; it was 'camp' and
nostalgia -- a museum piece of a bygone time." p
42.
Jesus gets the last word in. It's a statement
that rings with antithetical truth:
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Return To Schaeffer III
Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his
spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city
wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with
the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the
market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,
and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some
said, What will this babbler say? other some, He
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached unto them Jesus, and the
resurrection...
24 G-d that made the world and all things
therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and
earth, dwelleth not in temples made with
hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as
though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to
all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation;
Idolatry is wrapped in a mythological belief
about what the world is, who man is and who G-d
is. These three catagories are defined by the
Apostle in the passage of scripture above. Paul
saw right away that in the city of Athens, at
that time, there was a complete misunderstanding
about the genuine nature of the world, the nature
of man and the nature of G-d. In only three
verses, Paul describes the genuine nature of the
Creator and his creation. As it was in ancient
Athens, so it is in the modern U.S. These days,
we don't build large temples and images of
mythological characters. We have another form of
idol worship that more closely resembles our
existential bent. We have malls and TV. We
spend our admiration in the accumulation of
trinkets and in admiration of celebrities and all
of their glamour. You see, you have to imagine
what it will look like, say from a thousand years
past or a thousand years into the future. What
would someone distant in time observe about our
habits of behavior. Or, you can just listen to
someone separated by culture, like Sohlzenitsyn,
who is able to see they composition of mythical
belief as it, more realistically, is.
The next thing that I'd like to look at is the
way that myth leaks into popular acceptance. The
ideas are introduced in subtle ways, and then by
repetition they become fully assimilated.
Eventually, they take the shape of de facto
social standards, no matter how disgusting and
repulsive they may be. And that, my friends, is
where the U.S. has arrived in modern times.
Popularity has become the standard, but it's not
an accurate measure of truth. And the popular
message is transmitted by the media/entertainment
complex. These days, it's not just a leak that
promotes the assimilation of modern myth, it's a
flood.
What does Schaeffer have to say about the media?
"We usually divide cinema and television programs
into two classes -- good and bad. The term
'good' as used here means 'technically good' and
does not refer to morals. The 'good' pictures
are the serious ones, the artistic ones, the ones
with good shots. The 'bad' are simply escapist,
romantic, only for entertainment. But if we
examine them with care, we notice that the 'good'
pictures are actually the worst pictures. The
escapist film may be horrible in its own way, but
the so-called 'good' pictures have almost all
been developed by men holding the modern
philosophy of no certain truth and no certain
distinction between right and wrong. This does
not imply that they have ceased to be men of
integrity, but it does mean that the films they
produce are tools for teaching their beliefs..."
(Think about that the next time you see your
crumb-snatchers hypnotized in front of the big
flat screen. They aren't just being distracted
or entertained, they're being indoctrinated.)
"No greater illustration could be found of the
way these concepts were carried to the masses
than 'pop' music and especially the work of the
Beatles. The Beatles moved through several
stages, including the concept of the drug and
psychedelic approach. The psychedelic began with
their records 'Revolver', 'Strawberry Fields
Forever', and 'Penny Lane'. This was developed
with great expertness in their record 'Sergeant
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' in which
psychedelic music, with open statements
concerning drug-taking, was knowingly presented
as a religious answer. (To which I would add, in
the 'Beatles Anthology' video presentation, they
discuss that aspect of the development of their
artistic/religious effort.) The religious form
was the same vague pantheism which predominates
much of the new mystical thought today. One
indeed does not have to understand in a clear way
the modern monolithic thought in order to be
infiltrated by it. 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely
Hearts Club Band' was an ideal example of the
manipulating power of the new forms of 'total
art'. This concept of total art increases the
infiltrating power of the message by carefully
conforming the technical form used to the message
involved. This is used in the Theatre of the
Absurd, the Marshall McLuhan type of television
program, the new cinema and the new dance with
someone like Merce Cunningham. The Beatles used
this in 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
Band' by making the whole record one unit so the
whole is to be listened to as a unit and makes
one thrust, rather than the songs being only
something individually. In this record the word,
the syntax, the music, and the unity of the way
the individual songs were arranged form a unity
of infiltration." pp. 40-1
I'd suggest that Pink Floyd took this approach to
the next level with additional refinements.
Although I spent little time listening to the
Beatles, I spent alot of time in my youth
listening to Pink Floyd (and Black Sabbath), not
because I really got hooked by their message, but
because of my sense of their artistic ability.
All the same, I was able to realize that there
were those among my peers who were quite taken in
by the message conveyed in 'rock' music.
