I didn’t forget, actually
Dear [all birthday wishers to whom I have not yet replied, for whatever reason, and also any who may happen to post happy birthday on my wall in the next 70 minutes or so]: I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. But don’t worry, I shan’t be going on any “vacations” any time soon, or doing anything too much more out of the ordinary than I normally do (since we all know I’m not exactly a respectable hobbit (well, truth is, I’m not a hobbit at all, but that’s quite beside the point) not these days) because I don’t happen to own any magic rings. But all this to say: thank you for your birthday wishes. I had a great day watching the USA women advance to the World Cup Final, and eating Orange Leaf froyo. And writing this obscenely long post, which facebook kindly informed me is too long for a status update, which caused me to break my quite long hiatus from the blogosphere so I could post this slightly-not-very-funny rant/spiel thing. That’s all. Good night, and happy adventuring tomorrow.
[Unnecessary Post]
Well, you probably already figured that this had happened/was happening, but I thought it only fair to give you some official notice. I am currently not planning to update this blog, well, at all, for the next indefinite period of time. Yes, I know, it always happens, and now I’m just one more stat of someone who thought they’d try out blogging and then didn’t have the stamina to finish…yeah, I know, I’m a quitter, yada yada yada. Yoda. Haha, just kidding. I’m not Yoda.
Reasons (in case you care) why i’m not blogging here anymore and why you shouldn’t be terribly concerned:
1. Mere Reflections is so much cooler.
2. I’ll still be blogging at Mere.
3. I mean, if you scroll down my blog, I really haven’t posted anything terribly worth reading, with the exception maybe of the Sermon on the Mount series, in a very long time. So it’s not like you’re gonna be missing anything if I don’t post anything.
4. I have a Tumblr, where I post random poetry/songs that I write, so if I don’t post it on Mere, you might find it there.
5. I’m planning to start recording (music) in the very near future.
6. I’m dreaming up a collaborative poetry experiment (to be found at some point in the (hopefully) near future at inverspective.com).
7. All of these things combine to say that I really just don’t have time to stress about not having posted anything here for two weeks and then randomly coming up with something meaningless to post just so I don’t feel bad about not posting.
So yeah, others have excuses. I have my reasons why.
See ya ’round. I’m out.
Poems of Winter (1)
So I decided to write a series of poems about winter, from a few different perspectives, just to challenge myself and try to see if I can hone my craft a little bit (also because I happen to love both winter and writing poetry, so what could be a better combination?). At any rate, I just finished the first one. This one’s written in blank verse, which is probably the most natural format for me. Also, it’s written in the style of a prophetic lament, which I know, is really weird, but what do else would you expect coming from me?
Leaf-Crunching
Sermon on the Mount: Conclusion
So, uh, I know it took me forever, but i finally finished this series. Here’s my conclusion, which is probably far different from my original angle in the introduction, since it’s been so long since I started. But hopefully you maybe got something out of all my rambling–I know I did. If you have any ideas for what project I should start next, I’ll try to be better about getting it done in a reasonable amount of time.
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Mat. 7:24-27)
In our postmodern world so many people try to make religion out to be just a matter of personal preference and subjective conviction, and that’s it. Our culture views religion as a nice addition to life to keep things flowing well, or to bring comfort in distress, or to find a place to connect, but otherwise irrelevant to life. But Jesus makes it very clear: whether or not you believe the Gospel is a matter of life and death. Jesus has spent his Sermon the Mount slowly, methodically building: first laying the foundation that no one can be saved by the Law, then setting up the framework that justification is a matter not of deeds but of the heart, then putting up the walls and roof with the exclusive claim that only by dying to self and receiving a new heart can a person find salvation in Him. And now, Jesus brings home the point of why a house must be well built–it’s because the storm’s a’comin, and if you miss the foundational truth that JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY, then you gonna get blown to kingdom come (no pun intended).
Some people question if the Gospel preached by Paul about Jesus is the same one that Jesus preached. But I think the Sermon on the Mount, when understood in its larger context, puts that debate to rest. Jesus is emphatically proclaiming the gloriously good news that Man is under God’s wrath but incapable of pulling himself out, and the only way of getting out of the dilemma is a heart change which only God can bring, and the only one who can cause that change is God Himself, through Jesus his Son, by the power of the Spirit. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This is the Gospel that Jesus preached.
And He Said Peace
The first part of the poem (before the ellipsis) I wrote the night that it actually happened, and then the second part I wrote a few weeks later as I reflected on it.
Read it at tumblr, where I’ll be posting my poetry/music from now on.
