The Return of Government as God - II

So, what does the Bible say about government? Specifically, is its role limited to Protection, or is it also responsible for Provision?

There's a lot about government in the Old Testament, since it is largely a record of the only legitimate theocracy ever established. However, what may be most striking about that government is that within a few hundred years of its establishment, there was a coup d'etat where the people rejected God as King and demanded a human king. What they got, of course, was Saul....impressive exterior, weak interior. And, it's downhill from there, despite the reigns of David and Solomon.

However, as Christians, we find the New Testament describes government as having one primary responsibility ... maintaining justice.

• Jesus talks about "rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" with regard to taxes
• Peter instructs Christians to be subject to the government, and states that God has given it the responsibility to punish those who do wrong, and reward those who do right.
• Paul says the same thing in the longest passage on the topic (Romans 13:1-7), which includes the statement that the government does not "bear the sword in vain". This seems to provide a basis for the death penalty and for the use of force in defending against evil.

So, if the Biblical role of government is to Protect, is there a place for a Government that also Provides?

The traditional answer in America has been "no." The traditional Biblical understanding was that the injunctions regarding care for the poor, sick, etc were directed to believers by their Lord.

Because the government doesn't acknowledge Jesus as Lord (and, frankly, cannot do so since the Government is not an individual), it can't obey this command. And, as previously noted, is not given the responsibility to Provide.

Traditionally, individuals (and volunteer groups of individuals, including churches) took on the responsibility of Providing for those in need. This has been criticized on several grounds, including:

• Uneven provision - some geographic areas were much poorer than others, and some people were not provided for because of their race, sex, etc (e.g., the lack of care for the Grecian widows is a NT example)
• Perceived lack of compassion - some people were not cared for because they were considered to have "made their own bed"; in other words there was a concern that protecting people from the consequences of bad decisions kept them from learning to resist evil
• Differences in wealth - the Bible is not unique its criticism of those who are wealthy and refuse to help others. Much of the social criticism of the past 150+ years in the West is focused on disparities in wealth. Although some of this reflects a "politics of envy", it is perhaps more understandable when you consider the exponential growth in worldwide GDP in recent history (here's another diagram), especially in the West. (and, here's another interesting chart...relative percentage of GDP).

These and other critiques undermined the traditional rationale of limiting Government's role in Providing.

However, I wonder if the primary reason for enthroning Government as Chief Provider was the emergence of a belief "God is dead." Beginning in the Enlightenment and established by the late 19th century, this belief eventually removed God as the chief source of a social morality that emphasized individual voluntary care of the needy.

"Survival of the fittest" became the new morality and with it came libertarian notions of capitalism (e.g., Ayn Rand) and a eugenics movement that remains strong, although its emphasis and language has changed (e.g., from forced sterilization of "undesirable" women to large abortion clinics in poor urban neighborhoods).

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Liberal Protestantism joined with secular humanists to move care for the needy from a voluntary private activity to an involuntary public activity. Throughout the 20th century, Government grew rapidly as the Provider-in-Chief, and local voluntary organizations shrank as a share of help provided.

Whether it is possible to have a secular society where Provision is local and voluntary is a question I'll leave unaddressed ... frankly, I'm skeptical of libertarian notions in this area. I think that if a society dethrones God, you'll get a god (in the form of government) that is hostile to both the local and the voluntary.

Regardless, there are cracks appearing in this century-long trend to enthrone Government as a Provider god.

The fundamental crack is monetary. As Margaret Thatcher said, " ... and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite characteristic of them."

Iceland, Ireland, Greece, the UK, Spain, Portugal, etc are in dire financial straits. Decades of excessive taxes and regulations have severely eroded their ability to create wealth, while Japan, the Asian tigers, and, more recently, China and India have become fierce global competitors. At the same time, these European countries have made promises of Provision they can't keep. These include public pensions, retirement (ala Social Security), health care, and education.

The U.S. is not quite as bankrupt, and is protected to some degree by the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. However, the trends in spending and regulation, along with similar Provider promises that cannot be kept, mean that significant spending cuts (in projected spending required to keep promises made) are inevitable. I recently heard that ~170 million people in the U.S. are directly or indirectly dependent on government (welfare, Social Security, contractors, employees, etc).

As is clear with the riots in Europe, it's ugly when those dependent on a Provider government realize that their god can't keep his promises...I'm reminded of the self-mutilation by the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel.

A second issue is related to centralization of Provision work. A key rationale for centralization is the efficiencies associated with economies of scale. For some activities, this makes sense. You and your neighbor are not going to set up a car or chip manufacturing operation in your garage. These activities require multi-billion dollar factories to be competitive.

However, when it comes of Providing for the needy, centralization has significant costs. These are primarily associated with

• determining what the needs are - each person is different, and each need is different. A centralized bureaucracy is going to put people in boxes that may or may not fit a specific situation.
• determining how best to address those needs - here is where the "moral hazard" of centralization becomes a real problem. The easiest way to address needs is to simply throw money at it. It's impossible to provide the kind of care that teaches someone "how to fish" unless there is a relationship. And, relationships require someone local and involved. Even local governments generally fail to achieve the relational involvement that a voluntary group can provide. And, frankly, from a Christian perspective, most of the moral problems that cause poverty can't be resolved unless the whole person (physical, spiritual, emotional, moral) is addressed. This is not something government can do.
• detecting fraud - because non-governmental organizations are volunteer and are usually local with small budgets, they are much more efficient in their use of time and money. Committing fraud on the scale of Medicare (e.g. a recent L.A. area case involve $160 million) is almost impossible when Provision is highly decentralized.

Finally, there's the whole "culture of death" issue. A key reason there's not enough money is that the West is dying. Fertility rates have dropped rapidly in the wake of widely available birth control technology and the legalization of abortion. This trend is especially clear in Europe, where those who create most of the wealth are reproducing at a rate well below replacement, while poor Muslim immigrants are reproducing at a rate far above replacement. The implications of this go far beyond mere economics, but the economic effects are not trivial.

Christians currently face a "white field" when it comes to the gospel. The failure of modern and postmodern efforts to adequately address what it means to be human (spiritually, physically, socially, morally, etc) is becoming impossible to ignore, even for the most intellectually and emotionally schizophrenic.

The crises that result from the failures of a Government Provider god that is over 100 years old will only make the field whiter.

The Return of Government as God - I

As you may recall, I started this blog in part to discuss the primary entities God created to carry out His will: individuals, families, the church, and government.

I'm long overdue in discussing government...in part because it's such a large topic.

Note that the Bible does not present a rich and deep doctrine of government. God's revealed words are distinct from most (often all) religious texts in several ways...e.g., focus on actual historical events, a faith grounded in one specific historical event (Jesus' resurrection), and relatively little said about the structure of various social institutions, including the church and government.

I'll start with the arc of Western history over the past 2000 years.

Bottom line up front: religious persecution by the government is the norm. The religious tolerance we've experienced in the past few hundred years is an anomaly, and is rapidly fading.

