Reflections Archives - Page 7 of 9

February 2, 2007

The Enlightenment and its Effect on the Church

The philosophie des lumieres, commonly known as the Enlightenment, continues to have a destructive effect on our church’s liturgy and life. Hans Kung ably summarizes what was lost with the emergence of the Enlightenment:

Order, hierarchy, authority, discipline, Church, dogma, faith, still highly esteemed in the seventeenth century, came to be detested in the eighteenth.[1]

A high view of Order, a high ecclesiology, a robust view of church discipline,[2] and a commitment to the Great Creeds of the faith and much more have been abolished from Protestant and Evangelical churches. The Enlightenment succeeded in that it continually brings autonomy from the academia to the church. Where there once was a Creed confessed by all, now there are pithy sayings meant to spur others to action; where once was discipline, now there is immediate leniency. This despicable alliance the church has made with the heirs of the Enlightenment will eventually lead to a cultish disassociation from her historical roots. If man can invent their own methods, sell their own strategies, and de-ecclesiasticize the church, then we can expect a diminishment of Orthodoxy.

Much of this refers back to the orderliness of the Garden. The Garden was created so that order would prevail. Perfect beauty was to invade the Garden and replenish all the earth. Since the Fall of man, disorder has reigned supreme. The Christian Church has through the Ages attempted to restore this Edenic Order. To a certain extent it has succeeded, though the church has seen the good, the bad, and the disorderly. In order to once again continue the path laid by our forefathers, we need to abolish any Enlightenment element from our churches and our worship, and return to that sacred space and sacred order. Where there is order, there is clarity. We have lost that clarity in this day and to capitulate to the Enlightenment is to lose all clarity.

[1]Kung, Hans, Does God Exist? Pg. 37.

[2] Considered by Calvin to be one of the marks of a true church.

January 9, 2007

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IV

The second book entitled What Christians Believe deals with alternatives to the Christian faith. Lewis first establishes that though other religions are inherently wrong as a whole, yet Christians cannot categorically affirm that they have nothing to offer that is good and wholesome. This is a valid point as far as it goes. If by affirming some good in other religions, Lewis refers to their commitment (as in Islam), their good behavior in public (Mormons; though they would be a “cult” in my perspective), or good moral teachings (like Judaism), then I think it is a fair assessment. Nevertheless, Christians reject any alternative to Christianity, because God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”[1] By allowing any other religion opposed to the God of the Bible, the right to instruct us on how we ought to live is to break the first commandment. God Himself has the authority to instruct us and all that we need is found in His Revelation. In the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth, but when any other truth, besides the Scriptures becomes authoritative in our daily instruction, we have deceived ourselves.

Before delving into a few specifics of this section of the book, there is a humorous section where Lewis discusses one reader’s complaint about his constant usage of the word “damned.” Lewis writes:

One listener complained of the word “damned” as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is under God’s curse, and will (apart from God’s grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.[2]

This is somewhat humorous in light of the contemporary evangelical fear of using language that would be considered cursing. This is in my estimation a hangover from fundamentalism. Lewis is right, but does not go far enough. Lewis is correct that the use of the word “damned” is reserved and can be used for all things and people that are worthy of curses and damnation. (for my article on cursing click here)

Among the great rivals for the conception of God, is the concept of No-god. This is atheism (a-No; Theism-God). Lewis develops his critique of atheism by saying that atheism is too simple. Atheism leads to meaninglessness. But if it is meaningless, then how do we know that statement to be a meaningful expression of what atheism signifies? But also, Christianity can fall into that same category. It can also be too simple and fall short of a proper alternative to atheism. This is what Lewis calls Christianity and water. He writes:

Christianity-and-water, (is) the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.[3]

This, of course, is convenient Christianity. “Just tell me when I must come to church and how much I have to give, and then leave me alone.” As Lewis argues later in the book, you cannot have a religion with no ethical demands. God plus no duty equals no Christianity. Unfortunately, millions prefer to serve this God that is only good. It is natural to assume why the natural man does not want to pursue God at any depth. If he does so, then he must be confronted with his many responsibilities before the government of the family and the civil government as well. Further, he will come to grasp with the horrible consequences of not submitting to Christ as Lord. To put it simply, doctrinal depth can lead to a God that is not so convenient to the modern mind.

