Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan, is not a book on apologetics, per se, but rather on the method of doing apologetics. The five contributors each express their own methodology and then interact with the other methodologies, critiquing, discerning differences and affirming agreements between the systems. There certainly are quite a number of differences; but amazingly, and I think even the authors showed some surprise, there is a great deal of agreement. After all, each of the contributors seek to honor God, are committed to the truth of Scripture and see apologetics as not only worthwhile, but commanded and necessary. So while the goal is the same, to a degree, this work is mostly about the differences between these systems. These five do not exhaust the list of apologetic methodologies, as Cowan points out, but represent five of the most popular systems.
The first system is that of Classical Apologetics. It is represented by William Lane Craig who is probably the best known of the group (at least in the arena of apologetics). Craig’s style sometimes trumps his method. He’s a straight-shooter, one who doesn’t waste time with pleasantries, but goes right to the issues. It might be difficult for the reader to get past this at times, especially when contrasted against others who seasoned their efforts with more graciousness. But Craig’s arguments are undergirded by his own experiences, making his words more compelling because the thoughts are grounded in reality. My response to this book will be around the Classical position. It is from that position that I have been mostly trained, and it is that position that I am still committed to (although the book certainly shook my thoughts).
Classical Apologetics makes a distinction between knowing and showing. Craig states, “rational arguments and evidence plays an essential role in our showing Christianity to be true, whereas reason in this form plays a contingent and secondary role in our personally knowing Christianity to be true.” The classical apologist holds that personally knowing is the result of the Holy Spirit’s work, inwardly. It is also the work of the Spirit to open the hearts of those we are showing, or telling. His work is not simply to shore up our weaknesses (where we doubt in our knowing or make weak arguments in our showing), but precedes our work making it possible for us or our hearer to believe. The Spirit’s work is then, according to Craig, self authenticated. But the role of evidence and reason is not thrown out by the classicist. Craig mentions Luther’s differentiating between the magisterial and ministerial use of reason. While the magisterial use places reason over the Gospel, judging it, the ministerial use places reason in submission and service to the Gospel. The latter is the position of the classical apologist. Craig shows this in his kalam cosmological argument. He holds that the belief of “whatever begins to exist has a cause” is “so perspicuous that only an effete skepticism can deny it.” While the atheist might say, “I don’t perceive God, therefore he does not exist,” Craig might respond, “you exist, you had a beginning, therefore Something caused it.” The atheist would have to deny the cause, showing his reason (“I don’t perceive God”) should not stand over the Gospel because it leads him to a false understanding of reality (“I must create an explanation for the cause of all these effects I see.”). Rather, reason should accompany the Gospel; specifically, the Bible makes a compelling case that God is the first cause.
In response to Evidential Apologetics, Craig dispels arguments for historical evidence alone, although the evidentialist, at least in this text, does not do so. This is not to say that the classicist would oppose use of evidences. Rather, evidences bring the hearer (or the person being “shown,” to use the classical term) closer to a Christian form of theism. But as Gary Habermas, the Evidential Apologist, writes in response to the Classical position, Craig “does not distinguish his method carefully enough,” referring to getting to Christian theism by arguing from historical evidences. I agree and think that other Classical apologists have done a better job at showing Christian theism apart from historical evidence. While the Classicist would concede that historical evidences bring the hearer closer to Christian theism, Habermas argues that they are “the best means of deciding between the theistic systems of belief.” This may seem like a fine line, which presuppositionalist John Frame would argue, but it is distinction enough the separate these two methodologies.
