So, What's This Blog About?

NOTE: This post will always be at the top. All other posts are in last-to-first order.

First, this blog is focused on close friends and family.

Second, why "authority"? Maybe because the word is so un-PC ... :-) ...  but also because it's a basic biblical theme that is pervasively distorted by both modern and post-modern understandings of God and Man.  The biblical narrative is fairly clear on some points; among these are:

• Genesis 1-2 - man is (a) created by God in His image (therefore under His authority), (b) male & female, and (c) in authority over the rest of creation as a steward.
• Genesis 3 - man rebels against God's authority when Eve (actively) and Adam (passively then actively) disobey Him. 
• Rest of the Bible - "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

However, there is a less obvious theme woven throughout scripture ... God (and those under his authority) seek to persuade us to willingly recognize and submit to His authority instead of using power to coerce us to obey against our will.  Although punishment (direct/vicarious, in this life/the next, etc) is discussed (in light of God's holiness and justice), God consistently applies the least amount of "coercive" evidence (internal & external) possible to persuade us to willingly submit to Him.  From the Garden on, God speaks as quietly as he can instead of deafening us or absorbing us like the Borg.

This theme is a fundamental aspect the core Biblical themes of covenant and kingdom.  Removing it leaves only comments & collaboration.  As noted above, the West is increasingly hostile to the notion of a king who rules a kingdom; Christians are not immune to this influence.

Finally, God's authority is understood primarily through His Word.  General revelation bears pervasive witness to His glory and power, and to the truth of His law written on our hearts, but special revelation is the primary source of our understanding of who He is and who we are in relation to Him and each other.  

The Privileging of Affection

The Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision striking down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional is the latest instance of government explicitly granting privileges to a social institution based on .... Affection.

This is a strange, perhaps unprecedented, development.

Marriage was originally privileged because of society's interest in encouraging behavior that encourages social capital formation including (a) healthy social development of children and (b) avoiding the violence and chaos that always accompanies unrestrained sexual expression (jealousy, inheritance confusion, etc).

To shift the basis of this formal privileging to Affection speaks volumes about a fundamental cultural shift in emphasis from the protection of vulnerable individuals to the promotion of individual self esteem.

Some context ...

Governments traditionally granted privileges based on self interest - whatever would allow them to maintain and increase their hold on power - which is why most governments in most times and places were and are fundamentally corrupt.  This is the norm, though most folks in the West have never experienced it.  The emergence of the concept of equality under the Rule of Law was a significant departure from the normal 'might makes right' approach.

When coupled with such concepts as private property, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, there emerged a few private social institutions that were formally granted certain privileges (with associated responsibilities) by the government, including:

• churches
• publishers
• corporations (as economic 'persons')
• banks (especially with regard to printing currency)
• families

The justification for these privileges with respect to marriage included the protection of vulnerable individuals (women, children) from predatory males, the healthy social development of children (especially young males), and the establishment and enforcement of property rights (especially with respect to inheritance).

The government formally recognized and protected these privileges by various laws, including those that outlawed adultery, prostitution, pornography, homosexual behavior, pedophilia, and divorce.

Even with those protections, women and children suffered abuse, though less than in societies without them.  The past few decades has seen this protection steadily erode in the West.  Social changes are always complex, but here are a few contributing factors:

• Technology that decoupled sex from reproduction.  Although obviously imperfect, ineffective in preventing STDs, and incapable of addressing the emotional fallout of sexual license, the birth control pill revolutionized sexual behavior in the West.
• Economic parity between men and women.  As knowledge work displaced manual agricultural and industrial work, women gained an economic independence unprecedented in human history.  Although this is a welcome change since it makes women less vulnerable, sinful individuals will inevitably use it to undermine the oneness God created.
• Nature displaced God as the source of all Law.  Initially this occurred for the physical world as (mostly) Christian scientists established that a Universe created and sustained by an orderly Creator was fundamentally orderly (not chaotic as all other cultures, including Greece, believed).  The success of this project (which we now call 'modern science') eventually led to a similar effort by (mostly) non-Christian philosophers to establish a Moral Law based solely upon Nature.
• The emergence of radical forms of individualism and egalitarianism.  Individualism of some sort  underlies any democracy, but is tempered by various mediating institutions (family, church, etc).  As these institutions shrank in the West, a radical form of individualism took hold.  Similarly, when envy and jealousy are mixed with equality (traceable back to 'image of God' theology) in a democracy, it's inevitable that many folks will find reasons why they are a 'victim' that deserves state intervention to compensate them for a perceived harm they've suffered.  Throw in a dash of opportunistic 'some animals are more equal' politicians, and equality before the law begins to undermine key mediating institutions including the family.