Most governments in most places and times are intimately entwined with religion. This seems to reflect some basic facts

• we are spiritual beings
• we (per Romans 1-2) cannot deny a transcendent creator/authority
• those who exercise power use every tool available to do so; often with the best of intentions

So, what does this look like in the West over the past 2000+ years? Here's a very short summary: (BTW, as I use the term "established church" below, I mean that at least 2 factors were present: (a) all citizens must pay taxes to support it, (b) all citizens must be members of it and (c) disagreement with its doctrines is punishable civilly (fines, prison, etc).)

• Government persecuted Christians - in the first few hundred years, Christianity refused to accept the spiritual pluralism of Rome, and defended their belief in the one true God as objectively true for all times and places. More specifically, Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as Lord.
• Christianity as an established religion - this began w/ Constantine and continued well into the Enlightenment
• Separation of Church and State (sepC&S) - at least two factors contributed to this. One was the rise of a belief system grounded in this world (secularism) and human knowledge (humanism). This did not occur overnight, but with Darwin, the "death of God" (Nietzsche) was complete. The second, and dominant factor in the US, was the experience of those who came to this country in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were usually fleeing persecution by an established church. Although the initial colonies/states had their own established churches, they were concerned about the Federal Govt. establishing a specific church (hence the 1st Amendment). Eventually, of course, the colonies/states disestablished their churches (hence the word for the movement which opposed this: antidisestablishmentarianism), but kept various requirements for religious belief to hold office.
• Separation of religious belief and state (sepRB&S) - this is very different from separation of church and state. In sepC&S, the state is prohibited from establishing a state religion. In sepRB&S, the state (i.e., any individual acting as an agent of the state) is prohibited from taking actions which are primarily based in a religious belief. The path to this is a different topic, but the rational that has evolved (almost totally via the courts) basically asserts that (a) the 1st & 14th Amendments prohibit any religious action at any state-funded function, and (b) the "free exercise" clause of the 1st Amendment applies only to private activity (see, for example, 1947 Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Engel v. Vitale (1962)). Note that this is very different from establishing a state church.
• Prohibition of religious rationale for law - In recent court cases related to efforts to maintain traditional understandings of sexuality (e.g., California's marriage amendment, etc), judicial actions overturning these efforts have increasingly asserted that religious beliefs are not an acceptable rationale for a law. This raise interesting questions since the implication is that pragmatism is the only valid rationale. Since pragmatism has no ability to define an ultimate purpose/goal/value/good (except, maybe, survival of the fittest), it's unclear whether there's any rationale for law if pragmatism is the foundation.
• Establishment of a new state religion - This is well underway in the West. The new religion is not traditional since it denies any knowledge of the metaphysical. And, it doesn't have a hierarchy and a membership roll. However, it does have the basic features of an established church: (a) all citizens must pay taxes to support it, (b) all citizens must be members of it, and (c) disagreement with its doctrines is punishable civilly (fines, prison, etc). Increasingly, Christian beliefs that conflict with the dominant secular/humanist beliefs are grounds for persecution. Although jail time is relatively rare, it is not unknown (primarily in association with beliefs regarding homosexual behavior and parental responsibilities (homeschooling)) And, within education, certain Christian beliefs are almost guaranteed to provoke persecution. For example, if you teach biology at a secular university, any indication that you question evolution (even on scientific grounds) makes it unlikely you'll ever be granted tenure. In other words, community membership requires adherence to a secular dogma...no questioning allowed.

Nice Post-Election Summary

Richard Land is one of the most thoughtful and informed cultural critics I've run across in the past few years (see, for example, his latest book, "The Divided States of America").

His recent visit on Family Talk is probably the best short summary of the current American political scene I've heard. Here are the links; fortunately, there's not much chatter at the beginning or end of them (~25 minutes each):

Session 1
Session 2

How Did I Miss David Wells?

NOTE: The talk linked below is "must listen" ... and "No Place For Truth" is "must read" for any serious student of culture.

I have been reading about philosophy, theology, and apologetics since I ran across Francis Schaeffer's film series "How Shall We Then Live?" in college.

Most critiques fall either into the rationalist or empiricist camps, with the pre-supposionalists making up an influential minority (see Boa & Bowman's "Faith Has Its Reasons" for a good overview of apologetic camps).

However, David Wells' critique recently came to my attention. His approach is primarily sociological, an approach I've never been much impressed by. However, Wells' trilogy of "No Place For Truth", "God In The Wasteland", and "Losing Our Virtue" is perhaps the best single critique of Western Christianity (and, increasingly global Christianity) I've ever read.

This is stunningly good stuff, and required reading if you like C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcy, various intelligent design authors, etc.

Here's a small sample from this MP3 recording (skip the first 5:30 unless you want to hear a longgggg introduction) (more Wells recordings here and here; some of the links on these pages are out-of-date (e.g., the Covenant Seminary "Disappearance of Theology" series summarizing "No Place For Truth"); see the Gospel Coalition's page if a link fails:

"It is a global culture, it is a generic culture. Because it belongs to everybody, it belongs to no one in particular; it is therefore paper thin and it invades our souls with its triviality.

What happens, though the exact mechanisms are a little bit complicated, when we live in this sort of environment, is that slowly but surely we get detached from a moral world.

Instead we enter a therapeutic world, a psychologized view of life. We want the benefits of Christian faith without faith itself. Then begins a whole series of substitutions:

• Righteousness is replaced by a search for happiness,
• Holiness by wholeness,
• Truth by feeling,
• Ethics by simply feeling good about ourselves

The church contracts, it is now about me and my needs and comforts. The past recedes, good and evil lose their moral status, good becomes simply having a nice day and evil is having a bad hair day.

God in this context becomes weightless, no longer relevant to the internal life of the church. So, triviality, and secondly, uncertainty (the disappearance of conviction from the life of the church) become pervasive. "

Scholarship defends AGAINST the Bible?

Chad sent me a quote (sent to him by a friend) from Soren Kierkegaard that reads in part "Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close."

Chad wondered what I thought about it. Since Kierkegaard's perspective is probably shared by many Christians today, I thought I'd share my response....this is a bit ragged, but I think the gist is clear:

I've never read anything by Kierkegaard...but anytime I run across a quote from a highly regarded philosopher, I have two snap reactions:

1. To look for info about their place in the development of theoretical thought, and

2. To see if they are considered "hard" to understand.

In this case, SK doesn't seem to be considered "hard" to understand; unlike, for example, Hegel. So, I suspect the quote can be taken fairly literally. The fact that it doesn't have abstract terms whose meaning is unclear is another indication that it's probably intended to be taken literally.

Regarding SK's time and place in history, the wikipedia article indicates that he was reacting against the Age of Reason.

Although it's a gross oversimplification, there have been roughly two poles in Western theoretical thought since the Greeks began it ~2500 years ago...at one extreme are those who emphasize the metaphysical/mystical/spiritual, the transcendent, the romantic, and the Self (which, by the way, Kant put in the metaphysical realm). At the other end are those who emphasize the physical/material, the immanent, the rational, and the senses.

It appears to me that SK is more in the Romantic camp than the Rational camp. There's a lot of history surrounding his time and place that's better understood via a book (I have at least 3 I'd point to immediately, but any good history of philosophy & theology will cover the essential points).