When responding to Cumulative Case Apologetics, Craig’s tone lowers dramatically (due probably to the fact that Paul Feinberg was a former teacher of his ). The differences between these two systems do not seem as great. The Classical Apologist simply puts more weight on the role of the Holy Spirit, where Feinberg views this as being too subjective. Where Feinberg believes Christianity is the best “cumulative case,” Craig argues that he “never gets his hands dirty by showing us how Christianity” is the best case in light of tests for truth. If he did, Craig asserts, he would be undertaking the same mission of the Classical Apologist. The Cumulative Case is attractive; but it isn’t flawless. Kelly James Clark, the Reformed Epistemologist, is quick to point that out in his response by challenging Feinberg’s assumption that there is only one rational conclusion one can come to when presented with the evidence. If the rational unbeliever fails to accept the Resurrection based on the whole evidence, does that make the believer irrational? What Feinberg omits in this thought process, and Clark points this out, is the work of the Holy Spirit. First Corinthians 2:14 tells us, “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit.” We are told that spiritual things are foolish to him. So even if he is rational, and a flawless cumulative case is made to him, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the rational, natural man will not accept it.
The Classical and Presuppositional methods have been in my mind the most at odds, before reading this book. Craig’s response to Frame’s presuppositional position certainly affirms that in many ways. Craig asserts that Frame abandons Presuppositionalism in his ‘Sketch of an Apologetic.’ And when he does “make a pretense of presupposing God’s existence…he has, like the classical apologist, already given arguments for the truth of theism.” This, to me, is clearly a fair critique of Frame’s chapter. Craig finishes his critique by urging Reformed theologians to consider Reformed Epistemology over Presuppositionalism. This struck me as particularly interesting in that the three most accepted methodologies within Reformed circles, to my knowledge, have been Classical, Presuppositional, and Reformed Epistemology. Craig, not being Reformed, ends up pitting the third over the second rather than the first (his own position), unnecessarily, in my opinion. Although Frame did not lead me into his camp, I found his writing compelling and inviting, not to mention especially sharp. He argues that faith is to guide reason. So for the unbeliever, the opposite (unbelief) distorts his rationality. He writes, “When someone recognizes the truth but seeks to repress it, the result is irrationality.” Then how does the unbeliever ever get to faith? The Holy Spirit of course, which I believe affirms the Classical position. Habermas provides quite a bit of critique toward Presuppositionalism. He contends that the evidences and arguments themselves are not important to the Presuppositionalists because of the absence of such in their writings. Thus, this system is “incomplete” and “fails in the most important aspect” to provide “positive reasons to believe.”
Reformed Epistemology holds that argument and evidence are not necessary for a person to believe in God. Clark writes, “The demand for evidence simply cannot be met in a large number of cases with the cognitive equipment we possess.” There is much that we accept by faith. Had I not read Craig’s chapter on the Classical position first I would have been surprised by how much Clark seems to agree with Craig. My experience with Classical Apologetics differs some from what Craig accounts for. This, Clark calls hyper-classical apologetics, and refers to Sproul and Gerstner. I think Clark’s affirmation of Craig’s chapter helps bring the Classical methodology back into balance. Where the hyper-classical approach makes demands for evidence, Craig’s approach lines up more with Clark’s Reformed Epistemology, accepting that much of what we “know” is by faith (in something or someone). So Clark rejects the magisterial use of reason, agreeing with Craig’s affirmation of the ministerial use of reason. Clark clarifies that reason can be grounds for belief in God, but they do not necessarily need to be. A sensible person could reject the arguments and remain rational. Furthermore, he asserts that there is no attempt to prove the existence of God in the Bible, but rather that it is assumed everywhere. Craig agrees with Clark that theistic beliefs do not necessitate proof to be rational, and that arguments for God do present some evidence of His reality. But the Classical approach differs in that the testimony for the existence of God is not completely inward. God has revealed Himself outwardly, through creation, through His Word, and especially in His Son.
After reading this work I remain in the Classical camp. Although there are points at which I disagree with Craig, I think this system represents the best methodology. I enjoyed Frame’s writing. I appreciated the grace of Habermas, Feinberg’s holistic viewpoint, and Clark’s Reformed position. In particular, Clark’s point that it is difficult to use Scripture to argue one’s methodology as the biblical approach, resonated with me. But at the end of the day, I stand on two facets of the Classical approach: 1) that the Holy Spirit is the necessary component to faith, and could potentially work apart from any argument or evidence, and 2) that because we have been commanded to be prepared to give a reason for the hope within, we should be prepared with good evidence and arguments for our faith.
domingo, 27 de mayo de 2007
miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2007
Good Reading, Good Grace, Good Grief!
