Monthly Archives: April 2014

The Caboose of Modernity

Uncategorized

Next, we should reject postmodernism because it isn’t really postmodern. Before awarding the grand prefix post to anything, we should ascertain that it actually is describing something in the rear view mirror. If we look at the foundation stones of modernism, we should quickly identify one of them as being the thought of Darwin — evolution. But why is it that none of these johnnies are saying that they are post-Darwinian? Evolution is a metanarrative, but the only incredulity I can find anywhere is in the discussions of tourists in the parking lot of the Creation Museum. The postmodernists pretend that they are blowing up the foundations when they are actually just painting the eaves a different color.

Excerpt above from recent musing on Postmodernism by Douglas Wilson. Three cheers for that first sentence: “Next, we should reject postmodernism because it isn’t really postmodern.” I took a degree in Philosophy at university and I remember when I reached the same conclusion during my studies and thought, “Wait, hold the phone. This Postmodern-thing is only the Caboose of a train called Modernity.” Not really post-modern, indeed.  All things Pomo collapse under the weight of their own critiques. Postmodernism thinks it is Revolutionary, but all it is doing is “painting the eaves a different color,” i.e., Pomo is the child begat by Modernity and now it spends its time, as all little children do, dressing up and playing make-believe. Postmodernism is like the Lutheran who ran away from Rome’s idols but in the final analysis only exchanged ready-made idols for the organic idols of bad sacramental theology.

Reading Notes: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Uncategorized
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1987.

This book is great. It was highly enjoyable reading it again front-to-back. On the surface, it is about Christian epistemology—the theology of knowledge, but on another level JMF is clearly trying to stir up our Christian imaginations (I will elaborate later).

In his Preface, JMF says that this book was written as a text for his seminarian course called The Christian Mind, and that his pedagogical approach to the subject “begins with a brief introduction to the Reformed faith, which is followed by a unit on the Word of God, and ends with discussions of apologetics . . . In between those two units—Word of God and problems of apologetics—comes a section on the theology of knowledge . . . which is the subject of this volume” (xv).

Once you strip away all the appendixes, the book’s presentation is threefold and straightforward: Part One discusses the objects of knowledge (What do we know?); Part Two discusses the justification of knowledge (What right do we have to believe what we do?); and Part Three discusses the methods of knowledge (How do we obtain knowledge?).

I found this early quote helpful for a high-level understanding of JMF’s book: “The knowledge of God [What do we know?] is a human response to God’s Word and is justified [What right do we have to believe what we do?] by its conformity thereunto” (4).

Throughout the book the “biblical concept of divine lordship” is a sustained theme, which JMF summarizes with a triad: God’s control | authority | personal presence (17). In light of this, in answering the question What do we know? JMF argues that:

Knowledge is under God’s control. First, our knowledge of God is always based on revelation. In our coming to know God, it is He who takes the initiative. . . . Furthermore—at least in the postfall context—this revelation is gracious; we do not deserve it, but God gives it as a ‘favor’ to us as part of His redemptive mercy . . . Thus, the origin of knowledge is trinitarian: The Father knows all and reveals truth to us by the grace of His Son through the work of the Spirit in our hearts. Note how each person of the Trinity is involved in the knowing process . . . Thus it is all of God, all of Grace. We know God because He has first known us as His children” (42).

This knowledge (given to us as a favor of God’s redemptive mercy) is subject to God’s authority, therefore, it “is inevitably an obedient knowledge,” e.g., “there is a ‘circular’ relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. . . . It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true that if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly” (43).

So . . . 

In summary, ‘knowledge of God’ essentially refers to a person’s friendship (or enmity) with God. That friendship presupposes knowledge in other senses—knowledge of facts about God, knowledge of skills in righteous living, and so forth. It therefore involves a covenantal response of the whole person to God in all areas of life, either in obedience or in disobedience. It involves, most focally, a knowledge of God’s lordship—of His control, His authority, and His present reality (48).

JMF throughout the book is obviously talking about The Christian Mind, however, he is advocating that theologians must learn to analyze before reacting (30), and that an important element of that process, in light of the biblical concept of divine lordship, is that our our beliefs must cohere with Scripture . . . and if they don’t, then Scripture has a “veto-power over beliefs that are inconsistent with its teachings” (128). Regarding the question How do we obtain knowledge?, JMF’s conclusion is that Scripture is the ultimate justification of all human knowledge (129).

On the one hand, we need to remember what I quoted earlier, that human knowledge subject to God’s authority is inevitably an obedient knowledge, while on the other hand, we must remember JMF’s conclusion above, that Scripture is the ultimate justification of human knowledge. If we balance those two thoughts it is obvious that the biblical concept of knowledge is never merely propositional ascent. Therefore, Christian epistemology (the theology of knowledge) is a theology that is defined as “the application of the Word by persons to all areas of life” (81) JMF says this means “A person does not understand Scripture, Scripture tells us, unless he can apply it to new situations, to situations not even envisaged in the original text” (84).

