More Machen

The church today is facing something similar to what Machen faced less than 100 years ago: Jesus divorced from Scripture, history, and the church.  We saw it a few days back in Deepak Chopra’s “third Jesus.”  Deepak’s jesus used scented lotions and came so we could realize our inner potential, so we might find self-actualization and inner tranquility.  The Christ of Scripture, history, and the church is God in the flesh who came to save people from sinful self-actualization by becoming a bloody curse on the cross, by destroying death in his resurrection, and by ascending into glory where he now lives to protect his church.  This is the gospel truth that Machen so ably defended.

“I do not think that what the New Testament says about the cross of Christ is particularly intricate.  It is, indeed, profound, but it can be put in simple language.  We deserved eternal death; the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died in our stead upon the cross.  It is a mystery, but it is not intricate.  What is really intricate and subtle is the manifold modern attempt to get rid of the simple doctrine of the cross of Christ in the interests of human pride.  Of course there are objections to the cross of Christ, and men in the pulpits of the present day pour out upon that blessed doctrine the vials of their scorn; but when a man has come under the consciousness of sin, then as he comes into the presence of the cross, he says with tears of gratitude and joy, ‘He loved me and gave himself for me.”

From “What the Bible Teaches ABout Jesus” in J. Gresham Machen, Selected Shorter Writings, edited by D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 30.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Privatization of Faith

Here in the U.S., we live in a culture (or cultures) where a person’s faith is OK as long as she keeps it private and is tolerant of other faiths.  Objective knowledge is public and for the textbook (i.e. the moon is around 384,000 km from the earth), while subjective values and beliefs are personal and private (i.e. Jesus is Lord).

Of course this type of reasoning – upon which much of the US’s political, cultural, moral, and economical structures are built – can be torn apart; the poor logic isn’t too hard to spot.  More on that at a later time (FYI: Newbigin is great when it comes to  “public” vs  “private” beliefs).  For now, I want to use one of Bavinck’s quotes to deal with this private v public when it comes to the church in the world.

“The more the Christian faith [or the church - spl] retreats from dealing with every possible question, restricting its content, and the more it applies itself to building a rigorous foundation, deducing all else logically from these fundamental principles, the more it will become inwardly weak and divided.” Herman Bavinck, Certainty of Faith (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1980), 9.

I love this quote, and it it indicts me.  History has proved Bavinck’s 100 year old words true.  The tough questions liberals and/or unbelievers have thrown at the church have often been answered poorly or simply avoided.  Instead of grappling with these questions publicly, the church has built trenches and walls around the fundamentals.  In Bavinck’s terms, she has buried her head in the sand (Ibid.).  She has focused her gaze within the trenches (privacy!), and “friendly” fire has resulted in a weak and divided church that can only give a blank stare to the world when it asks us tough questions.

In Newbigin’s terms, the gospel is public truth, not a belief we tuck away in our closets!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Newbigin Summer

Around six months ago, I read my first dose of Lesslie Newbigin simply because I heard him quoted from time to time.  I read him because I like to get to know important church figures and their thought (at least to some extent).  The Gospel in a Pluralist Society was the first book by Newbigin I dug into, and I’ve been “hooked” ever since.  If you want to read some of Newbigin but don’t know where to start, you may want to check out Lesslie Newbigin Missionary Theologian: A Reader edited by Paul Weston (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).  In this book, Weston basically took all the writings of Newbigin and put them in a historical and topical order, giving the reader a great summary of Newbigin’s thought.

The book has two basic sections: 1) The Theological Foundations For Missions and 2) Missionary Theology in Practice.  Here’s a chunk of the opening chapter (following a short biography of Newbigin) on The Knowledge of God.

“It is the mark of religion, among the activities of the human spirit, to claim to be the bearer of revelation; to claim, that is to say, that the message which it delivers and the facts with which it deals are not the fruit of unaided human processes of observation and inference, but have their root in transactions in which man plays the part of the recipient and not of originator.  In Christianity this is central.”

“There have been divergences, sometimes wide, but the main current of Christian thought has echoed the words of Christ: ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them unto babes.’  It has been the glory of Christianity to find its saints among those whom the world counts babes, and to exclude from the sphere where it is most intolerable the snobbery which makes blessedness dependent upon abilities which must always be the possession of a few” (p. 18).

In other words, Christianity is not a mathematical endeavor in which the “knowledgeable” have some sort of superiority (like science).  Christianity is receiving something from Someone else and personally trusting that testimony which He has chosen to reveal to us.