It is here also that the atheist “inquisitor”[4] wants to have it both ways. The intellectual atheist sees the gospel message and says, “This is too simple.” It does not match their criteria of what a respectable religion should be. On the other hand, when they are presented with the great knowledge of the church throughout the ages, they say, ” This is too hard.” At this point the atheist reveals what is truly in his heart. As Romans 3 says: “There is none who seek after God, no not one.”

The apologetic of C.S. Lewis would be considered to be evidential in nature.[5] Though, he may also be influenced by classical apologetics.[6] Lewis seems to use the latter in proving the existence of God. He begins by proving the God of theism and then perhaps the resurrected Christ.[7] Lewis asserts that the atheist cannot deny the existence of God. Everything that he assumes proves God. Lewis uses the example of a robber. He is considered by society to be bad, but where does badness come from? According to Lewis:

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.[8]

He continues:

All the things, which enable a bad man to be effectively bad, are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.[9]

The bad does not exist apart from the good, there can be no real dichotomy in this world.[10]

Briefly, I shall speak to an area of Lewis’ writings that I despise, his treatment of free will. But before doing so, I want to relish on his idea of the great king’s purpose for the Advent (His Coming). Lewis sees the present world as “Enemy-occupied territory.” Surely since the fall we have lost the innocence of the garden and have allowed the enemies of God, the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), to have dominion over what rightly belongs to God. Nevertheless, those who have seen the end of the story are fully aware that God’s secret plan will crush Satan’s armies. Lewis beautifully summarizes the story of the Great King:

Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you may say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[11]

A great sabotage; this is a great plan to take over the planet that rightly belongs to the King of Kings. This calls for activism in every sense of the word. We cannot remain silent in this world pretending that what will be will be; this is fatalism, not Calvinism. Having dominion requires a plan; and only God’s plan can nullify the enemies’ tactics.[12]

Allow me to speak to Lewis’ view of free will. Lewis writes:

God created things, which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating.[13]

This form of argumentation you see ad infinitum. In fact, it may have been this exact argument from Lewis that has influenced notable Arminian scholars throughout the last 30 years. I can see the validity of it, if one looks merely at the existential level. All of us want to be free, autonomous, not bound by anything outside ourselves, the captain of our ship and masters of our own souls. Nevertheless, the Bible presents an entirely different picture. When Lewis speaks of free will being the ability to go either wrong or right, he is misleading the reader (certainly not on purpose). If by freedom, Lewis simply meant the physical ability to do one thing over another, to have pizza instead of spaghetti, then there would be no dispute. But Lewis uses freedom in a spiritual level. How can man choose good or evil, if he is dead (Ephesians 2:1)? Or how can he choose the good when he does not seek the good (Romans 3:10-21)? The fall brought humanity to a perplexing stage. He can no longer desire the things of God, unless they are given to him by the Father (John 6:44). For Lewis free will is necessary because without it, we are mere robots. But would that not be a glorious thing? Imagine doing God’s will at every breath and at every stage of life. To be a robot is only drudgery to those who do not know the wonder of being led by God at every moment. Nevertheless, the Biblical picture is that we are not robots, but responsible beings. God is sovereign and we are responsible, but lest we find some sense of pleasure in that fact, Paul tells us that even our deeds (our good works) is a gift from God. He works in and through us. Apart from God we are nothing. Only the regenerate mind can do good and even then we cannot claim it for ourselves, for God receives all the glory. This I believe is the right perspective on the matter, though incomplete in its treatment.

Finally, in this final section, Lewis speaks rightly about the inability of man to speak without divine consent. That is, man speaks because God grants Him the ability to do so. In Lewis’ words:

When you are arguing against Him (God) you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.[14]

How is it like to breathe because God gives you breath? How is it to speak against your Creator? And how is it to make a “case” against the existence of God while being upheld by His power to do so? Indeed, what is man that God is mindful of him.

[1] Exodus 20:2.[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 45.[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] I am very careful with this idea of an atheist inquiring about the faith. Calvinism teaches that unless the Spirit of God changes the heart no one can truly seek the things of God. Generally, when the atheist “seeks” God, they are seeking what they can gain for themselves.

[5] John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas hold to this position.

[6] Held by R.C. Sproul and others.

[7] I am not aware of Lewis using arguments from the resurrection in his apologetic. I am willing to be corrected.

