Theology in Heels

hey, folks. i have no idea if anybody still checks this, but if you do.... i've started blogging regularly for the Houston Chronicle's religion site, HoustonBelief. come visit.

Serious Business

Your ability to really love your enemies, to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, and to do generous good even to the ungrateful and wicked required that Christ learn obedience through what He suffered. It required Christ to die because of your natural enmity to God. It requires the Holy Spirit's power to give you a wholly new life. It requires the Father's patient hand to prune and grow you in a way of life that is otherwise impossible - even inconceivable. It requires nothing less than radical repentance, living faith, and renewal of your whole heart that you might learn how to really love. - David Powlison

My Fair Lady

"with a little bit of luck" profundity:

"they're always throwing goodness at you,
but with a little bit of luck
a man can duck"

interesting to think about in terms of common grace...

andrew peterson plug

...i believe He is the Christ
Son of the living God

all i know is that i was blind and now i see
that though i kick and scream, love is leading me
and every step of the way His grace is making me,
every breath i breathe, He is saving me...

resurrection letters, volume II is a brilliant piece of work - the songs are good (some of them are better than good), but together the album is stunning. lyrical and musical motifs are woven throughout (as andy p is wont to weave). right now, this portion of "I Believe (The Good Confession)" is what is stuck in my head, especially the line "every breath i breathe, He is saving me." knowing andy p's body of work like i do, i think what he is getting at here is not that Jesus needs to keep saving me all the time, but that my need for Him and His grace is ongoing. i need Him now as much as i did at 5 years old when i "prayed the prayer," but i also HAVE Him now as much as i ever have or will.

we never stop needing Jesus. we never outgrow the Gospel.

[also, i just bought north! or be eaten today and started it. looks to be even better than it's predecessor.]

Irony

my used copy of the glorious body of Christ smells of smoke. and by "smells" i mean "reeks to high heaven."

can you count the ways?

Does It Matter If We Call God "He" or "She?

check out this great post from aron's blog, wherein he quotes CS Lewis on this issue.

I Am His and He Is Mine, Bought with the Precious Blood of Christ

last night, sarah processed down the aisle to that verse of "In Christ Alone" (the third), and about half the bridal party lost it. it was a beautiful precursor to that amazing sermon i mentioned.

jean larroux, the minister who performed the ceremony, opened with the story of a time he was outside the sanctuary doors with a groom waiting for their turn to come in. the groom turned to jean and said, "you know why the bride wears white and the groom wears black at a wedding?" jean thought that was weird, but he said, "no, why?" and the groom responded, "because it's her wedding and his funeral."

we laughed.

jean said, "it's funny and all, but the thing is that it's true."

i panicked a little inside - what in the world???? is he going to be all down on marriage? that's SO weird!!!

jean said, "the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church - to DIE for her."

to say the sermon only got better after that is an understatement. it acknowledged the passion and faithfulness of marriage, the beauty of a husband leading well and a wife submitting well, the importance of marriage to the kingdom of God. but most importantly, and most centrally, jean focused on the picture that marriage is for us of Christ's relationship with the church - the eagerness of the Bridegroom to receive His bride; the purity of the bride (yay for wearing white, like the robes of the saints in revelation!); the sacrifice demanded of the Groom if He is to love His bride.

let me tell you, it packed quite a whallop and said all the stuff you want said in a wedding sermon, but in less time and with more punch.

of course, the crazy thing about this is that Jesus, our Bridegroom, did die for us in a way that no normal husband ever could, but then He rose again, defeating all our enemies and claiming us for His own!

He is risen!

