To Know We’re Not Alone. New post at ms.us.

I can’t remember what y’all were talking about, but here’s my problem with “Christian themed fiction” or “Christian themed music” or whatever. What makes a book “Christian” seems to be a moral story. Someone commits adultery then they get caught, repent, and restored, or get caught, and pay the price for their sin. Somehow that’s supposed to teach us “don’t commit adultery.” And somehow people think that’s the “Christian message.”

Bullsh**

That’s not Christianity, that’s legalism, works based religion, and impossible to maintain. The parables aren’t about how you need to keep oil in your lamp (virgins), how you shouldn’t go a carousin’ round the world (prodigal), how you need to forsake everything to buy the kingdom (treasure in field), how you need to sell everything to buy the kingdom (pearl of great price). The parables are about the work JESUS did. HE keeps oil in the lamp. HE is the fatted calf slaughtered on your behalf. HE sold everything and forsook everything to purchase us.

A truly Christian themed story would paint the main character as a scumbag, who even though he is a scumbag is still loved, accepted, and kept by his Beloved. Whether he becomes less of a scumbag or not is irrelevant, and if the whole story is about how he cleans up his life, it misses the Christian message by a million miles. Moralizing isn’t Christianity. Christianity is for the broken, downtrodden, sick creeps who can’t get it right no matter how many times we try. “Christian fiction” tends to be more fiction than Christian, speaking of someone who fails 3 times then tries one more time and succeeds. That’s a total crock of baloney. Maybe it’s simply named appropriately.

This message brought to you by a BNAT influenced nutjob.

Michael: Wish I could take credit. It’s really funny, tho. I read it a few months ago…

Scott: Whoo hoo! Hilarious and awesomely creative. Free beer for a month!

PWinn: Among the problems I am having here…..Just AMONG (I love that word….”among…among…..among…)

1) I’ll start with some agreement. Yeah, Calvinists tend to turn Biblical theology into a philosophical system. I agree and it is not a good thing. But I don’t think that is part and parcel of Calvinism any more than any other flavor of Christianity. There are books by every variety of Christian that start from a philosophical base. I agree that isn’t where scripture starts, but I simply cannot agree that any conception of Christianity that begins with a philosophical consideration of God is wrong because it is leaving out the incarnation. Incomplete? Doomed to hit the wall without Christ and revelation? Absolutely. No problem agreeing there. But I believe there is a philosophical case for God, but a purely philosophical quest will never get us to the Gospel.

2) Piper’s theology starts with the Trinitarian God. He begins with the Father’s eternal delight in Himself via the Son. Uh….where did he learn that? I’m not quite sure that a secular philosopher would feel that Piper deserted the incarnation to get to that point.

3) My biggest problem is that the statement seems to lean toward one of two things: either a bald-faced denial of the place of general revelation, which I can’t buy because scripture tells me that all persons can know considerable truth about God through general revelation (but not the Gospel,) or a kind of sophism where, eventually, we just say that all knowledge is eventually understood as a manfestation of the second person of the Trinity revealing God (which I agree with totally.) If that’s the case, what is the disagreement? It’s a word game.

4) I agree that all other ways of knowing God will fall short of revealing God in the Gospel. I’m not sure I can agree that all other ways of knowing God leave us with a wrathful God. Buddhism? Pantheism? I don’t see it. Philosophies can end up with a God who is distorted in dozens of different ways.

5) When I read the statement, I think of Paul’s Mars Hill sermon. The God they worshipped in ignorance….he proclaimed in the Gospel. That is really where I think all this goes. But how is Piper on the wrong road? He starts with the Trinitarian God we know through Jesus, not the God of philosophical God of speculation.

Sometimes I feel like Lutheran epistemology is this: We sit in a church pew, listening to the Gospel in Word and Sacrament, and THAT’S what we can know.

One last thing: On that same comment thread, Danny asks for the source of the stated axiom, and someone popped up to give a not-answer. Specifically, the response was:

John 1:18
“No one has ever seen God…”

John 14:9
“Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father?”

To which I must say, “Whaaa?” Or more seriously, “Logically speaking, the second reference does not describe totality, simply unity. What I mean is that anyone who has seen Christ has seen the Father, but it does not necessarily hold that nobody can see the Father without seeing Christ. In at least one sense, that is true, but it may not be correctly inferred from the quoted text alone.

The first reference would, it seems, apply equally well to Christ, would it not? If Christ is God, then nobody has seen Him, either—or else maybe that statement doesn’t quite mean what it seems to. After all, Moses saw God, as did Adam and Eve.”

Okay, I dug deeper, reading the comment thread on that piratey blog. From the same comment, I read this, first: Apart from Christ, the only God we can “know” is hidden, wrathful God who drives men to despair.

Wow, that’s amazing. Here I read the O.T. and see a God who is merciful and faithful to His promise from Genesis 12 on, even as His people turn their back on Him over and over again. I see a God who lays down a promise in Genesis 12 (knowing how it will be fulfilled in Christ, though that knowledge isn’t necessary to see the pattern about which I’m talking), and continually arranges things (even things that seem disastrous at first) so that the promise is always kept in from of His chosen people, and that they are reminded of it. I see a God who abstains from judgment even as His entire chosen people turns away from Him. He withholds His wrath! I see a God that responds to His people whenever they call on Him. I think I’ve said before that Judges is a fascinating picture of a recurring pattern in which God’s people turn away from Him, and yet He is always there to deliver them in His mercy whenever they finally call out to Him. I see that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

But apparently I’m seeing what isn’t there, because it turns out that all I should be able to see is a hidden, wrathful God who drives men to despair.