Bottom line from my perspective: SK very understandably reacted negatively to the Rational attempts of his time to ground all knowledge in a rational (I'm using this word in a philosophical sense; i.e., all knowledge is via reason) base. Unfortunately, he does not appear to attack the fundamental error of rationalism...which is the grounding of all knowledge in the knower. Instead, he seems to have kept the base of knowledge in the knower...but in a mystical leap of faith rather than a rational analysis.

The Bible is clear on at least 3 points

1. All knowledge has its origin in God...the ultimate knower. Any attempt to originate knowledge in some part of creation is doomed to failure.

2. As beings in the image of God, we are rational and much of our knowledge is captured and communicated using reason. However, since we're not God, that knowledge is, by definition, incomplete. And, in a fallen world, it is occasionally flawed. As such, we should be humble about what we know.

3. As beings in the image of a Triune God, we are relational...so our knowledge is not simply apprehended (i.e., "even the demons believe"), but it is lived out in relationship. Everyone, explicitly and implicitly, places their trust in certain fundamental truths. Although these truths are not subject to proof in some rigorous sense, they are subject to being evaluated for reasonableness and plausibility. A part of that ongoing evaluation is the living out of those truths, which produces a knowledge of God, of others, and of creation that is relational...the living out of rational propositions about what is believed to be good, true, beautiful.

The rational and the relational reinforce each other...regardless of your belief system (atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, hedonist, etc).

Finally, the Bible clearly states that we are more than able to understand God's nature and will well enough to either (a) pursue a close relationship to Him through Christ and under His authority ("if you love me you will keep my commandments"), or (b) reject Him and pursue our own desires.

Bottom line: Attempts to ground knowledge in our Reason or our Intuition, rather than in a God who has revealed Himself, are doomed to fail. And, attempts to cram God into some kind of a box (e.g., rational or intuitive, immanent or transcendent) are also doomed to fail. Virtually every well-known theologian in the past 500 years has made one or more such attempts...which is why theology (the study of God) disappeared from Western culture and was replaced with, initially, the study of man, then with a rejection of the possibility of knowledge...but that's another story.

In the end, I am sympathetic with SK's reaction to the Age of Reason...however, I don't think his reaction reflects a Biblical understanding of either God or man. Rather, it reflects a human attempt to put God in a largely transcendent/mystical box that is far too small for a rational God.

In the beginning was the Image....

The older I get, the more profound John 1:1 becomes. Despite the hyper-modern skepticism about language's ability to communicate Truth (i.e., universal objective God-created), I'm continually reminded of just how profound language is...literally and as a metaphor.

But, until this past Sunday, I had never considered the following: would it be possible to (a) create a universe, and (b) create humans in God's image, without language?

I have some awareness of various materialist efforts to define demarcation criteria for what makes humans distinctive. The relatively recent resurgence of monism has made this kind of approach politically incorrect (note that we can't say false, much less False (appeal to reason) ...nor can we say unhelpful (appeal to pragmatism)...all we can say is that it's unpopular with those in power).

Regardless, those efforts often focused on language as a key criterion that might or might not separate humans from non-humans. They included well-publicized attempts to teach chimps to "speak"...whether or not this was successful depends on how you define speech.

I'm not a linguist, but my snap reaction on Sunday was to wonder:
1. Would it be possible to create laws of physics that would allow for the communication, storage, and processing of abstract concepts in the form of an Image (not symbols/language)?

2. And, if you could, would it be possible to also create an apparatus (in human form) that would be able to both (a) survive at a concrete level (e.g., walk, detect threats, etc), and (b) reason at an abstract level?

I suspect not, but I doubt there's any way to really explore this very deeply....unfortunate since it appears that information technology is beginning to explore the use of visual metaphors (think the iPhone GUI (or NUI)).

So, why bring this up? In part, it's because we live in a culture that is deeply in love with the Image. If Truth (or even truth) is not possible, then Meaning/Purpose/Telos is in serious trouble (at least for social creatures).

Images avoid these unpleasant discussions about the True, the Good, the Beautiful (well maybe not the last...can't quite erase every trace of being created in God's image). Images just are.

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a recent critique of this trend....from text to image, from reason to emotion, from complex depth to simplistic superficiality.

The reactionary rebels against what seems to be an assault on a core aspect of being human...our reason. The romantic revels in the constant swirling of emotive imagery and sound.

I suspect most of us relate to both perspectives. But, we're all probably more influenced by the dominant image-centric culture than we realize.

Which implies that we should be much more skeptical about imagery than we are about language...partly because of its unquestioned primacy, and partly because of the power of its emotive unreason.

In the beginning was the Image?....no, in the beginning was the Word. In, I suspect, more ways than one.

America is an Idea?

I ran across a broadcast by Tommy Nelson (skip the intro; start at 3:44; finishes at 22:41).

I don't think I've ever heard him give a mediocre talk...he's one of those rare people who is very well read, but excels in boiling things down to an essence without over-simplifying or making them simplistic (Reagan, as seen in his papers published after his death, is another example).

The basic assertion is that America is an idea. As such, it can disappear while the name continues on. In a variety of fundamental ways, the original idea has faded significantly in this country.

I'll have a few observations on this in the future...a key one is that most other ideas are toward the totalitarian end of the spectrum. For now, this talk is a good introduction. For a discussion of a currently expanding idea (sharia), see this paper by several leading military experts.

Love & Respect - a critique

I've had a slight interest in at least skimming the Eggerich's book entitled "Love & Respect" for several years...but the only copy that's ever been in our house has departed.

So, when I stumbled across a ~25 minute interview on Focus on the Family w/ the Eggerich's discussing their Love & Respect book, I checked it out.

If the book coheres with the interview, I'm underwhelmed.

Bottom line: their thesis seems primarily an appeal to pragmatism (and to a lesser degree what might be termed natural law), even though it starts with what appears to be exposition.

As I've noted previously, any purely Biblical understanding of male and female must carefully consider (a) the historical events that led to this feature in nature, and (b) God's explanation of the meaning of those events.

I just don't see how you deny distinctive male & female roles in (a) the family and (b) the church, unless you insist that your experience, context, and reason trump God's explanation of what was created.

Which is why the Eggerich's reasoning makes me uneasy...it seems to drift toward a synthesis of Biblical and cultural perspectives (e.g., see www.cbeinternational.org for one such synthesis) instead of clearly stating trans-cultural Biblical truth (e.g., www.cbmw.org does an excellent job in this area).

Disappointing, but not surprising. Most popular "Christian" non-fiction these days is weak theologically (and occasionally, flat-out heretical).

I've been working my way through David Wells' trilogy on the death of theology the past few months...when I get around to posting some thoughts on it, I'll elaborate.

How PM Differs From Modernism

In response to my review of "The Next Reformation", Vincent asked about my reference to D. A. Carson's view that postmodernism is best seen as distinct from modernism (vs. being seen as ultra- or hyper-modernism).