FIDE-O usually writes things I agree with, in content, but sometimes not in manner. They can tend to be caustic. So I was surprised today when reading the current post that it seemed so well-balanced, both in content and in candor. Then, as I finished the article I noticed a link to read the rest of it at modernreformation.org. It was an article by Michael Horton. (I'm not sure my link will work, but you can go to the archives, and then go to the Sept/Oct 2006 issue). I don't mean this a knock to the FIDE-O guys. I'm glad they posted it. I just wish they wrote with as much grace more often.
And speaking of grace, I sure need an extra dose of it today. On Monday we found out my mother-in-law would no longer be able to keep our girls after preschool (and on the days they don't go). The termination of services was immediate (due to a pinched nerve). So I am taking vacation the rest of the week to keep the girls. It's been fun, some. But it's also been unnerving. My "anger problem" has resurfaced. But let me focus on the positive. For example, how much fun is it to stick a doll up your shirt and announce, "I have a baby in my tummy!"? Evidently it is tons of fun. At least for 3 and 4 year old girls. It is also "fun" for the 3 year old (well almost, she'll be 3 next month) to announce "I tee tee'd in my pull-up," just mere minutes after putting a clean one on her. Then, not doing a very good job of containing my frustration, I find her sitting in a puddle in my chair. Yes, my chair. Evidently, the way she was sitting, the pull-up didn't do it's job. And so now, my chair is drying and I have to sit in a hard wooden chair as I type this. Do you feel my pain?
Now, I've just been told, we are at the hospital and we're going to take my daughter's baby out of her tummy (that's the way they do it, you know). But the baby has to stay until she's ready to go home. So Aggie is now getting and giving shots to everyone. Oh, the drama! But I can now announce that I've held her precious baby and that we must all be quiet now because she is resting.
Jerry Falwell died unexpectantly. It's been interesting to read some of the responses, from Ralph Reed's initial response just moments after the announcement, to Jason's at FIDE-O, to Jolly Blogger's, and maybe most especially Steve Camp's. For the most part, many Christians seem in some way appreciative of Falwell and his ministry. It seems to me, from my reading, the closer that people were to him in relationship, the more committed they were to him as a person. May you're saying, "no duh!" But my thought is that most want to admire from a distance those in Christendom who are controversial. It's safe. I think that is what many have done and will do with Falwell. But the reality that has struck me is that those who knew him in some way, who have spent time around him, are unapologetically appreciative of him as a person and his ministry. That ought to teach us something of the importance of relationships. In our denomination, Frank Barker is in many ways a father of the PCA. Now in my short history, I've actually had people say to me things that were less than complimentary about Dr. Barker. But I've always defended him. Say what you want about Frank Barker, the man lives what he believes. I know this from working in the church he planted 40+ years ago, and from passing him in the halls, sitting under him in seminary classes, seeing him at church on Sunday, etc... He is the same man every where he goes. He's authentic. He's the real deal. I may not agree with everything he says (e.g. we differ on the creation account), but you can't argue with his life. He doesn't have "preacher mode" that I've ever witnessed. He speaks in the same voice wherever he is. And he acts the same way. He's humble, and lives simply so that he can give generously. And the only way I know those things are from those around him. He doesn't brag. So my guess is that those who knew Jerry Falwell best, and who spent any time around him, have the most right to speak about the man following his death. I may not agree with him that teletubbies are evil, but it sounds like he genuinely loved Christ and wanted to make Him known.