Personally, as a youth, I thought that as far as
message is concerned, Frank Zappa was as lucid as
any of the rest, he just didn't have the musical
talents of a band like Pink Floyd. I admit, that
even as a youth, the profoundness of the
confusion represented by the kingdom of man is
something that I never could escape, even in Pink
Floyd. ( Ah, the wasted days of my youth.)
Schaeffer lays it out about as clearly as it ever
can be done. In his discussion I see my own need
and my early groping about for the 'meaning of
life' and was as surprised as anyone when I came
to the realization that the 'meaning of life' is
not the Island that C.S. Lewis started out for,
but an introduction to the person of Christ.
Now, it's all so obvious, but then it was
elusive. Like many today, I was so easily put
off by the messengers that I struggled far too
long with the message. But the message and the
messengers of the kingdom of man are in their own
ways, lacking appeal. Which I believe is one
of the factors in the popularity of teen suicide.
The messengers are not all that appealing. And
the messages are often garbled by the natural
confusion that's always been an element of the
kingdom of man.
Have you looked at the cable TV aimed at the
youth? All I can say is that it's lame. But
that lameness doesn't seem to disgust the youth
as much as it does me, at least across most of
the normal distribution. I'm guessing that what
they see, what they choose to see, is the glitz
and the glamour (fantasy) portrayed as reality,
and the message is clearly materialism oriented
rather than the Beaver Cleaver relationship
oriented programming. Others are there to serve
selfish material aspirations rather than the idea
that others are there for us to serve THEIR
human and spiritual needs. That's not to imply
that there is anything easy about taking on G-d
given roles and responsibilities (marriage, for
example), but only to point out that the two
world views are at odds. Modern entertainment
media are feeding the beast. At this point in
time the media programming of the youth should be
obvious. This is what Schaeffer calls
'infiltration'.
As I work through these blog postings I'm left
with a sense of the incompleteness and feebleness
of my effort. An awareness of the need for a
careful presentation nags me. What I find in
response to that nagging feeling is the
limitation of my own ability. But I haven't come
to the point where I would rather throw in the
towel. It's just the opposite. I'd rather make
this chase, because if nothing else it also
heightens my awareness of the vital need for
relationship -- my personal need for a Savior.
There is no nirvana. Human effort fails, if only
because of physical limitation (death/departure).
So, I'm drawn to that phrase in verse 25, '...as
though he needed anything...' It sums things up
nicely. We have a creator and redeemer, to whom
we have absolutely nothing to offer. He has
everything (and he's made himself accessible).
We have nothing. It's the point that we have to
arrive at before we will have any sense of the
necessity of relationship and redemption -- a
personal NEED for Jesus.
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his
spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city
wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with
the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the
market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,
and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some
said, What will this babbler say? other some, He
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached unto them Jesus, and the
resurrection...
24 G-d that made the world and all things
therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and
earth, dwelleth not in temples made with
hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as
though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to
all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation;
Idolatry is wrapped in a mythological belief
about what the world is, who man is and who G-d
is. These three catagories are defined by the
Apostle in the passage of scripture above. Paul
saw right away that in the city of Athens, at
that time, there was a complete misunderstanding
about the genuine nature of the world, the nature
of man and the nature of G-d. In only three
verses, Paul describes the genuine nature of the
Creator and his creation. As it was in ancient
Athens, so it is in the modern U.S. These days,
we don't build large temples and images of
mythological characters. We have another form of
idol worship that more closely resembles our
existential bent. We have malls and TV. We
spend our admiration in the accumulation of
trinkets and in admiration of celebrities and all
of their glamour. You see, you have to imagine
what it will look like, say from a thousand years
past or a thousand years into the future. What
would someone distant in time observe about our
habits of behavior. Or, you can just listen to
someone separated by culture, like Sohlzenitsyn,
who is able to see they composition of mythical
belief as it, more realistically, is.
The next thing that I'd like to look at is the
way that myth leaks into popular acceptance. The
ideas are introduced in subtle ways, and then by
repetition they become fully assimilated.
Eventually, they take the shape of de facto
social standards, no matter how disgusting and
repulsive they may be. And that, my friends, is
where the U.S. has arrived in modern times.
Popularity has become the standard, but it's not
an accurate measure of truth. And the popular
message is transmitted by the media/entertainment
complex. These days, it's not just a leak that
promotes the assimilation of modern myth, it's a
flood.
What does Schaeffer have to say about the media?