On Making Decisions

i think it's interesting that we - people in general, not just Christian people - often don't like being told what to do in general. sure, we can usually handle "don't murder" without throwing a hissy fit, but when God presumes to dictate how we spend our sundays or when and with whom we have sex, we feel encroached upon.

yet, despite this, we want to know what we are supposed to do in specific instances - should i go to this concert with a friend or should i go to this other birthday party? should i marry this man? should i take this job offer? sometimes those are moral questions, but more often they are wisdom questions i think - and sometimes they are matters of preference.

i mean, obviously you shouldn't take the job offer if the job description involves swindling people out of their money. but most of our decisions don't look like that. it probably doesn't make much of a difference whether you go to the birthday party or to the concert - just pick one! so many women (and presumably men) are looking for "the One" when instead we should be looking for a certain sort of mate. i'm not advocating marrying someone just because they fit your little check-list, but i also think that the idealized idea of "the One" is poppycock and balderdash.

i think we have this tendency because it is much easier to just be told what to do than it is to become the sort of person who will make those decisions well. i'm not saying we shouldn't wrestle with decisions, or that they aren't hard, but that we should be about the business of growing wise and knowing Christ. the better we know Him, the more we will instinctively as well as thoughtfully know His heart - perhaps you should have gone to that birthday party out of love, because the honoree is having a rough time and you know being there will mean much to him. i still think that it's not a moral decision between good and bad, but that doesn't mean it's an irrelevant decision.

as Christians, we live beyond the law in a way - not that the law isn't important, but that there is much freedom in decisions that are beyond the pale of black and white. paige brown, one of my favorite speakers of all time, says it this way. say you are talking to a friend you haven't seen in a while, and you ask her how her marriage is going. she says, with great self-satisfaction, "great! you know, i haven't had sex with anyone else since we got married! i haven't done drugs, or stolen anything, or killed his mother!" you would look at her very oddly.

and you should. it's a good thing that she hasn't killed her mother-in-law, but the fact that her focus is there shows that something is seriously off with this woman. her obsession with her keeping of the law is depriving her of LIFE.

we aren't so different, i think.

One-Two Punch: Presuppositional Apologetics = Awesome

i am taking the exam for my one-week apologetics january class tomorrow afternoon i hope. i figured that writing the promised post on the presuppositional approach to apologetics would help me distill the essentials of what we learned, prepare me to write about it tomorrow, and fulfill that promise.

rather than spend a great deal of time explaining why other methods and philosophies of apologetics are insufficient at best, i will be jumping straight into an explanation of the presuppositional system itself. this is due to two factors: 1) i am not wanting this post to be longer than methuselah's beard, and 2) this is the most important stuff for the test tomorrow. i will be happy to field questions or explain further in future posts.

cornelius van til is, from a formal standpoint, the father of presuppositionalism (though i agree with a number of other reformed folks in thinking that the methodology has been around for ages and was used by everyone from moses to paul in writing the Scriptures). so hats off to dr. van til, who i liked a lot way before i learned all this stuff. now i can't wait to meet him.

as best i can tell, presuppositional apologetics is rooted in the idea that a worldview can't break the law of non-contradiction and still be valid. therefore, in order for us to claim Scripture as our final authority, we have to base our deepest level argument on.... Scripture! van til is innovative in that he realizes that circular arguments are necessary for absolute authorities. suppose i were to say to frank, "how do you know that the Bible is true?" and he were to respond, "well, lauren, there's all this manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the books we have now..." and go on to reference everything from the testimony of eyewitnesses to the number of manuscripts we have of homer. in saying all this, frank is making good sense. however, if that truly, fundamentally is the reason that frank believes the Bible to be true, then frank's highest authority is not the Bible; it is the evidence. circular reasoning is essential for ultimate authority arguments to be at all consistent and coherent.

and so we come to the transcendental argument, which is a beautiful thing imho. my professor, the excellent michael j. kruger, is pretty much obsessed with triangles and lines. especially triangles. so imagine with me a triangle. each corner is labeled (lucky us!): (a) evidence, (b) experience, and (c) ultimate authority. these three comprise a person's worldview. the one-two punch works this way: there are two triangles - one of them representing our worldview, the other representing our friend's. here we have an offensive and a defensive approach - first we go after their worldview, showing the inconsistencies in each of the three areas - evidence, experience, and ultimate authority. then, having demonstrated the insufficiency of their explanation of the world, we present positive arguments for our position in those same three areas.