The two talks I linked to in the 3rd paragraph of that post both summarize the reasons for his view. Here's a short summary of six key areas discussed by Carson where a Biblical understanding differs from Modernism; and how Postmodernism views these six areas:

Modernism is characterized by:

• An explicit assertion that knowledge begins with the finite knower (DeCartes' famous "I think, therefore I am"). A Biblical understanding begins, of course, with God as the unchanging and all-knowing knower. We have an ability to know because (a) God gave us that ability, and (b) God created a coherent and knowable universe. However, we also understand that we are both finite and flawed in (a) our ability to know, and (b) our knowledge. See previous posts on this topic.
• A presupposition that epistemological certainty is (a) desirable, and (b) attainable.
• A profoundly foundationalist view of knowledge - there is a shared universal foundation (i.e., set of assumptions) that can be universally known (epistemological certainty) for EVERY discipline (i.e., area of knowledge)
• A profoundly methodological process for generating knowledge - a shared universal set of methods can be universally known to reliably generate truth. Epistemological certainty is attained by the formula "Foundation + Methods = TRUTH". No TRUTH can be known unless both are present in a robust form
• An assumption that TRUTH is objective and universal (ahistorical) - if something is true, it is true at all times and in all places.
• Since Darwin, an increasingly strong assertion that philosophical naturalism is true - only matter, time, and space exist

In Carson's view, postmodernism shares the assertion of finite knower (#1), but denies or significantly modifies the remaining five perspectives. You should listen to Carson's talks if you're interested, but here's my summary of how Carson sees PM denying or modifying the modernist understanding:

• Epistemological certainty is neither (a) desirable, nor (b) possible
• Shared universal foundations are neither desirable nor possible
• Shared universal methods are neither desirable nor possible
• Truth is subjective, and varies depending on time and place
• Although naturalism is accepted, there's a tolerance (often an encouraging) of individual experiences of the metaphysical

As I've noted before, modernism is excessively optimistic about our ability to know (making our ability to know a god), and postmodernism (in justified reaction) is excessively pessimistic.

See previous posts for some discussion of why neither modernism nor postmodernism are Biblical ways of understanding our ability to know...and on areas where they are consistent with a Biblically-based understanding.

Misc. "Sexual Suicide"

George Gilder horrified the nascent feminist movement in the early 70's with his first-hand observations (and related research) of an inner city culture where traditional male-female roles had been destroyed by the sexual revolution, with disastrous consequences for everyone.

Gilder's book ("Sexual Suicide", later re-issued as "Men and Marriage") was one of the first in what has become a long and continually growing line of books documenting the profoundly negative effects of the sexual revolution on women, especially from adolescence through the "empty nest"; on men, especially from the early-mid 20's through middle age; and, perhaps most of all, on children.

Looking back on that line of books (this came on my radar screen when I read "Men and Marriage" back in the mid 80's), what strikes me is how many of these books have been written by folks from the political left..."mugged by reality" because of their professional training/research....a clear indication that the chaos produced by the sexual revolution violates the "law written on the heart" and is therefore part of what we "can't not know."

Since this is the 50th anniversary of the technology that catalyzed that revolution (the birth control pill), I thought I'd mention a few random related items I've run across recently.

• "Why Are So Many Girls Lesbian or Bisexual?" - the author of this Psychology Today article has no moral objections to deviant sexual behavior, but he does wonder if deviant males might be a significant contributing factor.
• Gendercide - this short article from the Economist basically reprises Gilder's observations from 35+ years ago (i.e., the core challenge of any society is to ensure that young males are "civilized" by marriage)...his heresy has become the norm among demographers...though their focus has been on Asia, especially China and its one-child policy.
• "Living Together" - this book by Larry & Harriet McManus provides a nice summary of the data that clearly shows that (a) living together before marriage significantly increases the odds of divorce/breakup, and (b) a concerted community effort to discourage living together has significantly reduced subsequent divorce over the past decade or so in numerous cities.
• "Campus Attacks" - this joint Secret Service, DoE, and FBI study of violence on campus from 1909 to 2009 has numerous observations of interest (though it would be nice to see the raw data as coded). Figure 1 shows assault levels jumping dramatically in the 90's...makes me wonder about things like the mainlining of pornography and the rap culture. And, Figure 7 seems to indicate that nearly 2/3 of assaults involved a male-female dynamic (assuming that same-sex assaults were relatively rare)...a figure that would seem to be significantly under-reported given the amount of anecdotal "evidence" of not reporting date rape, etc.

Joyful Creating For God's Glory

Two artists have recently prompted a few thoughts about being a creator...in the image of God.

The first is Laura Veirs. Her latest CD ("July Flame") is one of those relatively rare CDs that, while ephemeral, is a lot of fun. The last song ("Make Something Good") expresses a basic aspect of being in the image of God...the desire to create something that we look at and say "that's good!"

The second is N.T. Wright. A relative had urged me to read one of his books...I have not since I generally prefer to read the original (vs. a commentator... though there are a few commentators (e.g., D. A. Carson) that I do find enlightening (in no small part because they don't stray far from the text)).

I listened to a talk that Wright gave on his new book "Simply Christian" at a Veritas Forum. He meant it as a twist on Lewis' "Mere Christianity", and I assume that both words were intentional. "Simply" seems to be a sideways critique of a Christianity that focuses on the intellect (vs. action), and "Christian" is an identity or a person (vs. a belief framework).

Unfortunately, his message is very much in line with the "another gospel" I discussed in the last post. He sees Christianity as something pointed to by "faint echoes" (a apparent nod to postmodern skepticism) in the areas of justice, spirituality, relationship, beauty (but not guilt or sin...a bit strange in light of his discussion of justice).

He's eloquent, and in many ways orthodox, in his discussion of the restorative aspect of the gospel. Folks who have underemphasized the gospel's restorative aspect can learn something from Wright. And, he's more orthodox in his understanding of Biblical righteousness than many who preach a restorative gospel.

But, the lack of emphasis on the "free from sin" aspect of the gospel is inconsistent with the New Testament, and most critically, his silence on the atoning work of the Cross yields what is basically "another gospel." Not surprisingly, his gospel focuses on an earthly kingdom along the lines of the social gospel. Even the discussion of the "new heaven and new earth" emphasizes the social and the environmental.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the ways Satan can distort our image-of-God urge to create. Here's a few thoughts:

• We try to "improve" on God's creation. Whether in the spiritual, physical, emotional, relational, etc., this is perhaps the most subtle temptation. We obviously have to use what God created to do our own creating. But, when we start bending and distorting the underlying medium, we are fighting the Creator.
• We worship our creations. This is perhaps the most blatant temptation and is where the impulse to idolatry is most clear.
• We attack God's creation. I suspect this is caused by a combination of "I want to be my own God" and a targeted temper tantrum. Large chunks of modern and postmodern culture fall into this camp...environmental abuse, pornography, promiscuity, homosexuality, drug/alcohol abuse, cutting, rebellion against government, abortion, euthanasia, denial of our ability to know, etc, etc, etc.
• We suppress our creative nature. This is perhaps an aspect of modernism, where the impulse was to systematize society into a scientific factory and the individual's job was to fit into the system. Obey orders, follow instructions, don't lead or step out or make a difference. Obviously there's a place for obeying orders and following instructions, but even there, it should be done in thoughtfully in light of God's authority and created order. Joyful creation of the good and the beautiful to bring glory to God is a key reason for our existence. This is one of the lessons of the Parable of the Talents.