Okay, so to end on a lighter note, let me whole-heartedly endorse a new choice in breakfast cereals: Arrr-mini-ohs, with the tag line, "It's all up to you maties!" And last but not least, my friend Van forwarded this to me: a disturbing, frustrating, yet humourous account of why people don't like Christians (not for the easily offended...Mom!).
And speaking of grace, I sure need an extra dose of it today. On Monday we found out my mother-in-law would no longer be able to keep our girls after preschool (and on the days they don't go). The termination of services was immediate (due to a pinched nerve). So I am taking vacation the rest of the week to keep the girls. It's been fun, some. But it's also been unnerving. My "anger problem" has resurfaced. But let me focus on the positive. For example, how much fun is it to stick a doll up your shirt and announce, "I have a baby in my tummy!"? Evidently it is tons of fun. At least for 3 and 4 year old girls. It is also "fun" for the 3 year old (well almost, she'll be 3 next month) to announce "I tee tee'd in my pull-up," just mere minutes after putting a clean one on her. Then, not doing a very good job of containing my frustration, I find her sitting in a puddle in my chair. Yes, my chair. Evidently, the way she was sitting, the pull-up didn't do it's job. And so now, my chair is drying and I have to sit in a hard wooden chair as I type this. Do you feel my pain?
Now, I've just been told, we are at the hospital and we're going to take my daughter's baby out of her tummy (that's the way they do it, you know). But the baby has to stay until she's ready to go home. So Aggie is now getting and giving shots to everyone. Oh, the drama! But I can now announce that I've held her precious baby and that we must all be quiet now because she is resting.
Jerry Falwell died unexpectantly. It's been interesting to read some of the responses, from Ralph Reed's initial response just moments after the announcement, to Jason's at FIDE-O, to Jolly Blogger's, and maybe most especially Steve Camp's. For the most part, many Christians seem in some way appreciative of Falwell and his ministry. It seems to me, from my reading, the closer that people were to him in relationship, the more committed they were to him as a person. May you're saying, "no duh!" But my thought is that most want to admire from a distance those in Christendom who are controversial. It's safe. I think that is what many have done and will do with Falwell. But the reality that has struck me is that those who knew him in some way, who have spent time around him, are unapologetically appreciative of him as a person and his ministry. That ought to teach us something of the importance of relationships. In our denomination, Frank Barker is in many ways a father of the PCA. Now in my short history, I've actually had people say to me things that were less than complimentary about Dr. Barker. But I've always defended him. Say what you want about Frank Barker, the man lives what he believes. I know this from working in the church he planted 40+ years ago, and from passing him in the halls, sitting under him in seminary classes, seeing him at church on Sunday, etc... He is the same man every where he goes. He's authentic. He's the real deal. I may not agree with everything he says (e.g. we differ on the creation account), but you can't argue with his life. He doesn't have "preacher mode" that I've ever witnessed. He speaks in the same voice wherever he is. And he acts the same way. He's humble, and lives simply so that he can give generously. And the only way I know those things are from those around him. He doesn't brag. So my guess is that those who knew Jerry Falwell best, and who spent any time around him, have the most right to speak about the man following his death. I may not agree with him that teletubbies are evil, but it sounds like he genuinely loved Christ and wanted to make Him known.
Okay, so to end on a lighter note, let me whole-heartedly endorse a new choice in breakfast cereals: Arrr-mini-ohs, with the tag line, "It's all up to you maties!" And last but not least, my friend Van forwarded this to me: a disturbing, frustrating, yet humourous account of why people don't like Christians (not for the easily offended...Mom!).
viernes, 11 de mayo de 2007
Google Skills
"If you need to use any of my skills, I can do whatever you want." - Napoleon Dynamite
Napoleon has many skills, the greatest of which may be dancing, or maybe picking up chicks. But if you really want to be WOWed, check out the calculator and conversion functions in Google. I didn't know until recently that you could type mathmatical functions into Google and get the answer. For example, you can type 468 X 191 = and see that it is 89388. But even cooler, you can type things like 42000 feet to miles and see that it is 7.854 miles. Or, if you're in the kitchen, try 16 ounces to teaspoons and see that it is 96 teaspoons. You can convert currency, metric to standard, do math, and so on. It's great when you're find out that a missionary in Ethiopia is sending you 200 kg of coffee divided up into 1600 bags, and you want to know how big the bags are (this really happened). Here are some other examples from Google:
5+2*2
2^20
sqrt(-4)
half a cup in teaspoons
160 pounds * 4000 feet in Calories
Now that is some skills!