[this is not at all to suggest that testimony about what God has done in your life or evidential argumentation are bad; in fact, their use is encouraged. but unless your worldview is sitting on the firm foundation of Scripture, the integrity of your position is compromised.]

one of my favorite things about all this is the way that it accounts for all sorts of pagans being right or doing good things. this is what we like to call "borrowed capital" - these pagans are thinking christianly, at least in this area right now. it's not surprising, really, particularly given the knowledge-suppression described in romans 1. dr. kruger had a very helpful illustration of this: say you are in a friend's backyard pool playing volleyball with your pals. then all of the sudden, after a play, the ball disappears. everyone is looking around at everyone else, wondering who has it. midge has stolen it and is now trying to sit on it and maintain decent balance. she isn't doing a very good job, and pretty soon the ball springs up to the surface of the water. midge has been supressing the ball under her, but she can't keep it up for long. similarly, non-Christian hearts and minds seek to supress the knowledge of God, but they can't do it consistently. it sneaks out, in their belief in the laws of logic, in their kindness to an elderly stranger at the supermarket, in their desire to care for their children well. this is the volleyball springing up, the knowledge of God manifesting in their lives. in such matters, whatever they may be, men and women are presupposing God, even if it is wayyyyyyyyyyy down deep in their logic and they aren't aware of it. no non-Christian worldview can account for any such behaviors.

the goal of all of this is twofold - to call people to repentance and new life, and to silence those who persist in rebellion against God. this is not at all to be a vendetta, and ripping people apart is the antithesis of what we are called to. but it is not compassionate to leave a sleeping neighbor in a burning house. to show the dangers and the way out of them to freedom in Christ is all kindness.

Excellence

Justin Taylor has quoted a fabulous John Updike poem on this, the day of his death, about the resurrection of Christ. Check it out here.

The point made here is excellent: let us not behave condescendingly in considering the Bible's, trying to come up with crazy ways you could possibly say it's true. It either is true, or it is not true.

We are talking about this sort of thing a ton in my apologetics course right now. I will be posting a bit on presuppositionalism (which I want to marry) once the class ends on Friday. Get excited.

Food for Thought in Light of the Looming Election

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 'Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare." ~ Jeremiah 29:4-7

Ooh, the WCF Makes Me Weak in the Knees...

from Chapter 19.6 of The Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; i that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience."

Background on the Westminster Assembly

this article is fantastic and to the point.

excerpt:
"I want to close with a story to illustrate the practical value of knowing Presbyterian doctrine. The story comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), the great Princeton theologian. It concerns a Christian man who traveled West during the days of the pioneers. One day he found himself in the middle of a gunfight in a wild western town. The whole town was in an uproar, but he saw one man who - despite all the commotion - remained calm, cool, and collected. The traveler was so amazed that he said to himself, 'Now there is a man who knows his theology.' At this he walked up to him and asked the first question of the Shorter Catechism, 'What is the chief end of man?' The man answered correctly, 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.' On the basis of Warfield's story, I commend to you the Westminster Catechisms and Confession of Faith as a theology suitable for every situation in life."

Wisdom for the Day

[i didn't say this; it's practically a direct quote from a friend in my life group.]

"my kids ask for the world because they know they are loved. we will ask God for huge things if we really know He loves us."

i needed to hear that tonight. badly.

John Owen

my paper was called "Will the Real John Owen Please Stand Up? A Preparation to Read Owen's Works." if you really want to read the whole thing, which is like 13 pages long, let me know and i'll email it to you. in the meantime, i'll give you a few snippets you may not have known about the great puritan theologian.

fact #1) owen was married twice, first to mary for 31 years, then a year and a half after she died, to dorothy (who was widowed as well) for 8.

fact #2) mary bore john 11 children. only one of them survived to adulthood, and she too died before owen. that's an average of one child dying every three years throughout his adulthood.

fact #3) neither of his wives and none of his children are mentioned in any of his published works, and as far as i could find out, they aren't mentioned in any of his surviving letters. in fact, the only family member he does mention is his father, and only in a sentence.

fact #4) owen was a calvinist before he was a christian.

fact #5) owen was, in turn, a country preacher, a tutor, a private family chaplain, a military chaplain, dean and then vice chancellor at oxford college christ church, where he was responsible for the worship services, and a city pastor. and the whole time he was writing book after book. he also regularly preached before parliament, and his favorite sermon topic on these occasions was religious tolerance within orthodoxy.

fact #6) owen was tight with oliver cromwell.

fact #7) owen drives biographers and historians crazy because of the paucity of info on him.