The Gospel and Intentionality
“All those affections, sentiments, and practices, whose nature is to beget carelessness and unguarded conduct, are unscriptural. If even our joys and hopes make us heedless, we are better off without them. If we have so conceived of the gospel as to judge that its fullness and promises render watchfulness unnecessary, we quite mistake its true nature.”
–W.S. Plumer (19th cent Presbyterian pastor), quoted from Ray Ortlund’s (Jr.) commentary on Isaiah.
Well, what do you know!
I changed my blog theme. In case you are so unobservant that you didn’t notice, or if this is your first time reading this blog, in which case, you probably wouldn’t care anyways that I changed it. At any rate, I’m really bad at trying to pick colors, so if you have a suggestion for the borders (that’s all that can change in this theme, unless you know CSS, which I don’t), please let me know. But be specific. Like, hex # specific. Thanks, and that’s all for now.
Oh, and I really am going to post that thing on Derek Webb this week. Promise.
Just so you know…
…I am now the official resident poet at Mere Reflections (well, as designated such by the Official Committee In Charge of Assigning Official Designations, of which I am the only member, coincidentally). In other news, I am still alive (in case you were unsure), and still writing. Just not prose, unless it’s research papers.
In all seriousness, it’s really weird: since I’ve gotten here (here being Union, in case you were confused), I think I’ve written more poetry than the rest of my life combined, and almost zero prose, which is a total reversal of what I’ve done in the past. Also, I think it’s really ironic that while I’ve gone on a poetry rampage, Zach has gone on a serious/discussion-based post rampage over at Mere Reflections. But hey, I’m not complaining. I can live with this arrangement.
Oh, and as a side note, I do have in the works (as in, I have a idea but nothing on paper), a piece on what ever happened to Derek Webb. I think I figured him out. Maybe. But probably not.
What I Believe Pt.2: “What Is Man?”
This is a continuation of my paper/short book entitled What I Believe. This is the second part.
Question 2: What Is Man?
For some reason or another, the debate of “Creation vs. Evolution” has come to be seen by many as the foundational debate between Theists and Atheists/Agnostics, and especially between Protestant fundamentalists and secular thinkers. The argument has even come to be framed as the great collision of science and religion (which are subsequently viewed as arch nemeses), with both sides seemingly in a state of constant paranoia that the purity or integrity of their side is being compromised. There are those who say that you can’t believe in evolution and be a Christian, and those who say you can’t believe in a Creator God and be a good scientist. For some time I was greatly involved in the debate, and read a good number of books on the subject, but since then I have seen that perhaps this discussion is not the most important.
If you want to know, I hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, meaning that I believe that there was nothing, and then God made Something, and then in the time of six literal days proceeded to form the universe out of the Something He had created. I’m sure that if you are a typical modern or postmodern person, you will instantly denounce me as a fool and an ignoramus. But hear me out, if you will. There are many theories out there that people have used to reconcile the Biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 with the current consensus of the recognized scientific community, including the Old Earth theory, the Gap Theory, and “Genesis is just poetry, not meant to be taken literally” Theory[i], and the Day-Age Interpretation, etc.[ii] I’ll not even mention the ones that say that the Bible is just wrong, because as I’ve said before, I hold the Bible as inerrant truth (for reasons already established in a previous paper), and to say that one part of the Bible isn’t true means there’s no reason to believe the rest of it, and so then my entire faith gets thrown out the window. So I won’t go there—but back to the matter at hand: while I don’t particularly think that any of these theories are true, I also don’t consider them to be ridiculous or untenable positions. For reasons that I don’t deem necessary to get into right now, I consider a literal interpretation to make the most sense, but I think the authority of the Bible is not compromised by any of the other theories.
Now, at this point I’m sure you’ll object that so far I’ve danced around the “real” question: what do I do about the fact that evolutionary science obviously disproves the Bible?[iii] Well, to that I would simply say that it does not. The reason I can still hold onto a literal interpretation of Genesis is not that I deny science altogether and trust to religion instead—not in the least! Rather, I embrace science, and see no reason that “science” and Creation should contradict, because contrary to popular belief, there are a good number of scientists out there whose findings support the idea of a Creator. There are intelligent, capable researchers who have become convinced through their work that there is some credence to the Biblical account. The reason they don’t speak out, if you’re wondering, is that the scientific and scholastic community is harshly intolerant of any critics of evolution (citation needed).