Please comment if you have been reminded of other distortions.

The Good News

I'm slowly coming to a realization of just how profound Jesus' statement is about why he spoke in parables (Mt. 13:11-17...."Though seeing, they do not see...").

I originally saw the Good News primarily in terms of atonement (e.g., John 3:16). Then, freedom from enslavement to sin (e.g., Romans 6:6-ff) was layered on. Then restoration of a created order (e.g., 2 Cor 10-ff) was added.

As my understanding has grown, I've gained a better understanding of how the gospel is often distorted by not fully integrating all its aspects. Here's a short summary of them:

• Atonement - this aspect emphasizes God's holiness and His justice. Its focus is on the spiritual separation (death) that our sin/rebellion/idolatry creates, and how Christ's perfect sacrifice was the price God required to satisfy His justice.
• Free from sin - this aspect emphasizes the work of the Word, the Spirit, and the Body in producing humility, confession, and righteousness in the life of a Christian
• Restoration/reconciliation - this aspect emphasizes the restoration of proper relations between the individual and God, and between the individual and others.

And, a few observations on how they can be distorted to change the Good News into "another gospel":

• Substitutionary atonement - if this is the primary emphasis, then there may be a tendency toward legalism and salvation by works. That may seem a bit illogical, but once the price has been paid, there may be a tendency to assert that good works are required to remain saved. While salvation will produce good works, reversing the cause and effect results in works-based salvation. Atonement is offensive to the West today, including many who consider themselves Christian. A just God who sends people to Hell is politically incorrect in a postmodern era that is all too aware of the wide range of beliefs around the world. It is in atonement that we most clearly see that this life is truly ephemeral and that our spiritual relationship with God is the only thing that endures. And, it's here that we see most clearly God's holiness and His love...it required the death of God in the flesh to satisfy His justice, and He loved us enough to come in the flesh and die. This is the area where traditional Christianity is currently under attack. Many of the leading writers promoting the "emergent church" either deliberately ignore this aspect of the gospel or are openly hostile to it. And, the mainline Protestant groups have almost completely abandoned it.
• Free from sin - if this is the primary emphasis, there can be tendency toward license. Paul saw this in Rome (Romans 6:1...."shall we then sin that grace may abound...") and addressed it head on (Romans 5-8). Or, there can be a tendency toward legalism...if you're don't appear to be a "good person", if you struggle with some aspect of sin, then maybe you're not really saved. In a postmodern West, this has morphed in some theological circles into universalism (everyone is saved by Christ's sacrifice).
• Restoration/reconciliation - although this has an eternal aspect with respect to our relationship with God and a restoration of what we were created to be, there is a tendency today to emphasize the temporal-carnal aspect...specifically to focus on the restoration of human relationships and on human impact on the environment. In a West that's rapidly becoming neo-pagan/monist, there's a tendency in both mainline Protestant groups and emergent groups to present a "gospel" that is primarily a message of earthly restoration and reconciliation.
  
• A gospel that is derived solely from the Gospels tends toward the restorative end of the spectrum. The reason seems clear...Jesus' words and actions on while on Earth were prior to the Cross. Ignoring His words after the cross (conveyed by the Spirit and through the writers of the NT, including those who wrote the Gospels, as promised in John 16), is to attempt to create Good News without a Cross since it's clear from Acts 1-2 that the disciples did not begin to understand the Cross until the Day of Pentecost. In a similar vein, an understanding of the church based primarily on Jesus' words and actions before the Cross tends to lean strongly toward a "social gospel" organization. It appears that many who consider themselves traditional Christians (e.g., "Red Letter Christians") do not understand that every letter of the New Testament should be red if you want to print Jesus' words in red.
  

A few related comments:

• I've long been interested in epistemology and have found Dave Snowden's insights into the naturalistic (vs. philosophical) aspects of how we know interesting. In a recent presentation (see slide 5) he discussed how we use narrative to link unified-concrete knowledge (e.g., the muscle memory of how to ride a bike) to codified-abstract knowledge (e.g., a set of instructions on how to ride a bike). I think it's interesting how this insight (from general revelation) coheres with what we see in the Bible...specifically, robust narratives that we can use as a template for our own narratives, codified-abstract knowledge in the form of commands and doctrine, and a recognition that all of this ultimately becomes internalized in unified-concrete actions. Of course, a Biblical understanding is much richer since we know the Word, the Spirit, and the Body, along with God's discipline work to produce righteousness (e.g., see 1 Cor 1-3, Hebrews 5:7-9). And, how a robust lived-out understanding of the Good News can lead to the "mind of Christ."
• Although atonement is a narrative, it's one that's largely spiritual and we have a tendency to emphasize its doctrinal aspects since a narrative dominated by God's transcendent justice, holiness, and love is difficult for us to relate to. In a postmodern era that's hostile to universal truth claims and metanarratives, this is probably the most counter-cultural aspect of the gospel. If someone ignores or downplays this aspect of the gospel, warning bells should go off.
• Freedom from sin and enslavement to righteousness is primarily doctrinal, but it's a doctrine that describes our narrative. However, we have a tendency to try to warp the Word to fit our identity/narrative instead of repenting and changing our lives to fit the Word.
• Restoration & reconciliation has a strong narrative component, and is more culturally appealing to postmodern cultural relativism, especially with regard to social relations and the environment, than the other aspects of the gospel.
• A "gospel" that does not encompass the entirety of the Good News is not a true gospel. Across a wide range of groups that claim to be Christian, including those that have traditionally held to a high view of the Word, there are significant movements to reject one or more of the core aspects of the gospel discussed above.
• Aligned with this is a tendency to put the Good News into the background, and to focus on messages and actions that are culturally appealing. While Jesus (both in the person while on Earth, and through the Spirit in Paul, Peter, etc.) was loving and respectful and considerate, he never hesitated to call people to repentance and always (after the cross) made the cross the primary message. He acknowledged that the cross was an offense, foolishness, a stumbling block, etc., but never put it in the background and never tried to sneak it in the back door.
• Any attempt to present a "gospel" that downplays or ignores the atonement aspect of the gospel runs a real risk of morphing into a "social gospel" that looks a lot like the social gospel of the 1800's.

Review of Dr. Carl Raschke's "The Next Reformation"

Note: This review was something I've been intending to write for several years. While reading some of James Nored's book reviews (he's holding a seminar for us in a few weeks), I found his review of the book, so I thought I'd capture some of the thoughts that I had then (and have developed since then). I'm also posting this at James' site.

I found Dr. Raschke's academic polemic against modernism and for postmodernism both enlightening and puzzling.

Its polemical style is accurately foreshadowed in its subtitle "Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernism" (emphasis added). Those looking for a more dispassionate discourse on this topic will find Don Carson's "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" more informative (and much more accessible). Or, if you're looking for a short audio, try this talk by Carson. A longer version is here.