It is a Newbigin summer over here in South Central Washington State.  I’m going to read Foolishness to the Greeks next.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Faith, Doubt, & Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Newbigin)

This is an amazing and truly outstanding book.  Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) is honestly one of the best brief and to the point books I’ve read on Christian epistemology (i.e. knowing things – specifically how faith and knowledge relate).  I would love to do a series of blog posts on this book, but I don’t have the time right now.  Instead, I’ll blurb a bit now, and come back to it later.

In this book, Newbigin talks about modernism & fundamentalism along with postmodernism & liberalism.  He wonderfully describes them, critiques them, points out the strengths of each, but then says neither will ultimately do for a Christian pilgrim “on the way.”  In fact, says Newbigin, our knowledge is “partial here in via, but promised in its fullness at the end” (p. 7).  We cannot assume a sort of enlightenment or even fundamentalistic view of knowledge, that we know so much based on scientific, reasonable propositions.  Nor can we assume a sort of liberal or postmodern view that nothing can be known with any certainty.  Instead,

“If the place where we look for ultimate truth is in a story and if (as is the case) we are still in the middle of the story, then it follows that we walk by faith and not by sight.  If ultimate truth is sought in an idea, a formula, or a set of timeless laws or principles, then we do not have to recognize the possibility that something totally unexpected may happen.  Insofar as our knowledge is accurate, we shall be able to predict the future.  Future and past events are governed by the same laws, the same principles, and the same realities.  But if we find ultimate truth in a story that has not yet been finished, we do not have that kind of certainty.  The certainty we have rests on the faithfulness of the one whose story it is.  We walk by faith” (p. 14)

Again, I’ll come back to this book some other time.  If you want a lesson in epistemology, especially how to think and act when it comes to liberalism and fundamentalism or postmodernism and modernism, reason and faith, and so forth, you really have to get this book.

A few more reading tips: First, Newbigin appropriates Polayni well in this book.  Second, this adds a new “robustness” to Van Til’s presuppositional arguments.  Finally, I assure you that if you read this book of Newbigin along with Herman Bavinck’s Certainty of Faith, you will not only be edified, your faith will also be strengthened, and you’ll have a great set of lenses with which to read and view the Christian faith in light of science, doubt, and skepticism.   Both books are around 100 pages and probably easy enough for anyone who knows the basic outlines of the history of philosophy.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christianity: So Bloody Arrogant(?)!

We’ve all heard or read things like this: “To say that Jesus is the only way to peace with God is arrogant and intolerant.  To say that the truths of Christianity are the ‘True Truths’ is snobbish and condescending.”  I’m sure you can add a few more.

These may at times seem to contain a little truth.  In fact, statements like these from agnostics or atheists can shake Christians up: “Good point; what makes me right and others wrong?”  The (post)modern tidal wave of tolerance can almost sweep Christians off their feet.   So what do we do with such claims of arrogance and snobbery?

First, we have to understand that there is “no neutral judgment seat” from which the opening questions can be asked.  There is no objective judgment seat that is “over” and “above” cultures, traditions, and belief systems.   As I quoted from Newbigin before, “There are no canons of reason which are not part of a socially embodied tradition of rational debate” (p. 64).  In fact, to suggest that Christianity is intolerant is an arrogant suggestion.  The person saying as much is arrogantly sitting on a universal throne of judgment which no person has the right to sit upon.  Besides, her remark is totally full of her own cultural baggage: she has particular presuppositions and “dogmas” by which she judges all things.  Furthermore, she has not searched out every corner of every religion that ever existed which would give her some authority in making such a claim.

Keller is helpful here too, secondly.  He says that such statements are belief statements, “unprovable faith assumptions.”  The person who says Christianity is intolerant is making a religious statement with his own doctrinal beliefs.  Keller: “It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right.  We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways” (p. 12-13).

Here is a section of Newbigin that also helps answer the opening questions.

“When we point to Jesus, and to the story which has its center in the cross, we are invoking a criterion by which all our claims to justice are humbled and relativized.  To affirm the unique decisiveness of God’s action in Jesus Christ is not arrogance; it is the enduring bulwark against the arrogance of every culture to be itself the criterion by which others are judged” (p. 166).

Newbigin also says that there are two ways to use reason when discussing the above questions: it may serve autonomy and act as ultimate judge (which no human has the right to do), or it may be open, ready to be challenged and questioned and changed.  Christianity is the latter – we abandon the sovereign claims of autonomous reason and are judged by someone, something else.  In positive terms, this is the gospel killing us and making us alive.  It takes us off the throne and teaches us the “logic of election:” I did not choose to be a Christian, Jesus chose me to be part of this story.  He sits on the throne, not me.  We don’t make truth claims, Jesus does, and his truth claims challenged, called, and changed us.  The atheist/agnostic has a problem with Jesus, ultimately.   Of course we know that if one has a problem with Christ, he has a problem with Christianity.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Newbigin: Facts, Beliefs, and Reason

I’ve been, as I hinted at earlier, very appreciative of this older but influential work by L. Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.  Another thing that I thought was helpful was Newbigin’s  discussion of reason and what it has to do with facts and our beliefs.  Here’s a bit.