[8] Mere Christianity, pg. 50.

[9] Ibid., pg. 50.

[10] In the world to come, all bad is abolished and all things will be perfectly good.

[11] Lewis, pg. 51.

[12] Only an optimistic eschatology is capable of accomplishing this. I doubt Lewis dealt at all with the issue of eschatology, but if I had to guess he would probably be some sort of Amillenialist like most Anglicans

[13] Ibid. 52.

[14] Mere Christianity, pg. 55.

January 2, 2007

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. A Touchstone Book, Published by Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1952.

This classic is drawn from three separate parts. The first is The Case for Christianity, then Christian Behaviour, and finally Beyond Personality. All three were given on the air as introductory lectures on the Christian religion. To the glorious benefit of the readers Lewis has taken his talks and with a few additions, put together this marvelous work that has served to lead many to consider the claims of the Christian God.

In this series of 15-20 articles, I would like to discuss some of the crucial aspects of Lewis’ writings and make some observations, which, I deem to be important in this day and age. I would like to begin where all good books begin–the preface.

Here we are, removed from C.S. Lewis thirty-three years since God called him. Yet, we are still moved by the brilliance of his works and are amazed by the enormous wealth his famous works[1] still bring to publishers and the movie industry alike. It is crucial to realize that Lewis’ intention in this volume is not to put Christian against Christian, but rather to make a case for the Christian faith. But before doing so, there are several observations in his preface that are worth mentioning.

The relevance of C.S. Lewis is seen in his efforts to unite the body of Christ. Granted, in modern theological language, Lewis would be considered an ecumenicist. That is, one who seeks unity at all cost. As such Lewis avoided dealing with certain issues. It is not that despised them, but that they were not important enough as he sought to defend the faith. To some, to be ecumenical is to flirt with the devil. Nevertheless, Lewis’ ecumenicism is healthy and needed. Lewis is not someone who would compromise the Creedal statements of the church, nor would He compromise other significant elements. However, it is important to see Lewis as someone who was very aware of the non-believing world. He was indeed, an apologist for the Christian faith to the un-Christian masses.[2]

C.S. Lewis was conscious of how the world perceived Christians and he wanted to train believers to be not just intelligent and sophisticated thinkers, but kind and gentle as well.[3] One example of this occurs in Lewis’ preface, in which he writes how we ought to behave if unbelievers are present. He writes:

Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His Only Son.[4]

This is a lesson in what I call “Christian prevention.” If the reader will keep in mind that the unbeliever is at most times completely naïve about the most basic element of the Christian faith, then why would he debate another Christian in areas of the faith that are beyond foreign to the unbelieving ear? The sad state of the church is due to unnecessary fights and inflammatory language that divide and tear asunder the unity of the church. Lewis, in this instance gives us an initial caution mark of what to do in a particular situation. It is better in my estimation to deal with general issues of worldview thinking, unless an unbeliever is curious about something he has heard.[5]

One common critique of C.S. Lewis is that he rarely dealt with controversial Christian issues. He speaks briefly about this when he says:

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ…to say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions.[6]

This is crucial to understand about the nature of Lewis’ writings, and that is, that he was called to be an apologist.[7] As an apologist his audience was not primarily Christian. Lewis wrote in insightful and provocative ways to call the atheist (which, he was before embracing Christ) to see the claims of Christianity. C.S. Lewis made the Christian message appealing to the Oxford philosopher as well as to the children. Of course, Lewis was an Anglican; he never denied it, but he was a reserved Anglican. He never cared too much about presenting the claims of the Church of England versus Methodism or Presbyterianism.

There is a short illustration used by Lewis, which has been used elsewhere, that may shed some light into his thinking about decisions concerning religions.[8] Lewis’ desire is to get an unbeliever into the hall. He writes that if he can “bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted.”[9] Here, once again, Lewis reiterates his passion to draw unbelievers to the Christian message. But once you get into the hall, then the individual is confronted with several doors from which to choose. But which religion, or perhaps which communion should they enter? C.S. Lewis answers: “And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “ Do I like that kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”[10] The language Lewis uses seems to indicate that he is referring to what communion of saints one must enter once he sees the light of the Christian faith. Whether this is the case or not, one needs to analyze internally the reasons to enter into a particular door. Certain doors may seem attractive, but they may be deadly. C.S. Lewis calls for caution and wisdom in these decisions.[11] Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I”

January 1, 2007

First Sunday After Advent and New Year: Reflections and Thankfulness

Our speaker this morning encouraged us to love sacrificially and to learn from others. It was a short, but needful sermon as we enter a new year. These are both difficult and precious applications to our Christain lives in this New Year.