Raschke's discussion of (a) the weaknesses of modernism, and (b) the value of postmodernism in better understanding modernism's limitations is, discounting the polemical style and the dense academic thickets traversed, occasionally helpful in better understanding how both movements have influenced (and continue to influence) various strands of Christian thought. Unfortunately, there's little discussion of what God says in His Word about such topics as (a) the limits of our knowledge, (b) how sure we can be of our knowledge, (c) the degree to which language is (or is not) a reliable communication channel, and (d) the relative place of knowledge in having "the mind of Christ."

Overall, I struggled to find a coherent message. Here are some of the areas that left me at least slightly confused:

• I'm not sure about Raschke's intended audience. Raschke studied the philosophy of religion at Harvard, where he earned his doctorate. The book reviews and extends philosophical and theological territory that is of interest primarily to specialists in these fields. Since I have a long-time interest in both areas, I found the book interesting. But, unless you have some knowledge of Foucault, Derrida, Barth, Kant, Nietzsche, and other 19th and 20th century philosophers and theologians, you may find much of it a bit on the dense side. Carson's "Becoming Conversant..." is much more accessible, and in many ways, a more robust description of postmodernism (which, by the way, is a generic label for a wide range of impulses; something not explored here).
• Although Raschke is explicitly addressing evangelicals, much of his description of a "Christianity" based on modernism seems to fit mainline Protestantism better than mainline evangelicalism. In adapting Christianity to modernism in the 1800's, mainline groups elevated reason above God's Word (e.g., doubting whether a text is accurate or whether an event is historical). The results are clearly seen in recent fissures in various Protestant groups. Although these disagreements appear on the surface to be about sexual morality, they have a common root: skepticism about the reliability of God's Word (e.g., whether what we have was inaccurately transmitted or whether its history reflects is a myth motif (in the Joseph Campbell sense)).
• It's not clear what Raschke is trying promote (i.e., what he's for). This is not uncommon in deciphering (deconstructing?) postmodern (PM) writings. PM's assertion that knowledge is grounded in the personal and the relational (and cannot be captured in abstract propositions) struggles to communicate coherently in any form that is inherently propositional. For example, it works better in video or audio forms than in a textual form. Since most writing (I'm excluding some of the PM novelists who use language to attack language's ability to communicate) has a significant propositional component, arguments (a "modern" framework) for PM tend to struggle with coherence. In the end, I really couldn't find a compelling reason to adopt PM (any more than I can find a compelling reason to adopt modernism) as a basic framework, much less as a framework for understanding God, Christ, and His Word. I really like some of Raschke's polemic about Christianity not being a cut-and-dried rational framework...but his attempt to force Christianity into a PM frame seems backwards...seems like he should be trying to discern where PM (and, modernism for that matter) is consistent with what we know from nature and God's Word, instead of promoting a specific intellectual approach which will, like all such understandings, come and go. Or, maybe this concern mostly irrelevant...if it's a book for academics, it will fade as academic currents shift.

Since it had been 3-4 years since I read this book, I did a quick review of the book and the notes I made in the margins at that time. The only clear memory I had was that I had struggled to uncover a coherent message...in particular, I had been struck by the number of times I had written in the margin such notes as "straw man, false dichotomy, not either/or, excluded middle, apples/oranges." At that time I had not counted the total...during my review I found 54 such notes.

This is not necessarily unusual; I occasionally have this reaction when reading works in an area of thought that's in a state of flux (Network Centric Warfare theory is one such area with which I'm familiar). Polemic has its place, but my frequent reaction to such writings is that they often shed more light on ways in which the subject may be misunderstood than on the subject itself.

So, what are some of the areas where I agree with Raschke?

• His critique of consumerist religion is pointed and correct.
• The substance of much of his critique of "modernist" religion is also correct. As I mentioned above, mainline Protestantism is in crisis because of its ongoing movement away from the authority God's Word. Modernism was originally optimistic about man's ability to know completely (both in width and depth), and to translate that knowledge into desired action. As Raschke points out, late modernism turned pessimistic about any ability to ground knowledge in man's reason. This pessimism about knowledge is shared by PM (though for on different grounds), and is one reason why some folks see PM as another form of late modernism (see Carson for reasons why PM is better seen as distinct from modernism).
• His reaction against what might be called "stale religion" or "understanding is not enough" or “a religion of forms” is on target. As God notes in His Word, "even the demons believe." So, more than a reasoned understanding of God's Word is essential (though it's not EITHER a reasoned understanding OR a vocative understanding...it's both). Raschke's personal journey was through an academic world that is (as mentioned above) largely modern in its understanding of both religion and Christianity. It's understandable that he would find those perspectives uninspiring. At a personal level, I've known folks who were raised in a Christian environment and reacted negatively to what they perceived to be an unholy mixture of legalism, right-wing politics, and intolerance. There is a tendency for some people to react to this experience by adopting an equally unholy mixture of license, left-wing politics, and an unwillingness to recognize sin. Some of Raschke's polemic highlighting the centrality of the relationships (both vertical and horizontal) is very good and much needed...it's the attempt to ground it in a PM framework that seems unjustified, unnecessary, and ultimately, unsatisfying.
• He rightly emphasizes PM's origins in linguistic theory. Any discussion of post-structuralism, Derrida, etc. is going to get deep fast, but you really can't grasp PM's basic assertions without wading in to those waters.
• He rightly emphasizes the fact that we all have different perspectives, that individual perspectives shaped those who recorded God's Word, and that our perspectives shape how we understand that Word today.
• He accurately describes PM's skepticism about language's ability to communicate meaning. Given PM's influence in the culture today, this understanding may be helpful in reaching out to the unsaved. And, it can be helpful in better understanding where this skepticism undermines Christian faith.

There are areas where I have some concerns:

• Christ is diminished by trying to fit Him into PM framework. This Christ seems to speak in a muddled voice where no one statement has a clear meaning. For example, Christ's emphasis on obedience (e.g., in John's gospel) seems a bit disingenuous if language is really that unreliable in communicating meaning. And, our growth as His body to become like Him would seem to lack clear guidance (again, unless you adopt a largely fideist perspective). I don't think you have to adopt a PM epistemology to gain a clear understanding of God's love and grace, of the richness of our relationship to the Father, Son, and Spirit, of the richness of our relationships with each other, of the nature of faith and scripture, of worship, and of theology.
• There seems to be a confusion between knowing God and understanding His Word. I think most Christians would agree that a full and complete understanding of God is beyond us (though, I think it's equally wrong to assert that God is "totally other"...which means that there is NO point of overlap between us and Him and therefore, we can know NOTHING of it/Him). Our limitations in knowing God are not the same as our limitations in understanding a textual Word that He has given us. A true knowledge of God includes a knowledge of His Word, a right relationship with Him (Father, Son, and Spirit) that is lived daily (providing a richer understanding of the text's meaning), the work of the Spirit in us (and the Spirit in the Word as the one who faithfully transmitted God's Word as spoken by Christ to the writers of the New Testament (John 16)), right relationships with other members of the body of Christ, and right relationships with the lost.
• There seems to be a pessimism about our ability to understand any meaning communicated via text, including God's Word. As noted above, it's true that we are finite in our ability to know. Furthermore, we are fallen and tend toward "deafness" when it comes to God's voice. And, it's true that everyone will have slight differences in understanding what words/sentences/paragraphs/etc. mean when they read them. However, PM's focus on language (which is a channel by which we know, not the knowledge itself) seems like "majoring in minors." God created language, He created us as users of language, He fragmented the languages at Babel, yet He chose to use it to communicate with us. If God is accurately revealed in His Word, then we have assurance that we can understand God, despite the incomplete and flawed aspects of our knowledge and our ability to know.
• My impression from reading God's Word is that His primary focus is on our hearts, with a secondary emphasis on “studying to show yourself approved.” The exhortations of the prophets, of John the Baptist, of Christ, and of the apostles seem to assume that the listeners generally had no problem understanding (a) the intended message, (b) whether that message applied to them, or (c) how that message might translate into decisions and actions in a specific context. John and Jesus (while on earth and through those He spoke to after He left (John 16)) clearly focus on calling people to change their hearts; and, in many cases, they give clear reasons why (i.e., why it is reasonable (or even undeniable) to accept the truth claims being made). This seems to imply that the real issue if often not an inability to know, but our unwillingness to repent, to submit to God's authority, to live in relationship to Him and others on His terms.
• Neither modernism nor PM offer an adequate foundation for a Biblical understanding of God and His Word (e.g., I Cor 1, 2). Both are ultimately skeptical about our ability to know...modernism is skeptical about (a) the reliability of knowledge as an object (e.g., Godel) or (b) our ability to know as an epistemological matter (e.g., Hume, Kant). PM emphasizes the limitations of language as a channel by which knowledge is communicated and structured, and is therefore skeptical that anything objective can emerge from that channel. In the religious realm, it seems to me that both perspectives would likely move toward the same end (though for different reasons)...skepticism about our ability to know God's Word. This skepticism seems to initially move Christianity toward a focus on a common morality (e.g., as seen in a "social gospel"), then toward some sort of universalism (e.g., all roads lead to "god" (whatever it may be)).
• Although the author seems to distance himself from fideism, where he ends up seems to be largely consistent with it. This interpretation of faith is hostile to providing reasons to believe, even though this is a clear Biblical theme (e.g., assertions that miracles were performed "so that you may believe", "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" in the context of "obeying the gospel", etc). If you're interested in better understanding various ways in which belief has been defended (including fideism), "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Boa and Bowman is a nice overview and synthesis of them.
• Defending belief is sometimes confused with preaching the gospel. People are not converted to a belief system; they're converted to Christ when they "obey the gospel." However, that does not mean that providing "reasons to believe" is wrong...both have a proper place in the life of a Christian in all relationships (with the Triune God, with the body, and with the lost).

Finally, a few examples that illustrate some of the confusion I experienced in trying to grasp the the substance of Raschke's text (often there is often a contrast drawn between PM and modernism that, while valid, excludes a Biblical understanding that would draw on both perspectives).

• p. 71 - "Language from the Creator's vantage point is not propositional at all. It is intersubjective. It is relational!" - I guess I'd be tempted to add that it's also, and perhaps more fundamentally, creative (e.g., God spoke the world into existence). However, relationships often involve conflicts of understanding or will that involve different understandings of propositions expressible only in language. It's not either propositional or relational. The propositional aspect of language is part of (but not the whole) its relational function (which might be part of its creative function).
• p. 76 - "Evangelical thought of the Anglo-American variety has long been engaged in a dance with the devil, a perilous and tricky two-step that employs for its apologetics the very methodology that more elegant philosophy has successfully exploited to crush Christian belief." - While reason has a place in forming belief (whether Christian or other), it is not autonomous. If it's true that only God can truly create, and that all Satan (and we) can do is distort what He created, then it seems likely that reason is a good thing that can be distorted. Just because someone uses reason in a distorted fashion does not mean that it's inherently evil. Sex is not inherently evil just because it can be distorted.
• p. 81 - "The God the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational." - It's unclear why this is either-or. Much of the creative work done by humans over the past few hundred years is grounded in an understanding that God is not only logical, but that we (despite our fallen and finite ability to understand and act) can understand in part what He created. As Christians, we also understand (from the Bible and a maturing relationship with Him) that God is also loving, just, gracious, and holy.
• p. 127 - "While it would be both discourteous and impertinent to suggest that the doctrine of inerrancy is equivalent to a modern gnostic heresy, there are unsettling similarities between the two sensitivities." - If you presuppose a "modern" (i.e., infinite & inerrant) knower who is promoting inerrancy, then perhaps this begins makes sense. In light of our finite and fallen knowledge, a PM theology could actually be closer to the "secret" (albeit a-rational) knowledge promoted by gnosticism than mainline evangelical theology.
• p. 133 "Sola scriptura, therefore, emanates from the imperative of sola fida, not the other way around." - I've not taken this quote out of context...the point seems to be that the faith of the knower is the source of the meaning of scripture (which is clearly a PM view). The faith referenced is, in this section, discussed as being relational, but it still seems to me to be difficult to distinguish this relational faith from fideism.
• p. 209 - "Christian truth is not, never was, and never will be propositional truth. Propositional, or purely philosophical, truth is conditional truth, even if it claims to be about what is unconditional. It can never be made into the touchstone of Christian truth, which is always personal and relational." - This is the kind of statement that appears throughout the book. I don't know whether to view this as polemical hyperbole or to take it at its face value. At face value, the statement would make more sense if it was directed to the those promoting logical positivism. Its relevance to the traditional Christian understanding of truth is unclear at best. If Raschke is addressing some strand of modern ("liberal") Protestantism, then there might be some sense in which his statement makes sense, but I'm not sure any major group approaches the extreme view of truth that Raschke describes here. As discussed above, God's use of propositional truth in His Word to communicate meaning to us does not imply that all His truth is purely and only propositional & rational.

Bottom line: This book illuminates both how modernism has overstated our ability to know and how postmodernism is much more humble about this ability. If you have an interest in philosophy or theology, you may find it interesting. But, I can't escape the impression that Raschke's arguments are more reactionary than an exploration of the possibilities of a Christianity that is beyond modernism and postmodernism. Those searching for a well-rounded discussion of modernism's and postmodernism's alignment (and lack of alignment) with God's revelation (both general and special), our ability to know, and language's strengths and limits as a communication channel, will have to look elsewhere.

Biblical Authority - Control vs. Submission

This post may be a prime example of burying the lead, since the Biblical perspective on authority is very different from the Western perspective.

Bottom line up front: The Bible focuses on encouraging those under authority to submit, and is mostly (though not totally) silent on the exercise of legitimate authority.

We tend to think of authority as being synonymous with "the law" ... where the government defines in a legal code (a) what you can do, (b) what you can't do, (c) what rights you have, (d) what the penalties are for transgression of that code, and (e) the various enforcement processes and authorities.

This view of authority focuses on control, and is found also in non-governmental groups (non-profit and for-profit corporations, neighborhood organizations, PTA, etc.). It is often seen in churches and families, even those that identify themselves as being Biblically grounded.