“For a person who dwells in the contemporary cosmopolitan culture, shaped by the reigning dichotomy between ‘facts’ and ‘beliefs,’ it will be natural to relativize all the differing belief systems.  And when in this culture, ‘reason’ is set against the specific, historically shaped tradition of Christian belief, it is obvious that what is happening is that the ‘plausibility structure’ is performing its normal function” (p. 57).

In other words, a person living in her culture with her own set of culturally shaped beliefs and “plausibility structures” will make judgments on other plausibility structures and beliefs from her point of view.  It is normal (albeit a suppression of truth in unrighteousness) for someone outside the Christian faith to relativize Christianity.  Tim Keller and others have made similar comments.

Christians have a different response.  “The Christian on the other hand, will relativize the reigning plausibility structure in the light of the gospel” (ibid.). This is huge: the Christian does not (should not!) retreat into a ghetto where there are no competing belief systems.  Instead, the Christian will let the Scriptures tweak, smash, reshape, or destroy even her own plausibility structure and give her a new way to look at all cultures, beliefs, and plausibility structures.

One more thing that Newbigin says is helpful:

“There is no disembodied ‘reason’ which can act as impartial umpire between the rival claims” (ibid.).  Or, as he puts it elsewhere, “There is no neutral judgment seat from which these rival claims can be adjusted. …There is no form of rationality which is independent of all socially embodied traditions of rationality and which can therefore judge them all” (p. 64).  Right;  atheists and agnostics assume that there is “reason” above all beliefs, cultures, and traditions – but they forget that the reason they exercise functions within (not above!) their own beliefs, culture, and tradition.

I’ll close with Newbigin’s restatement of the above.  “There are no canons of reason which are not part of a socially embodied tradition of rational debate” (p. 64).

More on this later – of course there is more to it.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Keller on Intolerant Communities

Here’s another great point to ponder from Keller.  He’s answering objections that Christianity is intolerant and exclusive.  Critics say “human communities should instead be completely inclusive, open to all on the basis of our common humanity.”

However, argues Keller, “the idea of a totally inclusive community…is an illusion.”  “Every account of justice and reason is embedded in a set of some particular beliefs about the meaning of human life that is not shared with everyone.  …Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle.”

Keller then gives an illustration of a board member of a local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center becoming a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin.  Another illustration: a board member of the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage becomes convicted that same-sex marriage is OK.  “No  matter how personally gracious and flexible the members of each group are,” a day will come when they can no longer serve in their positions because of their beliefs.  “Neither community is being ‘narrow’ – they are just  being communities.”

“A community that did not hold its members accountable for specific beliefs and practices would have no corporate identity and would not really be a community at all.”  How can we judge then if a community is narrow minded or open and caring?  By several things: 1) which community has beliefs that lead its members to love, respect, and serve peoples of other communities instead of hatred and violence?  2) Which community treats others with kindness and humility rather than demonizing attacks?

“We should criticize Christians when they are condemning and ungracious to unbelievers.  But we should not criticize churches when they maintain standards for membership in accord with their beliefs.  Every community must do the same.”

(Timothy Keller, The Reason for God [New York: Dutton, 2008]), 39-40.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Keller: The Reason for God (Part I)

So far, the reviews have been dead on: this book is remarkable (Timothy Keller, The Reason for God [New York: Dutton, 2008]).  I’ll say more on it later.  For now, enjoy this blurb from pages 23-27.

Keller responds to the ubiquitous atheist chorus: “If a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil, but because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist.”

Keller: “This reasoning is, of course, fallacious.  Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one.  Again we see lurking within supposedly hard-nosed skepticism an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive faculties.  If our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well, then, there can’t be any!  This is blind faith of a high order.”  “Many assume that if there were good reasons for the existence of evil, they would be accessible to our minds…but why should that be the case?”  Keller says, essentially, just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it is not there!

Keller follows C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga and turns this atheistic chorus on its head.  The problem of evil “is perhaps an even greater problem for nonbelievers” than it is for believers.  “If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.”

Stay tuned for more…in the mean time, get the book yourself if you haven’t already!

shane lems

sunnyside wa