God has been faithful in providing a gracious church family in these last 18 months. We have learned and come to love that body of believers. They have taught us so much by their Christian maturity and consistent words of encouragement.

This year God has persevered me through some difficult times in seminary. It was through the prayers of many in church and family members that sustained me through those hard months. In my three years of seminary I have come to see the faithfulness of God in very personal ways. God is indeed a covenant faithful God.

The year 2007 will bring about many challenges and new circumstances that will require me to trust even more in God’s mercy. But it is the past experiences of His faithfulness and the authority of His word, that strengthens me for the year ahead.

Doug Philips writes that:

Life moves fast. If we don’t take the time to chronicle the providences of God, we forget them. If we don’t take the time to say thank you to those who have invested in our lives, we actually cultivate a spirit of ingratitude in our own hearts.

I want to take a few paragraphs to personally thank those who have invested their time, money, and prayers in my family’s life.

I. I praise my God once more for saving me when He had no reason to do so. As a result my mind, heart, and soul have all been transformed and I now see the world with new eyes. I will be forever grateful to my God.
II. My lovely wife has been patient with my stubborness and many long hours of studying. I want to thank her for her faithfulness in supporting me through these last years in seminary. Her joy and optimism has given me hope and strength to carry on.
III. I want to thank my elders, who have been patient with this young seminarian and have given me a chance to lead in several ways the worship of God’s people. These years have been tremendously helpful in shaping me as a future minister of the gospel.
IV. For my former pastor, and always my mentor and friend, who has taught me so much in the areas of theology, polity, marriage, and just general day-to-day church situations that always arise; for his kind and gentle teaching spirit I am deeply grateful.
V. To my seminary professors who have shaped my thinking in so many ways, I am thankful and honored to sit under their teaching.

Thank you Dr. Kistemaker (Dr. K) for always having your door open to talk about anything. You have been a dear friend. I have truly benefited from your commentaries. Thank you again for the two commentaries you have given me translated into portuguese.
Thank you Dr. Hill for this semester in Greek. It was the most difficult in my life, but I have learned much from it. Thank you for your patience and encouragement in the latter part of the semester when I was truly discouraged.
Thank you Richard Pratt for your unwavering commitment to truth. You have challenged me in so many ways and I will be always thankful for the conversations we had in and out of class.
Thank you Professor Frame for shaping my thinking in almost every area I can imagine. Your ecumenical spirit and desire for catholicity has led me to reconsider my attitude towards those who I do not agree with, and furthermore, has led me to learn from them.
Thank you Dr. Frank James for your strong faith in a great God through the loss of your brother Kelly. You have always been pasionate about the History of the Church and you have always reminded us that the history of the church is filled with the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Thank you for teaching us that we are great sinners, who have a great God.
VI. To my home church, Holy Trinity Presbyterian, I am deeply grateful for their support in these last three years. Without your kind support I would not be where I am today. God placed you in my life when I needed to be fed spiritually and God has continually placed you in my life since I’ve left. Only eternity will express your commitment and faithfulness in supporting this young man.

And to all that I may have forgotten ( I am sure you know who you are) thank you for investing your life in mine. May God be your great reward.

Grace and Peace to you and your family in this year to come.

December 29, 2006

Post-Advent Reflections

Advent has had little importance to me in my younger years. Unfortunately, my vision of a new world where righteousness dwells did not project into the real world. It always remained in the world of the abstract, and never sought to transfer into my world. If I had known that Christ came to bring peace and to reconcile all things, then surely my Advents of the past would have taken a new meaning.

The Advent brings all things into perspective. Indeed, when Bishop Wright says that we live from Advent to Advent, he asserts a precious truth. In other words, we live from Christ to Christ. He is the absolute God-Man and we need nothing else to fill our days. Our distorted view of reality begins to be shaped a little more by the Advent. Suddenly, greed loses its passion in light of Christ. When all our sins are seen in light of Christ, we become ever more aware of our shortcomings.