So, what to say in summary ... here's my current reaction:

With regard to the family, we have shifted from The Privileging of Marriage to The Privileging of Affection.

We are more concerned about validating an individual's socially constructed identity than we are protecting vulnerable women and children.

We have traded the sacrifices inherent in marriage and parenthood for the tyranny of desire.  

The recent mainstreaming of homosexual activism is only one facet of a multi-decade trend that includes widespread sexual promiscuity, declining marriage rates, and declining fertility rates.  

On almost all fronts, social capital is steadily eroding ... when compounded over multiple generations, the ultimate effect seems likely to be unpleasant and long lasting.

'Knowing' - Some Thoughts

I was recently asked what I would say to a young (teens-20's) intellectually-oriented Christian regarding how we know what we know, especially with regard to God's Word.  Here's a slightly edited version of my response:

1. There's not much in the Bible about interpretive paradigms (ie, epistemology), at least in the modern / Western sense of 'epistemology'. God's focus is not so much on understanding ("study to show yourself approved" is a rare counter-example), as it is on hearing (or not).
2. If I was *forced* to point to a Western perspective that coheres fairly well with the concepts of knowledge & knowing as found in the Bible, I would point to Reid's Scottish Common Sense Realism  ... but I would hasten to say that this limited & human-centered perspective must be seen through the lenses of such passages as Romans 1-2, 1 Cor. 1-2, Psalms 1, 19, 119, and Job.  As such, it is more applicable to non-Christians than Christians.
3. I've come in a bit of a circle on this topic as an adult ... for perhaps 20-25 years I did a lot of reading/thinking about various philosophical frameworks (pre-modern, modern, post-modern, Eastern, Western, etc) with respect to ontology (being) & epistemology (knowing), but the last 5-10 years I increasingly see those perspectives as primarily useful in an apologetics (ie, defensive) context.  They are *not* the Cross; they do *not* provide a Christian foundation for knowledge.  As I note below, we all struggle to escape a syncretism of our cultural biases with God's Word (our culture may be animist, modern/post-modern, pragmatic, tribal, etc).
4. Although I'm not a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics, I do think it's clear from the Bible that there is a law written on the heart ... that there are things that everyone knows (eg, Romans 1-2; God's establishment of govt (Rom 13) and holding it accountable (OT prophets)).  See also, for example, J. Budziszewski's "What We Can't Not Know" (summary).
5. In the West today (Africa & Asia are very different), there are basically two schools of thought: modernism and post-modernism (PM). In very rough terms, modernism is optimistic about the possibility of universal objective knowledge and PM is pessimistic (with late modernism (eg, Kant, Hume) being a bit schizophrenic). Note that both focus primarily on KNOWING, not on DOING (though folks like Merleau-Ponty did emphasize the embodied aspect of knowledge), whereas the Bible focuses on both (with an emphasis on doing-obedience (eg, John 12)), but assumes (as mentioned above) that knowing is *not* primarily an intellectual endeavor. One of the things that Scottish Common Sense Realism gets right is that it does not have the optimism/arrogance of modernism, nor does it have pessimism/skepticism of PM.
6. For Christians (and increasingly, non-Christians), I tend to point to three passages:
•  Genesis 3 - 'did God actually say' - this is NOT God's question, it's Satan's question. Questioning whether God really said something is not necessarily wrong and God is patient with us when we're honestly trying to understand (eg, Gideon), but He has little patience with questioning that is attempting to avoid his clear command (eg, Moses, many of Christ's statements to Jewish leaders) ... and His will is basically clear.
• Rom 1:18-ff - 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness' - again, the dynamic is not intellectual confusion, but the pursuit of evil desires that drives what we 'know'.
• 1 Cor 1-2 - a Christian MUST ground understanding in the Cross and the Word (as informed by the Spirit). Here is where I am sympathetic with the presuppositionalist camp.
7. In terms of books ... I'm not sure I know of just one resource. Boa & Bowman's "Faith Has Its Reasons" is good, but its focus is apologetics. For the serious student of philosophy, Moreland & Craig's "Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview" is perhaps the single best book ... but it's at a college/graduate level. I have a copy, but never got past the first few chapters. Norman Geisler's "Introduction to Philosophy" looks like a possible candidate for a single book treatment.  As discussed below, all these tend to under-emphasize God's place as the ultimate 'knower'.
8. Finally, a warning: as may be inferred from the above comments, there are at least 2 real risks:

• the promotion of 'foolish controversies' - do you really need to know all this to be 'fully equipped'? Maybe so from an apologetics perspective ... but, again, do you really need to know, or ...
• are you implicitly placing yourself in the position of the 'ultimate knower'? This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and naturalism/materialism. Most Western philosophy since Aquinas assumes we are the ultimate knower. Per the passages mentioned above (and many others), that is a dangerous and un-Biblical perspective. God is the ultimate knower. He created us with the ability to know, but our knowledge will always be incomplete, flawed, and easily twisted by Satan's 'did God actually say ...'.  It's a dangerous kind of dualism to assume we can know apart from God's knowledge since 'in Him we live and move and have our very being.'

Bottom line: God makes it clear that we are fairly limited in our ability to understand since He provided a hefty 'special revelation' in the form of His written Word (the Bible) ... and via that Word He offers us the gift of His Spirit, His wisdom, and His power to be 'doers of the Word' that love-obey Him (eg, Romans 1-8, 1 Corinthians 1-2, 1-3 John).  At the same time, He always holds people responsible for that which 'can be clearly seen' (in nature and in His Word) ... which means we are expected to hold tightly to (and live out consistently) what we do know.

Decline Is a Choice - Start of Year Update

I feel a bit like I'm beating a dead horse on this, but recent stories in the press provide a nice update on the topic:

• David Brooks' column this week in the NYT on "Why Hagel Was Picked" asserts that the US will rapidly and significantly weaken militarily because we value health care more.
• George Friedman (STRATFOR) had an interesting discussion last week of the societal risks posed by pervasive high levels of unemployment in Europe.
• Friedman also discussed the same issue vis-a-vis the US this week.  Friedman's historical discussion is especially pointed, but like all secular analysts he ignores the root cause: the accelerating destruction of social capital (especially faith & family) caused by the rise of a culture of envy, greed, and narcissism that worships at the idols of government (as god), radical individualism / autonomy, and radical egalitarianism.

The classic image is from the October 19, 2009 Weekly Standard cover ... "Obama Contemplating a Bust of Carter" ... except this time the mood is much uglier than mere "malaise" (though Carter's three-sentence "crisis of confidence" statement was, from a secular perspective, reasonably accurate).

Beyond the Giving of Thanks

While preparing for a post-Thanksgiving talk, I noticed that Jesus’ instruction on “how you should pray” does not include any giving of thanks.

Thanksgiving is, of course, necessary. 

Jesus (speaking through the Spirit in Paul) says “For although they knew God, they neither glorified (honored) him as God nor gave thanks to him” (Rom 1:21).  Everyone clearly sees God through his invisible qualities of eternal power and divine nature (Rom 1:20) and knows that God deserves thanks AND glory/honor.

Thanksgiving alone is not sufficient.

In Luke 18, the Pharisee is thankful (that he is not a robber, adulterer, etc), but people do not see his good deeds and glorify God.  Rather, he expects the honor to be given to him, not to God.

It appears that two responses are basic to our existence: giving thanks to God, and honoring/glorifying Him.

These thoughts flowed from an examination of Elijah’s encounter with the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17).  Elijah is sent by God to a coastal town in a foreign land (Sidon) and told to ask a destitute widow for food.  Unknown to Elijah, the widow is gathering sticks for a final meal so she and her son can eat it, then die.

Elijah assures her that she will be provided for until the famine breaks.

I’m struck by how Elijah is given bread by a raven day-by-day prior to this, and then he, the widow, and her son are given bread day-by-day until the famine breaks … how they continually live one day away from starvation.

