We put up our little Christmas tree yesterday and my wife helped our 3-year-old daughter hang up the ornaments. When we were finished, a picture was snapped to email to some of the family far away, along with pictures of the kids playing in the snow. Looking back through the pictures though, I couldn’t help but notice what was swimming around in the bottom corner. It pretty much sums up what our house is centered around. So Christmas is from 4 feet and up. Below swims the year-old and three-year-old sharks. Swim away, swim away!
While waiting for the son to drift off to sleep late last night I turned to reading back trough part of Chesteron’s Orthodoxy. There really are some wonderful things in chapter six, “Christianity and Paradox”. The paradoxes and mysteries of Christianity are difficult to describe, but G.K. really presents some brilliant illustrations here.
THE real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong. It is this silent swerving from accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny element in everything. It seems a sort of secret treason in the universe.
Now, actual insight or inspiration is best tested by whether it guesses these hidden malformations or surprises. If our mathematician from the moon saw the two arms and the two ears, he might deduce the two shoulder-blades and the two halves of the brain. But if he guessed that the man’s heart was in the right place, then I should call him something more than a mathematician. Now, this is exactly the claim which I have since come to propound for Christianity. Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth. It not only goes right about things, but it goes wrong (if one may say so) exactly where the things go wrong. Its plan suits the secret irregularities, and expects the unexpected. It is simple about the simple truth; but it is stubborn about the subtle truth. It will admit that a man has two hands, it will not admit (though all the Modernists wail to it) the obvious deduction that he has two hearts. It is my only purpose in this chapter to point this out; to show that whenever we feel there is something odd in Christian theology, we shall generally find that there is something odd in the truth.
If he were to discern where the heart was, he would be less a mathematician and more like a god. We are in the creator’s image, but we are not him. Our world is a place we can ponder to great end, but yet only so far. The God who revealed himself years ago to the Hebrews, the God who stepped down in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the God whose spirit works invisible this hour, he alone fills in all of the odd truths and gets them all right, even when we don’t understand how it could be possible. He alone gives us free will and yet doesn’t lay down his sovereignty to do it. He alone can hold grace in one hand and vengeance in the other in a way that actually amplifies the glory of both, instead of canceling them out.
In our local university, there is a course called “The Bible as Literature”. I’ve always been told the very idea was the height of sacrilege. Of course, this particular course is taught from an atheistic point of view where it’s not even an option for anything (other than some of the historical references) to actually be true. I’ve always viewed the Bible as a special book that is so different from any kind of other literature as to be off in a special category all by itself. Lately though, I am beginning to realize that this can give us an incomplete understanding of the passage. The holy spirit gives us understanding regardless of how much we understand, but let us strive to understand more.
The Bible is true and divine, but it also IS literature. Each book was written down by a human being and directed, not to just generic Jews or Christians, but intended for a specific audience. It has clear genres. Some of it is straight up history, as reported by a royal chronicler. Job is NOT history literature (regardless of whether or not it describes actual events). Psalms and Song of Songs are poetry. Philemon was a letter written to one recipient. Corinthians was written to a whole group of Greek people, not Jews. Now, all of this seems pretty obvious, so why mention it?
It’s because if you throw these things out (which happens more often than I ever realized), then you can come up with all kinds of goofy ideas. Grabbing a verse from Song of Songs to back up a particular point of doctrine from Romans might not actually work. Really! Revelations is full of metaphors and imagery. When you take something from it and stick it next to some verses from Mark, it may sound more “literal”, but that is only confusion. This is beyond just the idea of context, but stretches to the authors original intention for each particular section of the Bible.
A recent commenter at the Boar’s Head Tavern pointed out an excellent example of this:
Let’s say you are studying Deuteronomy, and right at the beginning of the study, one of your students says the following:
“I’ve been reading this book for years and it clearly teaches that, if you obey and worship God, he will financially and materially bless you. It’s plain and clear. Anyone can read it in chapter after chapter. Obey, worship and God will bring you prosperity and wealth.”
What would be your response? (No seminary level answers allowed. These are regular laypersons.)
I would tell him to be aware of who God’s talking to. The Bible is not God’s personal letter to you, and in this case, he really DID promise Israel prosperity if they as a nation continued in his commandments and his worship. He made no similar promise to any other nation.
Posted by: Josh S
The Bible is not God’s personal letter to me? I’ve been told so many times that it’s his personal LOVE letter to me. Actually, I still think this is true (in some sense), but if you just stop to think, you’ll realize that in many other ways, it never has been. Above is a great example. Can you find an image of God’s love for you in the types and liturgical instruction in Deuteronomy? Yes, I believe you can. But it actually was written for some old guys with beards living in tents in the desert 3500 years ago. The author (God, through a human writer) wasn’t EXACTLY writing it for you sitting on your couch listening to your iPod. That’s fine, but that must be taken in to account!
I hope to explore the different genres of the Bible in the next while and maybe blog some about how that has helped me to understand (and appreciate) it better.