So, according to JMF, if one warrants that theology = application, then there is no dichotomy between meaning and application. In light of this, JMF’s subordinate aim makes sense—he is attempting to stir up Christian imaginations because “we shall see that it is arbitrary to insist that theology be written in a formal, academic style. Rather, theologians ought to make broad use of human language—poetry, drama, exclamation, song, parable, symbol—as Scripture does” (85). But why this JMF-insistence that we make broad use of human language? Well, because JMF believes that “On a Christian basis we must say that God made human language for His own purposes, the chief of which was to relate us to himself. Human language is (perhaps even chiefly, or “primarily”) a medium by which we can talk to one another about God” (35). Since JMF believes that “Imagination has much to do with any attempt to do things in a new or different way” (340), it would seem that JMF is urging up-and-coming theologians to “creatively” talk to others and one another about God.

This imaginative way of doing theology made me think of some contemporary authors: Peter J. Leithart (Deep Exegesis), James K. A Smith (Desiring the Kingdom and Imagining the Kingdom), and David Bentley Hart (The Devil and Pierre Gernet: Stories). I especially thought of Hart’s work, since in the Author’s Apologia he says, “I have written stories and poems all of my life, or at least since fairly early childhood, whereas I conceived an interest in philosophical theology only when, as a young man, I went searching for God; and then, as things turned out, I came to conclude that God is no more likely (and probably a great deal less likely) to be found in theology than in poetry or fiction” (ix).

JMF is a top-shelf theologian. So, obviously I was challenged (even convicted) by a great deal of what he had to say, e.g., his consistent call “to do theology” with an irenic posture. However, I was most edified when he would mention the hindmost perspective of his triadic summary of divine lordship—the presence of God, e.g., “Thus God’s lordship is a deeply personal and practical concern. God is not a vague abstract principle or force but a living person who fellowships with His people” (17).

CCRC: Psalm/Song of the Month for April, 2014

Uncategorized
At CCRC we are endeavoring to learn/focus on a Psalm or song each month. Psalm 22:11-20 – “Be Not Far Off, for Grief is Near” from the Cantus Christi hymnal is April’s song of the month. Below is a meditation for this month’s Psalm. 

Psalm/Song of the Month for April, 2014

“Be Not Far Off, for Grief Is Near”

Cantus Christi – 31

Psalm 22:11 – 20


Psalm 22 has become a standard (classic) passage for Christian liturgical use during the Lenten Season; Jesus on the cross, identifying with the Psalmist, recited its opening line (v. 1), “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34)

This psalm begins with the honest question, “Why, God, have you abandoned me?” It ends, however, with the triumphant conclusion (vv. 30-31), “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.” Considering the arc of this psalm, one commentator has said, “From the initial cry of cosmic isolation, the poet now engages himself to live ‘for’ or ‘in’ the Lord. The generation to be born shall then proclaim the fidelity of Yahweh to his beloved servant” (Samuel Terrien, The Psalms, 234-235). In this psalm, the poet has aptly described both the emotional and temporal transformation from sorrow/defeat to joy/victory.

Christians see this transformation, firstly, in the Father’s resurrection of Jesus, and, secondly, in the growth of the Church—it is the total Christ, both Jesus Christ and his Body (the Church), who proclaims the fidelity of God the Father to his only begotten Son, the beloved and suffering servant who went to the cross to save the lost.

There are three structurally identifiable divisions in this psalm which build to the concluding remarks in vv. 30-31:
  • vv. 1-11. With intimacy, cf. vv. 1-2, poet introduces theme of lament, however, v. 11 concludes with a cry of hope.
  • vv. 12-23. He describes the “animality” of tormentors, yet, in v. 16, he acknowledges that God is sovereign/cause of his torment. Finally, he instructs those who fear the Lord, i.e., the seed of Jacob, the seed of Israel, to praise the Lord.
  • vv. 24-29. Without an elaborate transition, the psalmist introduces a hymn of praise/thankfulness—the psalmist is “certain of his deliverance or his healing to come” (Terrien, 233).
  • vv. 30-31. Intimacy of vv. 1-2 “transmutes into a future of glory” (Terrien, 230); the future generation will “proclaim the fidelity of Yahweh to his beloved servant.”

The majority of the verses rendered/paraphrased for singing in Be Not Far Off, for Grief is Near are from the second division—the verses move from the (1) cry of hope, (2) to the description of tormentors, and (3) concludes with petition for deliverance.

Meditating on the 22nd Psalm reminds us that in Redemptive History there is no triumph without sorrow, there is no resurrection without crucifixion, and there is no Easter without Good Friday. “The ultimate lament begins with the terror of the void, but it ends with the fervor of the saved” (Terrien, 236). As Habakkuk said, “O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: . . . in wrath remember mercy.”

Aids for teaching and meditation:
  • Because we have been adopted by God (cf. Romans 8:15), we have an intimate relationship with the Father. Not in spite of but because Jesus is our mediator, we are able to call out to God with honest intimacy, e.g., “My God, my God . . .”
  • God is Holy (v. 3). God is sovereign over our affliction (v. 15). In our affliction, we appeal to God, but we do so with trust, godly fear, and praise (vv. 20-23).