More recently, I have come to see the Advent as a time of reflection; I mean deep serious reflection. I have reflected on my marriage, studies, readings, work, and all other things that consume me throughout my days. I do not want these things to be of secondary importance, I want all of them to take their proper role and function in the Kingdom of God. I want them to transcend the ordinary to the extraordinary. They are manifestations of Christ’s Advent. If Christ had not come, these aspects of life would have no meaning, nor I believe would they be worth considering. But by God’s grace Christ enables me to reflect on my inadequacies, so they may be transformed and reflect He who came.

All of life is to be seen “Adventally.” We live as those who are hopeful and expecting that Christ’s coming will sanctify our living. We live existentially, or to be more precise in the words of Os Guiness: “We live in the now in light of the past and future.” This is where I am today, in light of my past and looking to the future. If I waste my time in the past as opposed to learning from it, my future is prone to repeat my past errors.

Life is about an arrival, the arrival of God himself. God coming down and carrying my burdens and guilt on his back. And while doing so, not complaining one bit, but taking ultimate joy in doing so. If this is the case, then the Advent needs to be lived out all my days, from faith to faith, from Christ to Christ, from Advent to Advent.

December 18, 2006

The Advent and Sadness

Advent does not always bring exclusive joy to Christian families. In this case, this Advent Season has brought sadness to my president’s family here at Reformed Theological Seminary. In this last week, our dear professor Dr. Frank James has been an eloquent representative of the three mountain climbers, one of which was his brother Kelly James.

Frank’s hope and optimism that his brother and the other two experienced climbers would survive, has been a wonderful testimony to the hope our faith gives us in all circumstances. This morning I heard news that Kelly James was found dead in one of the caves, where he remained as the other two went on seeking help. There is to this point no news on the other two mountain climbers. We continue to pray that God in His great mercy and power would deliver those two men back to their families.

Dr. Frank James has been an apologist for the Christian faith this week. In his many words, he spoke of the greatness of our God to save and deliver the troubled and the hope we Christians have. Though this brings great sadness to hear of his brother’s fate, Dr. James rejoices in this Advent that Kelly’s life is not really over, but has just begun in eternity. The Advent has brought sadness to Dr. James and all the families, but there is ultimate rejoicing in the new life Kelly is now experiencing. Christ has come so that Kelly could experience the glorious heavenly manifestation of the life to come.

November 18, 2006

40 years, experiences, and the Honorable J.I. Packer

Reformed Theological Seminary has just celebrated 40 years. The Orlando Campus is only about 20 years old, but the very first campus of Reformed Theological Seminary began in 1966. RTS was formed as a response to the liberalism of mainline Presbyterian churches. Many liberals and even some conservatives did not believe it would last. However, God is faithful to those who love Him.

Thousands of young men have been prepared for the ministry, of which I am one. I am deeply grateful for the influence RTS has had on my life in these past 5 semesters. Though long and troublesome at times, I have gained much from the godliness of my professors and the many friends God has brought to my life.

My classroom experiences have been replenished with humor, technicalities, debates, student outburst, pleasant conversations, and a sense of divine presence in all things. In what environment will you ever see Professor John Frame and Reggie Kidd discussing the merits of weekly communion in class? Or where will you hear the stories and voice of Steve Brown? How about the confrontational, but yet life-changing teaching of Richard Pratt?

Dr. Packer spoke this past Wednesday to a group of about 300 attendants at our chapel. He spoke on Ecclesiastes 3 on the topic: “Nothing Better.” How appropriate in light of how contemporary Christians treat this present life. Packer encouraged Christians to enjoy God’s great gifts.

When instability prevails in our contemporary Christian environment, Dr. Packer bings to us a wisdom that only the author of “Knowing God” can bring. Anyone familiar with the spiritual journey of J.I. Packer is aware of the many controversies he has been involved in the last 30 years. Many of them deriving from Dr. Packer’s irenic nature. Those who desire that things be one way and one way only, often find Dr. Packer repulsive. This was evident during the controversy of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

After the morning service, we ate together and had an informal Q&A session where we penetrated his mind. We asked him questions concerning his devotional life, which naturally led him to reflect at great length about the beloved Puritans. How we need more Anglicans who love the Puritans! At the same time he did not shy from expressing his concern with Islam. He urged our seminaries to add classes on Islam to their curriculum. Time will tell if RTS takes heed to Packer’s words.