Napoleon has many skills, the greatest of which may be dancing, or maybe picking up chicks. But if you really want to be WOWed, check out the calculator and conversion functions in Google. I didn't know until recently that you could type mathmatical functions into Google and get the answer. For example, you can type 468 X 191 = and see that it is 89388. But even cooler, you can type things like 42000 feet to miles and see that it is 7.854 miles. Or, if you're in the kitchen, try 16 ounces to teaspoons and see that it is 96 teaspoons. You can convert currency, metric to standard, do math, and so on. It's great when you're find out that a missionary in Ethiopia is sending you 200 kg of coffee divided up into 1600 bags, and you want to know how big the bags are (this really happened). Here are some other examples from Google:
5+2*2
2^20
sqrt(-4)
half a cup in teaspoons
160 pounds * 4000 feet in Calories
Now that is some skills!
lunes, 7 de mayo de 2007
In Case You Missed It
Here's bringing together a classic with a modern hit (if you're not sure which is which, don't ask). Enjoy the memories (Andy, you can thank me later).
This one is great...for about the first 30 seconds (it's my sister's fav song):
This one is great...for about the first 30 seconds (it's my sister's fav song):
domingo, 6 de mayo de 2007
Al Qaeda Thinks We're Fighting Al Qaeda
In a recent conversation with one of my Bush-hating friends, I listened as he told me that he agreed with the war in Afghanistan because we were fighting Al Qaeda, but not with the war in Iraq because we were fighting for oil. Although I insisted we were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, he was unmoved, staying committed that the Crook had a personal agenda to make his friends rich by fighting for their oil interests.
I read with interest today that the #2 in command (second only to Bin Laden) of Al Qaeda spoke of the war in Iraq as being against them (Al Qaeda). This isn't on the Drudge Report or even on Fox News, but on CNN's website. Click here to read the article.
Two thoughts went through my mind as I read the quotes from Ayman al-Zawahiri: 1) This is who we're fighting. This is why we've stayed the task. 2) This is what my instructors we're talking about nearly fifteen years ago as I set under them at the Naval and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center. They said, "the next war we will fight will be a war on terrorism." This was in 1993. It sounded strange to me then. I couldn't put that into a category. That was true for most if not all in my class. But these words were prophetic. And although our soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines have all been trained to fight, for the most part, conventionally; we are in a very unconventional war. But it is not one of revenge for Bush Sr., nor is it one for oil. It is for the security of our country.
I appreciated a quote by John McCain that I read in a recent issue of World Magazine. He spoke on his committment to the war, and then clarified by saying something to the effect of knowing that it's not what most Americans want, but he's committed to the principle not the polls. I think, although I could be wrong, that is what our President has committed himself to. But maybe my friend is right. Maybe Bush is just a crook who is using America's men and women in uniform to make his few friends rich. Personally, I don't buy it and I think it smacks in the face of all who fight for our freedom. I sure am glad God is in control of this world.
I read with interest today that the #2 in command (second only to Bin Laden) of Al Qaeda spoke of the war in Iraq as being against them (Al Qaeda). This isn't on the Drudge Report or even on Fox News, but on CNN's website. Click here to read the article.