Below is an interlinear presentation of Psalm 22:11-20 – bold is KJV/English translation and italic is Cantus Christi’s verse rendering/paraphrasing for singing (taken from The Book of Psalms for Singing, 1973).

v. 11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
v. 11 Be not far off, for grief is near, And none to help is found;

v. 12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
v. 12 For bulls of Bashan in their strength Now circle me around.

v. 13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
v. 13 Their lion jaws they open wide, And roar to tear their prey.

v. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
v. 14 My heart is wax, my bones unknit, My life is poured away.

v. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
v. 15 My strength is only broken clay; My mouth and tongue are dry, / For in the very dust of death You there make me to lie.

v. 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
v. 16 For see how dogs encircle me! On every side there stands / A brotherhood of cruelty; They pierce my feet and hands.

v. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
v. 17 My bones are plain for me to count; men see me and they stare.

v. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
v. 18 My clothes among them they divide, And gamble for their share.

v. 19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
v. 19 Now hurry, O my Strength to help! Do not be far, O LORD!

v. 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
v. 20 But snatch my soul from raging dogs, And spare me from the sword.

Reading Notes: Disciplines of a Godly Man, Chapters 10-13, by R. Kent Hughes

Uncategorized
Opening Remarks — There is an intentional framework for this section on “Character”. The author starts by discussing integrity and character in Chapter 10, then in Chapter 11 and 12 he discusses how integrity/character manifests itself by (1) what we say (the tongue) and (2) what we do (our work/deeds). The author concludes by discussing the Discipline of Perseverance in Chapter 13 — this logically follows because “perseverance” ought to be an attribute if integrity is applied to speech/words and action/deeds.
Chapter 10 – Discipline of Integrity

  • Any realistic survey would reveal that American culture is in big trouble. But the crisis isn’t merely a culture problem, it is a people problem.
  • “But the main reason for the integrity crisis is that we humans are fundamentally dishonest. We are congenital liars” (p. 126). The author points to Paul’s words in Romans 3:13, “their tongues practice deceit.”
  • But “God desires truth in the inward parts.” – Psalm 51:6. Take-Away-Point: Don’t be deceptive, and don’t be self-deceived.
  • Solution: “Integrity is one of the greatest needs of the Church today” (p. 127). So, never (1) cheat/steal/defraud; (2) keep your word; and (3) be a man of principle.
  • Truth-telling is a discipline. We must discipline ourselves to always tell the truth.
  • From the book’s “Think About It!” section: “Read through Psalm 15, making a list of every mentioned character trait or personal action that relates to integrity and its companions, truth and honesty. Then go back through the list and indicate how you are doing on each point (poor, fair, varies, consistently obedient, etc.) Now pray for God’s help in living out all of this” (p. 133).
Chapter 11 – Discipline of the Tongue
  • Discipline of the tongue is a related fruit of the discipline of integrity.
  • Author cites the “Boxer Rebellion” of 1899 in China as an example of the destructive power of the tongue.
  • So: Do not doubt or underestimate the power of the tongue (cf. p. 137f). The tongue has intrinsic power (James 3:1-4), e.g., the way a rudder controls a ship, and the tongue has destructive and corruptive power (James 3:5-6), e.g., gossip, innuendo, flattery, criticism, and diminishment.
  • “A true text of a man’s spirituality is not his ability to speak, as we are apt to think, but rather his ability to bridle his tongue” (p. 142).
  • Therefore: the author recommends that we (1) ask God to discipline your tongue, (2) ask God to cauterize our lips (cf. Isaiah 6:5), (3) ask God to impress this need as an ongoing prayer, (4) strive to memorize Scripture “which teach the proper use of the tongue” (see all the excerpts on the tongue from the Book of Proverbs on pp. 275-278).
Chapter 12 – Discipline of Work
  • Both sloth and overwork are a contemporary epidemic (p. 147).
  • Work matters to God. Christians are called to “Get Dominion” for Jesus. “Men everything about your work must be directed toward Him — your attitudes, your integrity, your intensity, and your skill” (p. 152). We “Get Dominion” for Jesus by apply excellence to our trade/sill/vocation/calling: “Work that is truly Christian is work well done” (p. 154).
  • Assessment test provided by the author: (1) Do I do my work for the glory of God? (2) Do I honestly work hard? (3) Do I work with enthusiasm? (4) Do I work wholeheartedly? (5) Do I do excellent work?
Chapter 13 – Discipline of Perseverance
  • We must persevere in integrity, persevere in with fruit of integrity in our speech and deeds–in order to do this we must focus on Jesus Christ and overcome obstacles, tribulations, etc.
  • Christians need to cultivate the virtues of hope and joy.
  • “If we focus on the joy that Christ has set before us, we will endure the sufferings of this world and will dismiss any shame incurred in His name as nothing. And we will run the race to His glory” (p. 163).
  • “The discipline of perseverance confronts us to” (p. 164f): (1) Divest. Throw off besetting sin . . . (2) Run. Run our own race, the race God has marked for us . . . (3) Focus. We must focus on Jesus . . . (4) Consider. We must consider Him (Jesus). Our life is to be spent considering how He lived (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3).