Unlike many seminaries RTS has remained a conservative haven for those who wish to see the Reformed faith spread throughout the country and the world. From the very first professor to be hired (Morton Smith) to our most recent addition (Scott Swain and Mike Glodo) RTS proves to be a bastion of Reformed thought and a defender of the apostolic faith.

November 4, 2006

Absolutely Despicable…

Last evening my wife and I and a few students drove to downtown Orlando to hear Dr. James White debate bishop John Shelby Spong. By the way, Spong also debated the late Walter Martin some years ago. It appears that his arguments have not changed since the last time, except he has published a few more books since then. Debates like last night prove why it is inconceivable to avoid presuppositionalism. In fact, even the bishop (as opposed to an Orthodox BISHOP) himself admitted that both of them were starting from different perspectives/worldviews. This was evident from beginning to end. White’s worldview accounted for a direct revelation of God to man, whereby man can KNOW the will of God and what is right and wrong. On the other hand, Spong assumed from the beginning that the Word of God is not the word from God nor His divine special revelation. With this assumption, Paul was a homosexual who struggled deeply with his flesh and all accounts that condemned homsexuality were written by oppressive Christians.

As for the debate itself, Spong was unable to keep to the format which was rather frustrating for those who were interested in hearing an intellectual exchange. However, Spong was unaware that when you are asked to ask questions you are supposed to cross-examine your opponent. Rather, he took his time to elaborate on absurd scientific theories as to why the Bible cannot be trusted.

I have little to say about Dr. White. He portrayed himself well and made salient points throughout the debate. He defended unashamedly the Biblical perspective and affirmed the authority of God’s Word. If God has spoken, he argued, we can know what He says and expects from His creatures. At other times James was visibly perturbed by Spong’s unbelievable inability to affirm the simplest of truths. He stressed several times that the church is accepting of all those who would repent. Of course, to this Spong repeated ad nauseum that he should avoid being so judgmental.

What is our response? Heretics like Spong are far from the truth; so far in fact that there is no return (Hebrews 6). His blasphemies and absolute denial of the God of Holy Writ and the true apostolic and catholic Church condemns him. His condemnation in fact is greater, because knowing the truth he has denied it. And to him God says, CURSED!

November 3, 2006

The Pride of Self-Attention

For those of us constantly involved in theological disputes, clarifications, and the like are generally the most visible in the public eye. Though this becomes a source of great encouragement to others and aid when we clarify crucial details of the text, this may also be a dangerous road to pride. But just not any pride, but the particular pride of self-attention. The man who values his thoughts, his actions, his appearances more than any other. Our tendency (my tendency) is to never cease to be satisfied until comprehensive attention has been given and if not, we will die looking for it. How different we are from our forefathers who so humbly submitted themselves to the service of others unbeknownst to any of us if it were not for their prolific writings and our dear Lord who with divine and human willingness gave himself for us all (Phil 2). Even in the midst of His glorious ministry, He glorified His Father in heaven.

Thomas a Kempis brings this to the forefront of his classic piece on Imitating Christ when he writes that, “If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing.” Theologians considered as nothing, seminarians considered as nothing, husbands considered as nothing, loving to be unknown. Now there is a concept.

November 1, 2006

Thomas a Kempis (c. 1380-1471) and Trinitarian Speculation

Thomas a Kempis[1] offers the modern Christian a deep analysis into our lives. His insights into our spiritual sins of pride, greed, and false humility are desperately needful. As a medieval ascetic writer, he strongly opposes the natural tendency of man to be speculative about things that are too lofty for our comprehension. In his list the Trinity appears to be one that intrigues the mind with greater degree.

The early church strove to come to a proper formulation of the Triune nature of God and they succeeded. However, the church never intended to exhaust the depths of the Trinitarian mystery. Though many formulations have been made in Creeds and Confessions, we can be certain that we have not yet begun to understand the essence of God. Those who would despise all things earthly for the search of answers not intended to be known are fools. Armchair theologians end their days in deep misery. If we persist in de-coding these mysteries, we fail to understand our purpose. Thomas a Kempis writes: “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity?” Theology and life meet in Christ. The God-man descends so that we may understand his words and his message, but also that we may follow Him (John 8:12).

[1] His asceticism ought to be denied, but not despised.