"We usually divide cinema and television programs
into two classes -- good and bad. The term
'good' as used here means 'technically good' and
does not refer to morals. The 'good' pictures
are the serious ones, the artistic ones, the ones
with good shots. The 'bad' are simply escapist,
romantic, only for entertainment. But if we
examine them with care, we notice that the 'good'
pictures are actually the worst pictures. The
escapist film may be horrible in its own way, but
the so-called 'good' pictures have almost all
been developed by men holding the modern
philosophy of no certain truth and no certain
distinction between right and wrong. This does
not imply that they have ceased to be men of
integrity, but it does mean that the films they
produce are tools for teaching their beliefs..."
(Think about that the next time you see your
crumb-snatchers hypnotized in front of the big
flat screen. They aren't just being distracted
or entertained, they're being indoctrinated.)
"No greater illustration could be found of the
way these concepts were carried to the masses
than 'pop' music and especially the work of the
Beatles. The Beatles moved through several
stages, including the concept of the drug and
psychedelic approach. The psychedelic began with
their records 'Revolver', 'Strawberry Fields
Forever', and 'Penny Lane'. This was developed
with great expertness in their record 'Sergeant
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' in which
psychedelic music, with open statements
concerning drug-taking, was knowingly presented
as a religious answer. (To which I would add, in
the 'Beatles Anthology' video presentation, they
discuss that aspect of the development of their
artistic/religious effort.) The religious form
was the same vague pantheism which predominates
much of the new mystical thought today. One
indeed does not have to understand in a clear way
the modern monolithic thought in order to be
infiltrated by it. 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely
Hearts Club Band' was an ideal example of the
manipulating power of the new forms of 'total
art'. This concept of total art increases the
infiltrating power of the message by carefully
conforming the technical form used to the message
involved. This is used in the Theatre of the
Absurd, the Marshall McLuhan type of television
program, the new cinema and the new dance with
someone like Merce Cunningham. The Beatles used
this in 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
Band' by making the whole record one unit so the
whole is to be listened to as a unit and makes
one thrust, rather than the songs being only
something individually. In this record the word,
the syntax, the music, and the unity of the way
the individual songs were arranged form a unity
of infiltration." pp. 40-1
I'd suggest that Pink Floyd took this approach to
the next level with additional refinements.
Although I spent little time listening to the
Beatles, I spent alot of time in my youth
listening to Pink Floyd (and Black Sabbath), not
because I really got hooked by their message, but
because of my sense of their artistic ability.
All the same, I was able to realize that there
were those among my peers who were quite taken in
by the message conveyed in 'rock' music.
Personally, as a youth, I thought that as far as
message is concerned, Frank Zappa was as lucid as
any of the rest, he just didn't have the musical
talents of a band like Pink Floyd. I admit, that
even as a youth, the profoundness of the
confusion represented by the kingdom of man is
something that I never could escape, even in Pink
Floyd. ( Ah, the wasted days of my youth.)
Schaeffer lays it out about as clearly as it ever
can be done. In his discussion I see my own need
and my early groping about for the 'meaning of
life' and was as surprised as anyone when I came
to the realization that the 'meaning of life' is
not the Island that C.S. Lewis started out for,
but an introduction to the person of Christ.
Now, it's all so obvious, but then it was
elusive. Like many today, I was so easily put
off by the messengers that I struggled far too
long with the message. But the message and the
messengers of the kingdom of man are in their own
ways, lacking appeal. Which I believe is one
of the factors in the popularity of teen suicide.
The messengers are not all that appealing. And
the messages are often garbled by the natural
confusion that's always been an element of the
kingdom of man.
Have you looked at the cable TV aimed at the
youth? All I can say is that it's lame. But
that lameness doesn't seem to disgust the youth
as much as it does me, at least across most of
the normal distribution. I'm guessing that what
they see, what they choose to see, is the glitz
and the glamour (fantasy) portrayed as reality,
and the message is clearly materialism oriented
rather than the Beaver Cleaver relationship
oriented programming. Others are there to serve
selfish material aspirations rather than the idea
that others are there for us to serve THEIR
human and spiritual needs. That's not to imply
that there is anything easy about taking on G-d
given roles and responsibilities (marriage, for
example), but only to point out that the two
world views are at odds. Modern entertainment
media are feeding the beast. At this point in
time the media programming of the youth should be
obvious. This is what Schaeffer calls
'infiltration'.
As I work through these blog postings I'm left
with a sense of the incompleteness and feebleness
of my effort. An awareness of the need for a
careful presentation nags me. What I find in
response to that nagging feeling is the
limitation of my own ability. But I haven't come
to the point where I would rather throw in the
towel. It's just the opposite. I'd rather make
this chase, because if nothing else it also
heightens my awareness of the vital need for
relationship -- my personal need for a Savior.
There is no nirvana. Human effort fails, if only
because of physical limitation (death/departure).