One passage that captures the Biblical perspective well is Isaiah 61:11 ("For as the soil makes the sprout come up and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the Sovereign LORD will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations."). This verse completes a chapter that prophesies the coming of the Messiah (cf. Luke 4:18-19) and has the same kind of "slaves to righteousness, free from sin" theme seen in Romans 5-8. A naive reader of either passage would probably not even think about authority, but both are filled with the view that God focuses on calling people to repentance and providing them with the means to live righteously, not on control-centric interventions.

Although there are passages which direct those in authority to exercise it, they are relatively rare. This seems to reflect God's exercise of His authority...although judgment is certain and He will punish those who defy Him, until that time, He calls everyone to repentance and acceptance of the Son's perfect sacrifice, and encourages and cajoles them to live in humble obedience to God's authority (including those to whom authority has been delegated). The Son displays the same attitude in what He speaks through the Spirit (i.e., the entire NT (John 16:12-15)) and reveals to us in the Gospels, in Acts, in the various Letters, and in Revelation. This is especially clear in John's gospel.

In the same way when we exercise authority He has delegated to us, we should focus on speaking the truth in love, encouraging those who have stumbled to "go and sin no more" by living under grace (again, Romans 5-8), and never forgetting that we are acting as humble servants under God's authority to carry out His will. While there's a place for confronting those who clearly are rejecting God (there are numerous examples throughout the NT), the focus even there is on creation/restoration of a right relationship with God.

And, as we submit to those in authority, we do so as unto to God since all legitimate authority comes from Him.

I suspect our desire to be an autonomous god is one reason we focus on control; laziness is probably another...it's easier to say "do it! now!" than to help someone change their heart and head.

This is probably a bit too long, but I'm always surprised at folks who see God as an impersonal control freak who zaps people He doesn't like. This is completely contradicted by the entire Biblical record of God's statements, commands, and actions. Perhaps this misimpression is due to (a) a natural hostility toward God and His authority, or (b) past experiences with "religious" people who did not reflect God's attitude in the exercise of authority.

As Christians we must both exercise authority and submit to authority in accordance with our roles in the world, in the church, and in our families. Let's follow Christ's example both in how we submit and how we exercise.

God's Authority From a Biblical Perspective

The Bible reveals a God who is both amazingly holy and just, and amazingly personal and loving.

This is true from Genesis through Revelation, and provides the unchanging framework into which Christ steps. In Christ we see both God's justice (only the pure sacrifice of God in the flesh can satisfy God's wrath against us since we all rebel and serve other gods) and God's love (Christ's willingness to take a bodily form, live with us, and accept the penalty that God had levied against us).

In chronological order, several threads of authority emerge as God delegates (implicitly and explicitly) authority to various individuals and roles:

• First, all authority structures seem to have a strong relational aspect. This seems to reflect the fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are (a) of the same essence and are equal in value, (b) have a personal relationship among each other, (c) have a distinctive authority structure (see, for example, John's gospel), and (d) are unchanging (pure being; no becoming).
• The first human relation we see is the family. God creates Adam, gives him a purpose (stewardship & subduing of the Earth), provides him with a helper to carry out that purpose, and a means to carry out that purpose (reproduction, etc. that involves and requires both male and female). The Bible defines clear roles within the family, with some aspects universal and unchanging and some aspects cultural.
  
• The second human relation that seems to emerge is government. These range from informal arrangements (e.g., tribes related by blood) to formal arrangements (e.g., kingdoms with civil and military functions). The Bible has much to say about these structures in the OT (e.g., prophets condemn nations that at unjust), but very little to say in the NT.
  
• A special relation arises when God makes a covenant with Abram, which leads eventually to a nation being formed when Israel leaves Egypt. This nation was destroyed in AD 70, and has not been re-established since (at least in the Biblical sense as directed by God in Leviticus, etc.). God has a lot to say about this in the OT, but not much in the NT.
• Finally, a special relation arises when God makes a new covenant with those who follow Christ, and a new nation (spiritual, not physical) arises with a highly decentralized structure.
• There are many other social forms with authority structures (e.g., voluntary organizations, ancient slavery and its modern counterpart the corporation, etc.), but, with the exception of ancient slavery, there's not much said in the Bible about them.
  

Since humans are fallen, it seems that little about what authority is legitimate can be found in general revelation, beyond a basic understanding that authority should be just. Much of a Biblical worldview of authority will be derived from special revelation.

And, a short word on epistemology.

Some of what we know about relational structures seems to be in general revelation. This includes heterosexual marriage (in monogamous and polygynous forms; polyandry seems to be very rare) and government that ensures justice. Since all humans are fallen, abuse & transgression of these relational norms is pervasive.

The rest of what we know is from special revelation (the Bible). I'm not going to try to address why the canon in valid and reliable; that's a different topic and there's a lot of solid evidence that this view is far more reasonable that various alternatives that assert it's either invalid or unreliable. And, I'm not going to try to address (again) why we are all capable of understanding God's Word. I do feel an obligation to mention two items:

• Christ testifies that the OT is God's Word. If you accept Christ's authority, it seems clear you must accept the OT.
• Christ states plainly in John 16 that he has much more to say to his disciples, but that he will say it to them via the Holy Spirit after he's gone. So, it seems that every letter of the NT should be in red (if you're a red-letter kind of person). Attempts to ground parts of the NT in some authority other than Christ seem to assert that either (a) Jesus lied in John 16, or (b) John 16 is not trustworthy. Either approach would seem to remove all authority from the entire NT.
  

God's Authority

If "all heresies arise from bad theology" (Sproul), then a discussion of authority should probably start with God.

Our understanding of authority is ultimately grounded in an understanding of where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going. For Christians, the fact that God created humans in His image to bring glory to Him and to ultimately be in relationship with him provides the transcendent justification for His authority. However, His love for us, seen both in general revelation ("common grace") and in the special revelation of His Son's birth, sacrifice, and resurrection, provides the basis for our willing submission to that authority.

Other understandings of the metaphysical tend toward one of two extremes: a "god" that is almost totally transcendent or one that is almost totally immanent. Islam is an example of the former: no immanent Son, no indwelling Spirit, and a revelation that is the literal words of Allah (meaning that we must learn Arabic to truly grasp its meaning). Not surprisingly, authority structures in the family and society are equally rigid. And, I suppose that secular/humanist frameworks tend to the same extreme (i.e., a totally transcendent god is the same as no god at all); the 20th century would seem to provide strong evidence of this tendency.

At the other end of the spectrum, are most non-Western religions and Western religions prior to the time of Christ (except, of course, Judaism; and excluding much of Buddhism which tends, at least in theory, toward atheism). The metaphysical (e.g., a pantheon of gods and/or spirits) seems to be largely anthropocentric. I'm not sure there's much that can be said generally about authority structures across these cultures....though I do wonder whether these belief systems can, over the next century or so, resist the corrosive effects of a pragmatic modernism/postmodernism.

Regardless, our theology (understanding of who God is) will provide much of the foundation upon which we build our understanding of authority, its purpose, and its legitimacy.