No matter how He made it, the important thing in my belief about nature is that God created the world—everything that exists—from nothing. There is no analogy suitable to illustrate what this is like, as we as created beings have no concept for what nothingness means[iv]. But by His power, God caused there to be matter where nothing had been, and more than that God created all the laws and rules which govern matter. So even things like magnetism and gravity and energy and whatnot did not even exist before Creation—God Himself designed them when He made matter. From the powerful, ridiculously massive stars to the intricate, nanoscopic[v] atom, God was the designer. It was His plan, His idea, His creativity. It did not just happen itself, or senselessly—it was done on purpose, by God. That’s the crux of what I believe about the origin of the world. (citation from Scripture?)
But now I’ve spent far too long on this topic—far longer than I intended—and so I’ll move on to finally answer the question of this section: “What is Man?”
Man is the apex of all of God’s creation—the final crowning masterpiece, because unlike the rest of the natural world, God made Man in His image[vi]. The complete meaning of this is not very simple, and it’s not possible to fully understand it. But there are several basic ideas involved in the concept, as well as several practical applications. I’ll start with the former: first, unlike any other created being, Man has a soul/spirit, and is thus an eternal being[vii]. Second, Man is a rational being who can process and communicate abstract thoughts. Third, Man is a moral being with the capacity to understand the difference between good and evil and choose which he will do. All of these things separate Man from animals and the rest of the natural world, and show the imprint of God’s hand which science has yet to satisfactorily explain[viii]. Now, as to what all of this means in practical matters: first, Man has been set apart from the rest of nature, and thus there is a special value and sanctity to human life. Second, Man has been given the authority over the rest of creation and the responsibility to take care of it. And finally, there is a special way in which Man can relate to God, and a special role of Man, and of individual men and women, in the great saga of history.
The Westminster Catechism begins with a question that has been asked for millenniums across all cultures: “What is the chief end of man?” (or to put in modern phrasing: “Why are we here?”). This question has occupied great minds since the beginning of recorded history, and some kind of answer to it plays a prominent role in every philosophy. Existentialists say: “there is no reason”, Hedonists say: “to have fun”, Secular Humanists say: “to make the world a better place”. And the general conception that most people have about religion (from what I gather), is that religion’s answer is: “to live a good enough life to get to heaven”. But such an answer is far from representing the central truth of the Christian message.
The catechism answers the question like this: “The chief end of Man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”, and I think that such statement captures well the message of the Bible and thus of Christianity. Because here’s the thing: everything is about God. God is not a means to an end, or a helpful pick-me-up, or a last resort, or an imaginary friend. He is the center of the universe, through whom and for whom all of Creation, and specifically all of Mankind, exists.[ix] God created us solely for His glory, because that is the thing with which He is most concerned, and rightly so. A lot of people when they hear that respond by calling God a selfish, narcissistic brute, and turn away in disgust; but they react that way because they don’t really understand who God is. God is the most beautiful, most perfect, most wonderful, most holy, most amazing, most worthy Being that is. As pastor John Piper explains in his book Desiring God, “If God should turn away from Himself as the Source of infinite joy, He would cease to be God. He would deny the infinite worth of His own glory. He would imply that there was something more valuable outside Himself. He would commit idolatry” (emphasis mine). So to say that more explicitly: God would be sinning against Himself if he made Man the center of his attention and the chief object of glory. And God is perfectly holy and does not sin. And so God values Himself and His glory above all else, and is right and good in doing so.
But there’s an interesting paradox that comes into play here, which is what makes the message of the Bible so beautiful. God set up the world in such a way that bringing Him glory is what is best for us—that living our lives entirely for His sake is what makes us most happy. Piper slightly tweaks the catechism’s answer to say more properly what the purpose of man is: “To glorify God by enjoying Him forever”. So living life according to the Christian faith is not a matter of gritting your teeth and denying yourself all pleasures and just scraping by through the suckiness of life so that when you die you’ll be eternally happy floating around in the sky; rather, living the Christian life means that you have finally realized what is best for you, and you begin to love what is good now, though we do so imperfectly until we reach heaven and we are made complete. But now I’m getting ahead of myself. I’ll go into more detail about that in later sections.
Let’s get back to the Creation story. God made everything, then He made Man in His own image, and set him over all other Creation. In this original state, Man was totally innocent, and the thought of doing other than what God commanded was totally foreign to his will. Genesis says that Adam and Eve (the first man and woman) walked and talked with God in the garden of Eden. What exactly that means in a literal interpretation, I don’t know, but here’s the point: Man had a real, day-to-day relationship with God. But then according to Genesis 3, Satan came (in the form or a serpent[x]) and lied to Adam and Eve, telling them that the reason God had commanded them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was that if they did, they would become like God, in other words, that they would be equal to God. And so they ate, committing the first sin, thus bringing death into the world.[xi] Now, some people object that it is petty of God to bring condemnation and death and Hell on the whole world just because a couple dumb people at some fruit they weren’t supposed to. But that misses the point of what Adam and Eve’s sin really was. The offence against God was not so much the physical act of eating the fruit, but the rebellious, defiant, and jealous attitude which caused them to blatantly disobey their Creator. The root of the first sin, and the root of all sin even today, is pride, which says “God, even though I know you are omniscient and omnipotent and all-good and all-loving, and even though you are my Creator and my rightful King, I think that I know better, and I think that I should have control of my life, so I’m going to do what I want to do. In other words, the root of all sin is spitting in the face of our Benefactor.