So, I'm drawn to that phrase in verse 25, '...as
though he needed anything...' It sums things up
nicely. We have a creator and redeemer, to whom
we have absolutely nothing to offer. He has
everything (and he's made himself accessible).
We have nothing. It's the point that we have to
arrive at before we will have any sense of the
necessity of relationship and redemption -- a
personal NEED for Jesus.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Return To Schaeffer II
Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his
spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city
wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with
the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the
market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,
and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some
said, What will this babbler say? other some, He
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached unto them Jesus, and the
resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto
Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new
doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to
our ears: we would know therefore what these
things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which
were there spent their time in nothing else, but
either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill,
and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in
all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions,
I found an altar with this inscription,
TO THE UNKNOWN G-D.
Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare
I unto you.
24 G-d that made the world and all things
therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and
earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as
though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to
all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they
might feel after him, and find him, though he be
not far from every one of us:
It's worthwhile spending some time having
a look at Schaeffer in an attempt to try and
bring together the concept of a 'mythical
understanding' as opposed to the authentic nature
of faith. It's one aspect of the difference
between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of
heaven.
More from Schaeffer:
"It is obvious that often when a man claims to
have had an experience, whether under drugs or
not, something has certainly happened to him.
When he experiences, for example, the 'redness'
of a red rose, he has really touched something.
But what?
Usually only two live options are presented as to
what happens in an Eastern religious experience,
an existential experience, or a drug experience.
One is told either that they have stumbled on
'nothing' in their experience, or else that they
have met 'the reality of g-d'. This latter is
especially true when the Eastern religious
experience is under consideration. The guru
says, 'I have met something.' Usually people
describe it as nonsense or say that he has 'met
G-d.'
The built-in trouble with all these existential
experiences is that the content of such an
experience in not open to communication. Only
the unknowing would demand,'Please describe to me
in normal catagories what you have experienced.'
But I believe that there is a third live option
when we ask ourselves what these people have
touched. It is an alternative explanation
Christians are able to give because we see these
people as they really are in G-d's universe.
G-d created a real, external world. It is not an
extension of His essence. That real external
world exists. G-d has also created man as a
real, personal being, and he possesses a
'mannishness' from which he can never escape. On
the basis of their own worldview often these
experience-seekers are neither sure the external
world is there, nor that man as man is there.
But I have come to the conclusion that despite
their intellectual doubts, many of them have had
a true experience of the reality of the external
world that exists, and/or the 'mannishness' that
exists. They can do this precisely because this
is how G-d has made man, in His own image, able
to experience the real world and man's
'mannishness.' Thus they have hit upon something
which exists, and it is neither nothing, nor is
it G-d. We might sum up the third alternative
by saying that when they experience the 'redness'
of the rose, they are having the experience of
the external world, as is the farmer who plows
his field. They are both touching the world that
is.
In the same way, lovers on the left bank of the
Seine in Paris experience the 'mannishness' of
man when they fall in love and yet cry because
they do not believe love exists. If I met any of
these, I would put my hand gently on their
shoulders and say, 'You are separated from G-d if
you do not accept Christ as your Savior, but at
this moment you understand something real about
the universe. Though your system may say love
does not exist, your own experience shows that it
does.' They have not touched the personal G-d
who exists, but for a fleeting moment they have
touched the existence of true personality in
their love. This is indeed an objective reality,
because G-d has made their personalities in this
way. It is true that in these experiences man
has touched something, not nothing; but what he
has touched is not G-d, but the objective reality
of the external world and the 'mannishness' of
man that G-d has created." pp 23-4
If you pick up a copy of Schaeffer's trilogy, one
thing that you'll find is that there is in modern
philosophy what I have labeled a mythical belief
about the physical world and about its creator.
One aspect of that popular belief that Schaeffer
touches on is the idea of a personal G-d. C.S.
Lewis was surprised to arrive at the same
conclusion, that there is a personal G-d who we
can meet by accepting personal redemption in
Jesus. Modern philosophy and popular belief
reject the idea of a personal savior, and that
idea has even leaked into much of modern
christianity. Remember, it's nothing new. The
Apostle Paul saw and warned of the same thing.
1Tim. 1:3 As I urged you when I went into
Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may
command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer
4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless
genealogies. These promote controversies rather
than G-d’s work — which is by faith.
One conclusion that I come to, in light of the
never ending seduction offered by the kingdom of
man, is that nothing has ever been much different
in all of human history. The kingdom of man
always shows a preference for a mythical
description of itself, rather than the
description of man provided by scripture, where
the true nature of man is revealed. Human
history shows that the kingdom of man has always
been in rebellion against the kingdom of heaven.