We rightfully (I think) see destitution as in conflict with God’s created order … but in a fallen world, we probably don’t fully appreciate that God’s glory is most clearly shown and seen where we are most destitute.

Although there’s no giving of thanks in the Lord’s Prayer, there is “give us this DAY our DAILY bread” (emphasis added).  It is in humility we recognize that all we need or deserve is day-to-day care … and it is for God’s glory that He provides just enough and no more.

Did God Actually Say ... ?

Seems like every week some new study is hyped in the press regarding the unreliability of our senses and our inability to think clearly. 

Even the Wikipedia article on the topic leans this way in the wording of its title ... "List of biases in judgment and decision making" ... interesting how there's little discussion of how/when these biases are beneficial.

Although we live in a time of skepticism (especially with regard to our ability to know objectively and universally), the overwhelming message of scripture is that God speaks clearly ... the problem is we don't want to hear.

Here are three Biblical incidents I'm reminded of when this topic arises:

• Genesis 3:1 - when Satan comes to tempt Eve, the field is wide open ... he can take any approach imaginable; say or do anything.  His (a) use of a question, and (b) focus on God's Word seem significant. If Satan can get us to question God's clear intent, the battle is largely over.
• Numbers 22 - Balaam is repeatedly warned about becoming involved with Balak. Yet he persists in asking God if it's ok.  It's frightening to realize that God will give us the answer we want if we refuse to listen to him.  Bret Carter had a nice editorial ("The Madness of the Prophet") on this passage a few months back.
• 1 Kings 18-19 - Elijah sees God act powerfully on Mt. Carmel and seems to think that God is about to "turn [Israel's] hearts back" to him (18:37)).  The prophets of Baal are killed and the drought breaks.  But revival does not break out.  Jezebel threatens Elijah and he flees, eventually hiding in a cave about 200 miles away.  God then "passes by", not in a powerful wind, nor in an earthquake, nor in a fire, but in ... a "low whisper" (ESV).  Although there's no explicit explanation given, the contrast with Mt. Carmel could not be greater.  God seems to be saying to Elijah that he will not overpower the listener.

Bottom line: next to "who is God?", the most important question may be "did God actually say?".

More MP3 Recommendations

• "How A Christian Worldview Produced Science" - This presentation by John Mark Reynolds (professor of Philosphy at Biola; PhD in Greek philosophy) at the 2009 Norton Lectures at SBTS does a nice job of describing why Homeric, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophy could not produce science, and why Christianity is the only worldview that provides the necessary assumptions for science.  I had never heard this explanation of why Paul's statement on Mars Hill about them being "very religious" was so scandalous.  This clearly explains why Christianity is fundamentally different from Greek philosophy (and sheds some light on why it's silly to equate common sense reason with Greek philosophy). Highly recommended; warning: some of the philosophy by quickly & Reynolds likes to run down rabbit trails occasionally. All 3 lectures are excellent if you're academically inclined.
• Marvin Olasky presented at the 2009 Norton Lectures at SBTS.  The first two are not bad; the first is an application of the Elder Brother / Younger Brother mindset to today's culture. The second discusses understandings of "social justice."  I might tweak the theology in places, but Olasky is a subject matter expert on governmental efforts to take care of the poor.  I'm not so sure about his emphasis on the linking of righteousness & justice in the OT ... but I see his point and think it has merit.
• "The (too?) Young, (too) Restless, (too) Reformed" - an interesting interview on The Christian Worldview radio show about a movement I was largely unaware of.  Well worth reading / listening to if you follow movements like the Emergent/Emerging Church.  BTW, this is not the first time I've seen someone state recently that, just like the megachurch movement, the emergent/emerging church movement is fading.  Maybe the Internet is shortening the lifecycle of these kinds of movements.
• "N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification" - a SBTS panel discussing what I think is one of the more subtle controversies these days, the "New Perspective on Paul."  N.T. Wright is very orthodox in many areas, but in this area is considered a bit heterodox since the New Perspective tends to undermine the understanding that Christ (a) atoned for our sins (b) by suffering the penalty of death on the cross (c) in our place, but asserting that justification depends in part on works instead of wholly on Christ's sacrifice. Anyway, that's what I got out of it.  I get the impression that Wright perhaps puts more emphasis on the restoration of the created order in this life (vs. eternal life or hell) than Christ did.