Eric Raymond over at Irish Calvinist quotes James White in a clarification of the doctrine of sola scriptura. I think this really gets confused in a lot of people’s minds. Growing up Baptist and then charismatic in college, I always assumed a high and “only” view of the Bible. Nonetheless, both groups end up coloring the idea of “scripture alone” in various directions. That’s fine of course (to some degree) and to be expected. The reformed crowd appears to be shooting for more of a historical take on the doctrine. They are asking, “What did “scripture alone” mean to the early reformers?” It ends up being colored a reformed shade, but probably a little more carefully.
Anyway, the reason I think all of this is worth bringing up is because sola scriptura really IS very important to Christianity. When you marginalize it, you set yourself up for all sorts of trouble.
Sola sciptura is not a….
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth;
4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken;
5. rejection of every kind of tradition;
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church
A Summary of sola scriptura…
1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.
Growing up baptist, sola scriptura was often used as a stick to beat up charismatics: “Look! The Bible is all we need! Prophecy is definitely not allowed.” It was also used to beat up the Catholics: Hey, the Bible is all we need! All those traditions you have are worthless and diluting the Bible. Apparently scripture alone implies a low liturgy.
In the charismatic circle I was part of, Smith Wigglesworth (an early 20th century evangelist) was held up as a hero. He ONLY read the Bible, owned no other books, and was credited with making people throw their newspapers away when he was around. This was seen as something to stand in awe of. Reading the bible daily was pushed really hard. (Which is great!) But reading much of anything else was thought to have little value. This is just part of the anti-intellectual atmosphere that appears to exist in most charismatic circles. We used to look at the reformed folks with their Bible sitting next to Virgil and Tacitus and just shake our heads. How can that other stuff possibly be of any use? Especially old pagan writers! Why don’t you just read the bible? (There is actually a decent answer to this.)
I think it’s most important to remember points #2 and #5 from above.
We don’t NEED anything besides scripture, but other things CAN be very helpful.
Everything we do (traditions, ideas, methods) are subject to the HIGHER authority of scripture.
I know our culture will sometimes understand a love for Jesus as weakness. There is this lie floating around that says I am supposed to be able to do life alone, without any help, without stopping to worship something bigger than myself. But I actually believe there IS something bigger than me, and I need for there to be something bigger than me. I need someone to put awe inside me; I need to come second to someone who has everything figured out.
Trusting in Jesus is weak? I counter that the thing that takes the most strength in this life is selflessness. What is the fruit of the spirit?
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control.
The strength the keep loving when your love doesn’t come Bam! right back at you when you desire it.
The strength to move PAST hurt and bitterness in this life and to still live joyfully.
To have the world collapse and not collapse with it but be at at peace, even when in prison, or in genuine despair.
To power to be kind when it gains you nothing immediate and may not even be deserved by the one receiving it.
The restraint to be gentle when barging through is easy.
All of these things flow not from within, but from the spirit of the living God!
This is real strength.
Where does my help come from?
Not from my own talents, skills, intellect, physical strength or money. My help comes from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth.
Glory be to the Lord, the Creator, and to Jesus, his anointed one!
Mention of the Holy Spirit summons up up confusion. If a person or group claims, “The Bible says,” you can look for yourself. If they claim, “The Spirit told me,” where can you look? There lies the problem: by definition the Spirit is invisible. Jesus drew a parallel for Nicodemus: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.” How can we detect a presence that has no shape, no identifiable form? Nevertheless, no one who wants to know God can ignore the Spirit.
The Christian who is enamored with rationalism will always squirm at the mention of the spirit. Who can systematically dissect the whispers of him deep inside the hearts of men? That’s impossible! Better just stick with the books. Except the books speak of the spirit.
This is kind of an incomplete post because it only describes a question. I don’t have the answers yet from the parties involved.
Throughout the years, Christian leaders have tried to reform what they see as digressions in the practice of worship. These are honest Jesus-loving, God-fearing, bible-reading people. So they say, OK, enough of this! We are going to throw all our preconceived ideas about worship out the window and figure out what God, Jehovah, the self-existent one really wants.
It’s interesting to see what happens then. I have two examples of this very thing happening locally with two local congregations: Living Faith Fellowship, a non-denominational charismatic church led by Karl Barden and Christ Church, an Evangelical Free turned Reformed congregation let by Doug Wilson. The similarities in the congregations are amazingly parrallel. Both were started about the same year in the early 70s just a few miles from each other. Both grew to a congregation of several hundred before the pastor introduced their worship reforms. This happened mid 80s to early 90s.
Both pastors were uncomfortable with traditional evangelical worship. What did it look like? A mix of older hymns and some new (typically Maranatha) style praise choruses. Both of them decided to retreat into the scriptures and figure out what they really SHOULD be doing. Both focussed a lot on the psalms.
Both were in such similar circumstances and set out to do the same thing…and came to remarkably different conclusions!