And here’s the key thing about sin that so many people—Christians included—don’t seem to get: sin is not a good thing we give up in order to get the better blessings God’s offering, rather, sin is our bane and holiness is our salvation. Romans 3 says that the wages of sin is death, and that doesn’t just mean that those who sin will be punished with death—it means that the natural end result of sin is the eternal Death of the sinner. The reason why Christ died to save us from our sin is that sin is killing us! And the reason why you should turn to Christ for salvation, dying to yourself and your sin, is not because having Jesus gives you a “better life” than not having Jesus, but because Jesus is the only way that you can actually have life at all. The reason why Christians ought to strive for holiness is that holiness brings Life[xii], and the reason why Christians ought to flee from sin at any cost is that sin brings Death.
Now, before I leave this discussion of what theologians call “The Fall” and move on to pick back up the broader discussion of the nature of evil and the significance of the Law, I want to address one more crucial aspect of Sin. It’s easy for theologians to consider the doctrine of Hell, and of God’s wrath against sin, and wish that there were some way that God could be viewed less punitive and more of a passive enforcer than a vengeful punisher. This leads some, notably (in my reading) CS Lewis, to imply that Hell is not necessarily the active hand of God punishing the evildoer, but rather a just God allowing sin to run its ultimate course of destruction for the lives of the sinners. However, this is an inaccurate theological construct, because it ignores much evidence clearly revealed in the teaching of Scripture which paints Hell as the place where God’s intentional, active wrath is poured out against all who reject Him.[xiii] And any of our attempts to soften the doctrine of Hell are truly offences themselves against the holiness and character of God, because in “softening” Hell’s punishment, we are implying that sin is really not so bad as to deserve eternal torture of the highest degree. But this false understanding of sin comes because we do not really see fully the immeasurable value and utmost worth and complete goodness of God. For the height of the offence is not based on the magnitude of the act committed, but on the holiness of the Person offended. And so since God is of infinite worth (something I established earlier), then sin is infinitely offensive. And since God is most concerned (and rightly so) with His own glory, then He must be infinitely outraged against the heinous rebellion committed by Man, and thus must infinitely punish the offender. So Hell—the active, eternal wrath of God poured out on us forever—is truly what we all deserve. To say any less would be to defame God.
[i] I’m afraid I don’t know of an official name for this one, but I assure you it is a sentiment held by some people.
[ii] For a more thorough treatment, see Mark Driscoll’s sermon called “Creation: God Makes”.
[iii] Or so you say. Obviously, I completely disagree with you on that point.
[iv] I heard a funny joke the other day, which I’m sure you will not think very funny at all if you don’t believe in God, but it makes a good point, I think. It goes like this: A scientist tells God that science has advanced to the point that He is no longer needed. “God, with our great technology and knowledge we can do anything that you can, including forming a man out of the dirt.” God smiles, and says, “Really? Let me see that!” So, the scientist bends down to scoop up some dirt, when God interrupts him and says, “Hey,get your own dirt!”
[v] Yeah, so I made that word up. But you get my point.
[vi] Genesis 1:26
[vii] Not in the sense of always having been, but in the sense of lasting forever after inception. How this works, I have NO idea, but I trust that God is God, and can arrange things to work like that. Mormonism claims that all human spirits, as well as angels and demons, have always existed with God and will always continue to exist. However, I think this is refuted by the fact that God created both men and angels, so they had a beginning.
[viii] That’s a just my opinion, of course, but hey, this is my statement of belief so I can do that.
[ix] cf Colossians 1:16
[x] Although moderns traditionally interpret this as snake, this creature, if you take to a literal interpretation and believe that spirits can speak through animals, was probably something more akin to a dragon. But that is totally and completely conjecture, and not at all related to the discussion.
[xi] cf. Romans 5
[xii] cf. Psalm 19, Psalm 119
[xiii] Jesus was perhaps the most prolific teacher on Hell, and is said to have taught more on that subject that any other. And whenever he teaches on Hell, it is in terms of punitive action, not passive allowance of evil. See Mark 12:1-12 for a prime example.