Two thoughts went through my mind as I read the quotes from Ayman al-Zawahiri: 1) This is who we're fighting. This is why we've stayed the task. 2) This is what my instructors we're talking about nearly fifteen years ago as I set under them at the Naval and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center. They said, "the next war we will fight will be a war on terrorism." This was in 1993. It sounded strange to me then. I couldn't put that into a category. That was true for most if not all in my class. But these words were prophetic. And although our soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines have all been trained to fight, for the most part, conventionally; we are in a very unconventional war. But it is not one of revenge for Bush Sr., nor is it one for oil. It is for the security of our country.
I appreciated a quote by John McCain that I read in a recent issue of World Magazine. He spoke on his committment to the war, and then clarified by saying something to the effect of knowing that it's not what most Americans want, but he's committed to the principle not the polls. I think, although I could be wrong, that is what our President has committed himself to. But maybe my friend is right. Maybe Bush is just a crook who is using America's men and women in uniform to make his few friends rich. Personally, I don't buy it and I think it smacks in the face of all who fight for our freedom. I sure am glad God is in control of this world.
sábado, 5 de mayo de 2007
A Good Day for Yardwork
It was a good day for yardwork today, cool and wet. I spent the better part of the day digging holes and planting bushes, pulling weeds and laying mulch. It was a good reminder of the joy of manual labor. I wish I could do it more. I'm sure I'll sleep well tonight. Now, it's time to unwind and read a bit...
I was surprised today to learn that Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society (or former president), has returned to the Roman Catholic church (see the link for his blog). James White has blogged about this. James also wrote recently on Dave Hunt's low view of God's sovereignty.
The Jollyblogger has a good quote from Martin Luther that I find refreshing today.
Steve Camp is always writing thought-provoking things on his blog. I enjoyed this article on preaching. It is a good reminder for both preachers and hearers to rely on the Spirit of God rather than on the power or eloquence of the preacher. In this day we have access to the best of preachers through the Internet and CDs that are readily available. And so after a steady diet of the best it may be hard as a hearer to walk away from your weekly church service less than disappointed. But our disappointment ought to convict us. It's not that our preachers fail (unless they fail to preach the Word) so much as it is our failure to hear God's Word by the power of His Spirit. We ought to enter our churches with the mindset of hearing from God, not from man.
If Calvinism scares you, you'll like this new software.
For those who have heard about John MacArthur's recent address at the 2007 Shepherd's Conference, but have not been able to listen to it, Sam Waldron has posted a transcript of it here.
I was surprised today to learn that Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society (or former president), has returned to the Roman Catholic church (see the link for his blog). James White has blogged about this. James also wrote recently on Dave Hunt's low view of God's sovereignty.
The Jollyblogger has a good quote from Martin Luther that I find refreshing today.
Steve Camp is always writing thought-provoking things on his blog. I enjoyed this article on preaching. It is a good reminder for both preachers and hearers to rely on the Spirit of God rather than on the power or eloquence of the preacher. In this day we have access to the best of preachers through the Internet and CDs that are readily available. And so after a steady diet of the best it may be hard as a hearer to walk away from your weekly church service less than disappointed. But our disappointment ought to convict us. It's not that our preachers fail (unless they fail to preach the Word) so much as it is our failure to hear God's Word by the power of His Spirit. We ought to enter our churches with the mindset of hearing from God, not from man.
If Calvinism scares you, you'll like this new software.
For those who have heard about John MacArthur's recent address at the 2007 Shepherd's Conference, but have not been able to listen to it, Sam Waldron has posted a transcript of it here.
viernes, 4 de mayo de 2007
An Indictment
Another week has gone by and I have not blogged like I wanted. This week was marked by sickness, a sinus infection for me and strep throat again for McGrooter. It's been marked by sadness as Leslie's grandmother is now at the 2-week point of being in the hospital. It's been marked by confusion and frustration by the number of Christians who have actually said to me, "I hate" someone. And it's been marked by thought as I've been reading and having some in-depth discussions with other Christians. Finally, it's been marked by bitterness and depression as I've "relapsed" into rehashing the past and its impact on our lives.