Barden decided that we need to DO all the things the psalms talk about when they describe the worship of God. We need to dance and twirl in worship, we need to have lots of musical instruments, cymbals, harps, lyres, trumpets and all that. We need to have banners and streamers and all these other things that are described in bible.
Wilson decided that we need to sing the psalms. All of them. Verbatim. The ones of praise, the ones of lament, and the ones of imprecation (asking God to smite your enemies). Sometimes set to composed music, sometimes chanted.
And both set out to do just that, confident that they were ensuring their worship of the Lord was going to be very biblical indeed. I would really like to interview Barden (now retired and living near Seattle?) and Wilson about this point and get their reaction about this trying so hard to be biblical and coming up with such different conclusions.
I respect both of these men and what they came up with. It’s an angle I would like to explore more as I continue to define worship.
Doug Wilson is a local pastor, author of many books, and regular blogger. I’ve been reading Doug for a couple years now (and have even visited his church a few times). He represents a particular flavor of “reformed” Christian theology, along with some of his peers, such as Peter Leithart. It’s not so much Doug that I’m attached to. I’m really much more weary now of following any particular personality. I’m attracted to what he stands for and teaches about God and how to live the Christian life. There are a host of things that I agree with and I’ll highlight them in a later post.
I’ve hesitated several years in putting this list together. It’s changed over time. The reformed view is different than what I’m used to in many ways. I wanted to make sure I understood what was going on before I opened my big mouth. These guys are really smart. Am I just stupid if they say something I don’t agree with? I wanted to make sure. A lot of things I thought might be problems have turned out not to be. I think I finally have a pretty good idea. I’ll run through this in maybe 3 posts. This is all to try and solidify in my mind what I believe.
1. Focus on the corporate (church) relationship to Jesus VS. the individual personal relationship to God.
I am fond of telling people that Christianity is not a relationship, it is a religion. Of course, after having made the point, I hasten to add that it is a covenantal religion with a covenantal relationship at the heart of it. God promises that we will be His people, and He will be our God. But this is not what the religion of revivalism demands. Revivalism demands that there be what is called “a personal relationship.” And of course, we must be careful here. Each believer is a person, created in the image of God, and God has poured out His Spirit into the hearts of believers, causing them to cry out, Abba, Father. In a profound sense, this is a personal relationship. But this is not what revivalism means by “personal relationship.”
In revivalism, this personal relationship is isolated and individualistic. In the orthodox Christian faith, our personal relationship is covenantal and connected. God never establishes Himself as an individual’s Father without simultaneously giving that person countless brothers and sisters. This is another way of saying that there is no salvation outside the Church. Note the difference it makes in the nature of devotion – one emphasizes a personal “quiet time” while the other emphasizes corporate worship.
Now, here is the problem I have with this: It serves to explicitly deemphasize personal prayer and devotion. In the larger discourse he points out problems that can arise from personal quiet time. OK fine. But if there is anything I have learned in my journey following Jesus, it is that personal “quiet time” is actually very very important. How do I know? Because the amount I sin is inversely proportional to the amount of time I spend alone talking to Jesus. It is NOT directly related to the amount of time I spend at church, in corporate worship services, in ministry or service, or fellowshipping with believers. Those things can help, but the prayer and personal devotion to Jesus is by far the most substantial element in my walk with the Lord. It is the thing that gives me the most peace (and I’ll say it again) the thing that stops me from sinning. Hard heart? Bad attitude? Lustful thoughts? Jealously? Take them to Jesus. He is the great redeemer and intercessor and HE alone can renew our minds and change our hearts.
I don’t say any of this to diminish our relationship with our brothers and sisters in the church. I have a new found respect for the Christian community since studying the reformed way. I think both are critical. I’ve heard taught in my charismatic background that spending personal time with Jesus every day is what recharges us to live righteously each day. Doug teaches that it is our participation in corporate worship every Sunday that recharges us to live righteously the next 6 days of the week. I disagree. I think we (sinful man) is quick to take this as a license to be LAZY. I think that personal time of devotion and prayer is not to be minimized. If you look at the Saints and heroes of the faith, all of them, not just the contemplative ones, would agree with this. I think if questioned about it, Doug would say that he isn’t trying to minimizing personal devotion, just redefining it’s place in our lives. It’s a reaction to “every man is an island”. Sorry, I have to move it to a more prominent place when I describe the church.
So what is the source of this? I’m putting my own personal experience against a (particular way of interpreting) scripture. Oh, that’s a quick way to get into trouble! True, but I don’t think Psalm 119 should have been any shorter than it is. Our personal connection to Jesus is vital.
Davis Wilson was a classmate of mine in music school a few years back. Now he’s studying law in NYC.
He’s written a brilliant and funny piece on what being cool is all about.
I usually don’t post links here because it causes my wife to accuse me of being a lame-o blogger.
I thought this one was too good to pass up though!