It's an observation that hints at the powers that
rule in these two kingdoms. The source of the
conflict isn't found in man, it's found in the
one who has been given power to rule over man's
kingdoms.
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his
spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city
wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with
the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the
market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,
and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some
said, What will this babbler say? other some, He
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached unto them Jesus, and the
resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto
Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new
doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to
our ears: we would know therefore what these
things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which
were there spent their time in nothing else, but
either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill,
and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in
all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions,
I found an altar with this inscription,
TO THE UNKNOWN G-D.
Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare
I unto you.
24 G-d that made the world and all things
therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and
earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as
though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to
all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they
might feel after him, and find him, though he be
not far from every one of us:
It's worthwhile spending some time having
a look at Schaeffer in an attempt to try and
bring together the concept of a 'mythical
understanding' as opposed to the authentic nature
of faith. It's one aspect of the difference
between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of
heaven.
More from Schaeffer:
"It is obvious that often when a man claims to
have had an experience, whether under drugs or
not, something has certainly happened to him.
When he experiences, for example, the 'redness'
of a red rose, he has really touched something.
But what?
Usually only two live options are presented as to
what happens in an Eastern religious experience,
an existential experience, or a drug experience.
One is told either that they have stumbled on
'nothing' in their experience, or else that they
have met 'the reality of g-d'. This latter is
especially true when the Eastern religious
experience is under consideration. The guru
says, 'I have met something.' Usually people
describe it as nonsense or say that he has 'met
G-d.'
The built-in trouble with all these existential
experiences is that the content of such an
experience in not open to communication. Only
the unknowing would demand,'Please describe to me
in normal catagories what you have experienced.'
But I believe that there is a third live option
when we ask ourselves what these people have
touched. It is an alternative explanation
Christians are able to give because we see these
people as they really are in G-d's universe.
G-d created a real, external world. It is not an
extension of His essence. That real external
world exists. G-d has also created man as a
real, personal being, and he possesses a
'mannishness' from which he can never escape. On
the basis of their own worldview often these
experience-seekers are neither sure the external
world is there, nor that man as man is there.
But I have come to the conclusion that despite
their intellectual doubts, many of them have had
a true experience of the reality of the external
world that exists, and/or the 'mannishness' that
exists. They can do this precisely because this
is how G-d has made man, in His own image, able
to experience the real world and man's
'mannishness.' Thus they have hit upon something
which exists, and it is neither nothing, nor is
it G-d. We might sum up the third alternative
by saying that when they experience the 'redness'
of the rose, they are having the experience of
the external world, as is the farmer who plows
his field. They are both touching the world that
is.
In the same way, lovers on the left bank of the
Seine in Paris experience the 'mannishness' of
man when they fall in love and yet cry because
they do not believe love exists. If I met any of
these, I would put my hand gently on their
shoulders and say, 'You are separated from G-d if
you do not accept Christ as your Savior, but at
this moment you understand something real about
the universe. Though your system may say love
does not exist, your own experience shows that it
does.' They have not touched the personal G-d
who exists, but for a fleeting moment they have
touched the existence of true personality in
their love. This is indeed an objective reality,
because G-d has made their personalities in this
way. It is true that in these experiences man
has touched something, not nothing; but what he
has touched is not G-d, but the objective reality
of the external world and the 'mannishness' of
man that G-d has created." pp 23-4
If you pick up a copy of Schaeffer's trilogy, one
thing that you'll find is that there is in modern
philosophy what I have labeled a mythical belief
about the physical world and about its creator.
One aspect of that popular belief that Schaeffer
touches on is the idea of a personal G-d. C.S.
Lewis was surprised to arrive at the same
conclusion, that there is a personal G-d who we
can meet by accepting personal redemption in
Jesus. Modern philosophy and popular belief
reject the idea of a personal savior, and that
idea has even leaked into much of modern
christianity. Remember, it's nothing new. The
Apostle Paul saw and warned of the same thing.
1Tim. 1:3 As I urged you when I went into
Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may
command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer
4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless
genealogies. These promote controversies rather
than G-d’s work — which is by faith.
One conclusion that I come to, in light of the
never ending seduction offered by the kingdom of
man, is that nothing has ever been much different
in all of human history. The kingdom of man
always shows a preference for a mythical
description of itself, rather than the
description of man provided by scripture, where
the true nature of man is revealed. Human
history shows that the kingdom of man has always
been in rebellion against the kingdom of heaven.
It's an observation that hints at the powers that
rule in these two kingdoms. The source of the
conflict isn't found in man, it's found in the
one who has been given power to rule over man's
kingdoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)