Each of these issues has served as an indictment against me. My own sickness is due, at least in part, to my lack of sleep. I keep trying to burn the candle at both ends in an attempt to get ahead, to finish one more task. I feel guilty for not having finished more of my studies, so I try to read more. I work more in an attempt to accomplish an unending list of tasks. And then, rather than take my wife's advice, I wake up with my head pounding and swimming, the repercussions of another sinus infection.
My sadness for Nannie being in the hospital is compounded by frustration at the toll it's taking on the family. I act, at times, like it's purposeful. I find myself confused with thoughts of her clinging to life versus actually getting better. And then I get another report of how it is impacting everyone and I'm convicted of my own selfishness. It's also convicting at how rarely I gave up time I had to work to go and visit with Nannie.
I encountered two fellow Christians this week, actually in the same day, who said they hated someone. The person was the same for both of them. They hate George Bush. I admit that he's not a likeable fellow. His speeches often seem insincere. His actions have frustrated me at times. But I don't hate him. They said their hate stems from a number of things. They called him a crook. I guess if I shared their sentiments I could better understand their feelings about him. But to say that we hate someone, as a Christian, seems like a contradiction. As much as I am a conservative in my political ideology, and as much as I side with many of his decisions in regard to protecting our country, my hope is not in him as a person or in his office. Cal Thomas articulated many of my sentiments in an article he wrote about religious right. I realized in my discussions with these two individuals that I will never sway their beliefs. Their emotive responses led me to believe that they are blinded in a sense. I admit that I am too.
I've enjoyed pondering a bit this week during my reading of Reasonable Faith, by William Craig. It's been an encouraging exercise to learn about and be reminded of the reasonableness of my faith. I've also been convicted of how infrequently I share this hope with others and how hopeless I often live my life in the midst of lost world around me. I also enjoyed a group discussion about ministry this week. This too was in indictment of my laziness in regard to making ministry personal. Finally, I watched 12 Angry Men with a group of guys who I meet with weekly. The discussion that followed about anger was convicting, as was the prejudice that lies within each of our hearts. It caused me to think of how my beliefs can often blind me to people. I neglect the person in light of the truth. I struggle with how to synthesize truth and personhood the way Jesus did.
Lastly, I struggled with bitterness and depression in light of past sins. My own sin and the sin of others against me continue to show their fruits. As soon as I think I've dealt with these issues, they rear their ugly head again. I haven't forgiven. I know that. I desperately want to.
And this brings me to the overriding thought for all of these matters. I don't pray. I don't. I don't pray often, and I don't pray like I should. My communion with the Almighty has been like that of two passing strangers on the street. It's more like a "how do you do?" or a "thanks" for holding the door. Rather than pray I steep in my own misery. Wretch that I am, I prefer wallowing in my circumstances rather than crying out to my Savior. I shouldn't be amazed that I hurt. In a sense, I hurt because I am starving. The Manna from Heaven who came down to save me and who now sits at the right hand of the Father offers me a banquet. I prefer the crumbs that have landed next to the trash can. My pride creeps up as I hold mock conversations in my head with those who have said things I don't like, or have done things I don't like. Rather than in humility using that same time to pray, I pridefully tell off those who have been wrong in my presence. Rather than asking the Father to show me where I am wrong, I bolster my own position in my mind. I deny my neediness of the Holy Spirit in my life as I shun Him. He convicts me and I ignore Him. As John Piper has written, I use prayer like an intercom for the butler rather than as a field radio to call into my Commander. This is war, no doubt. But I act like the world as I go about glibly. Prayer. Pleading. Confessing. Begging. That's what I need to do.
And so even in writing this my heart is filled with hope. Hope that I am not alone. Hope that I have not been left to my own ability (or lack thereof). The indictment is true. I am guilty. But I am not under condemnation. I am not condemned. Christ was condemned for me. And so I can pray to the Father. I can hope that He loves me. Even in this I sense that God is working. I know that He is. I am, after all, His child.