A Thought

i was reading exodus 37 just now, which is all about the construction and crafting of the ark of the covenant, and i realized how totally different judaism was from all the religions around it in the ancient world. while other peoples are creating these statues and carvings, from wood and stone and precious materials like gold and so forth, both large and small, to represent their divinities and give them a special connection to them, Bezalel is over here crafting this amazingly detailed, fairly large item out of expensive materials. and what is this item? it's not something to be esteemed or bowed to, but the place that blood is poured. it is an altar, a place of sacrifice and atonement. instead of sculptures and figurines to link the divine to the human, the israelites were provided with a way to have a true, solid, and constant connection to the LORD God - the blood poured on the altar - ultimately, the blood of Christ.

i just thought that was cool. i hope it made sense - i haven't been very coherent, especially on deep things, lately.


{I hope it's not presumptuous to tag this "reformed theology"....}

Time for a Poll

so i have to write a biography paper on somebody, and i'm trying to decide between the following individuals. anybody have any preferences on this list? note that i am planning to post about the winning fellow on here, so you will benefit (if you read it at least) from the final selection.

if you'd rather not comment, you can always email me.

John a Lasco (he just sounds cool. wikipedia him here.)
Philip Melanchthon (for obvious reasons)
Richard Baxter (wrote the reformed pastor, which is apparently the definitive work on pastoring)
John Owen (freaking brilliant - i love the death of death in the death of Christ)
Thomas Cranmer (i like the book of common prayer)

Quotes from the Augsburg Confession (1530)

Written by Philip Melanchthon, Luther's right-hand man, the Augsburg Confession was basically a last ditch effort to reunite the Reformation movement with Rome. Perhaps if you read the cited passages below, you will see why it didn't work.

I think it's interesting that Melanchthon is considered a "liberal" Reformer.


On Original Sin: "[...A]ll men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through baptism and the Holy Spirit." Doctrine of total depravity, anyone?

On Justification: "[...W]e receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us." Go here, thanks to him.

On the New Obedience: "It is also taught among us that such faith should produce good fruits and good works and that we must do all such good works as God has commanded, but we should do them for God's sake and not place our trust in them as if thereby to merit favor before God." Just because something isn't necessary for our salvation doesn't make it irrelevant. (We talked about this a heap in my ethics class last summer.)

On Repentance: "Properly speaking, true repentance is nothing else than to have contrition and sorrow, or terror, on account of sin, and yet at the same time to believe the gospel and absolution (namely, that sin has been forgiven and grace has been obtained through Christ), and this faith will comfort the heart and again set it at rest." You can't have one without the other. Believe me, I've tried.

On the Use of the Sacraments: "It is taught among us that the sacraments were instituted not only to be signs by which people might be identified outwardly as Christians, but that they are signs and testimonies of God's will toward us for the purpose of awakening and strengthening our faith." Yay sacraments!!!

On Faith and Good Works: "[Our opponents] do not teach now that we become righteous before God by our works alone, but they add faith in Christ and say that faith and works make us righteous before God. This teaching may offer a little more comfort than the teaching that we are to rely solely on our works." Haha! A little more, perhaps, but certainly not much. At all.

[Emphases mine.]

Surety

"For Luther, as for the reformers in general, one could rest assured of one's salvation. Salvation was grounded upon the faithfulness of God to his promises of mercy; to fail to have confidence in salvation was, in effect, to doubt the confidence in God, untroubled by doubt. Faith is not the same as certainty, although the theological foundation of Christian faith may be secure, the human perception of and commitment to this foundation may waver."
(Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, 194)

Hear ye, hear ye: feelings lie sometimes.

Retraction: Luther NOT to Be "Rehabilitated"

go here