Each of these issues has served as an indictment against me. My own sickness is due, at least in part, to my lack of sleep. I keep trying to burn the candle at both ends in an attempt to get ahead, to finish one more task. I feel guilty for not having finished more of my studies, so I try to read more. I work more in an attempt to accomplish an unending list of tasks. And then, rather than take my wife's advice, I wake up with my head pounding and swimming, the repercussions of another sinus infection.
My sadness for Nannie being in the hospital is compounded by frustration at the toll it's taking on the family. I act, at times, like it's purposeful. I find myself confused with thoughts of her clinging to life versus actually getting better. And then I get another report of how it is impacting everyone and I'm convicted of my own selfishness. It's also convicting at how rarely I gave up time I had to work to go and visit with Nannie.
I encountered two fellow Christians this week, actually in the same day, who said they hated someone. The person was the same for both of them. They hate George Bush. I admit that he's not a likeable fellow. His speeches often seem insincere. His actions have frustrated me at times. But I don't hate him. They said their hate stems from a number of things. They called him a crook. I guess if I shared their sentiments I could better understand their feelings about him. But to say that we hate someone, as a Christian, seems like a contradiction. As much as I am a conservative in my political ideology, and as much as I side with many of his decisions in regard to protecting our country, my hope is not in him as a person or in his office. Cal Thomas articulated many of my sentiments in an article he wrote about religious right. I realized in my discussions with these two individuals that I will never sway their beliefs. Their emotive responses led me to believe that they are blinded in a sense. I admit that I am too.
I've enjoyed pondering a bit this week during my reading of Reasonable Faith, by William Craig. It's been an encouraging exercise to learn about and be reminded of the reasonableness of my faith. I've also been convicted of how infrequently I share this hope with others and how hopeless I often live my life in the midst of lost world around me. I also enjoyed a group discussion about ministry this week. This too was in indictment of my laziness in regard to making ministry personal. Finally, I watched 12 Angry Men with a group of guys who I meet with weekly. The discussion that followed about anger was convicting, as was the prejudice that lies within each of our hearts. It caused me to think of how my beliefs can often blind me to people. I neglect the person in light of the truth. I struggle with how to synthesize truth and personhood the way Jesus did.
Lastly, I struggled with bitterness and depression in light of past sins. My own sin and the sin of others against me continue to show their fruits. As soon as I think I've dealt with these issues, they rear their ugly head again. I haven't forgiven. I know that. I desperately want to.
And this brings me to the overriding thought for all of these matters. I don't pray. I don't. I don't pray often, and I don't pray like I should. My communion with the Almighty has been like that of two passing strangers on the street. It's more like a "how do you do?" or a "thanks" for holding the door. Rather than pray I steep in my own misery. Wretch that I am, I prefer wallowing in my circumstances rather than crying out to my Savior. I shouldn't be amazed that I hurt. In a sense, I hurt because I am starving. The Manna from Heaven who came down to save me and who now sits at the right hand of the Father offers me a banquet. I prefer the crumbs that have landed next to the trash can. My pride creeps up as I hold mock conversations in my head with those who have said things I don't like, or have done things I don't like. Rather than in humility using that same time to pray, I pridefully tell off those who have been wrong in my presence. Rather than asking the Father to show me where I am wrong, I bolster my own position in my mind. I deny my neediness of the Holy Spirit in my life as I shun Him. He convicts me and I ignore Him. As John Piper has written, I use prayer like an intercom for the butler rather than as a field radio to call into my Commander. This is war, no doubt. But I act like the world as I go about glibly. Prayer. Pleading. Confessing. Begging. That's what I need to do.
And so even in writing this my heart is filled with hope. Hope that I am not alone. Hope that I have not been left to my own ability (or lack thereof). The indictment is true. I am guilty. But I am not under condemnation. I am not condemned. Christ was condemned for me. And so I can pray to the Father. I can hope that He loves me. Even in this I sense that God is working. I know that He is. I am, after all, His child.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)