So if we’re saying that all we know about God from the O.T. foreshadows Christ, then I’m down with that. Post-Incarnation, we should clearly see things Christologically. But if we’re saying that God was different before the Incarnation, or that God’s mercy could not be seen before the Incarnation, then somebody needs to re-read the O.T., methinks.

QotD: I shot off a quick answer in the comments, but after driving to work, I’ll say this: When talking about the Father and the Son, it is easy to arrange words to mean anything one wants them to mean. I could say that “anything about the universe that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known,” and it could easily become clear that anybody who disagrees with me simply doesn’t love God as much as I do. Or, leaving aside trite sayings, I could acknowledge that Christ didn’t come so that we might have knowledge, but so that we might have life, and that as a result, he didn’t spell out Everything I Need To Know About Quantum Physics while He was at it. Unless you believe that there is nothing I need to know about quantum Physics, in which case I guess He actually did.

More »« Less

Josh says: Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.


Amen. Although he and I probably would disagree substantially on what exactly can be “known in Christ” and how we know it, the Word Incarnate is God’s ultimate communication to us.


In the comments, Bruce wrote: I have been coming to the realization of late that God is unknowable. But Jesus (the Christ) is not.

And I agree that God is ultimately beyond our knowledge in and of ourselves. But on the other hand, Christ is God’s “perfect” self-revelation, and I worry about lurking polytheistic and gnostic tendencies if I draw a line around Christ and say, “we can’t know God, but we can know Christ.” Accepting for a moment the (I believe) incorrect distinction between Christ and God, I would submit that we can know neither God nor Christ except that God acts to reveal Himself to us, but I also believe that God ultimately can and will reveal Himself fully to those He calls his people.

Sorry for weird formatting. I’m trying out a new client.

It’s Chick Tract time…like you’ve never seen them before! What if Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffed on one? Try this on for size...

Thanks for When I am weak, Michael. I sent it to a friend of mine who’s struggling with various things at the moment, and it was a great encouragement to him.

Did Moses know God? Did David know God? Did Daniel know God? There’s your answer.

Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.

I want to say false because Josh is a Lutheran but he’s probably right which means he’s probably parroting some other theologian I agree with. For now, until I have a brew, I’ll agree.

I like technology in the church but it must serve a purpose outside of entertainment and aesthetics. “Does it convey the Word?” That’s my question. If the answer is no it can burn. Probably will too.

I don’t have issues with technology in church…..but I do have some reservations.

I do believe that evangelicals are quick to use technology and very, very dumb about its overall effects. They tend to believe that anything that “works” is only good. That’s idiotic.
I do believe that technology always causes change that must be accounted for, and not all that change is good.
I do believe that technology can create situations that are outside of the New Testament model of the church as a gathered community. I especially have issues with its potential effects on preaching, worship and leadership.
I do believe there were good reasons Jesus did not come during a technologically sophisticated era.

For instance, I think we are going to see “denominations,” made possible by churches networking the preaching of a single preacher to multiple churches. While there are certainly situations where there is nothing wrong with such an arrangement, I do believe it is, in general, a very, very bad development in New Testament pastoral ministry.

I think we will see larger and larger churches possible because of technology, and I don’t think that is a good trend.

I think technology will become more of a factor in why people attend a church, and again, there are positive and negative aspects of that phenomenon.

I want to be clear that there are, and always have been, good and helpful aspects of technology. I believe the internet is an example. But just as much as it can help the church and the individual Christian, there are bad uses, unhelpful uses and clearly distorted uses. I am just in favor of accounting for them all.

Now….It’s the Lutheran Statement of the Day, or the cleverly disguised Question of the Day:

Josh says: Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.

What do you think?

Well, I’ve heard that John Piper eats the babies of Pentecostals. It’s true!

And he’s a Baptist, and we all know that there’s no such thing as a good Baptist.

Plus, he takes this whole Christianity thing a little too seriously—except when he’s not taking it seriously enough.

And on a more serious note, it is sad that the people to embrace the power of the internet the most happen to be those people without the self-restraint to realize that they should type every darn thing that enters their brain, ‘cause this ain’t their normal circle of friends that idolizes every stupid thing they say.

And hey, Michael, you know that I happen to disagree with you on the use of technology in church, but I am simply too familiar with the emails and comments from people who are convinced they know you after reading a day’s post. Buddy, you don’t know me after reading a month or a year’s post. Sit down have a beer with me, and you’ll get a hint. Stick around for a year, and then—and only then—will anything I say start to make sense.

How much good have I said and done in the name of John Piper? How much have I behaved like a lovesick fan? Well, apparently not enough. Here’s what awaited me in the IM mailbag:

Greetings. Today I got my first intro to the Internet Monk. My question, Michael, is why do you rip Piper for the multi-site church?

This well known Piper-ripper is too sleepy to care. But it’s sad that you can’t even say you mildly disagree with someone without getting a shoe stuck down your throat.

This is because in an essay of unabashed fandom and admiration, I had a paragraph where I mentioned 6 areas where I disagree with Dr. Piper.

I disagree with his decision to split Bethlehem into two campuses, but use video technology to continue having one worship service.

Let me just go ahead and say it bothers me that he’s really skinny, too. This, btw, is about the 3rd letter I have received dogging that Piper essay because I stated disagreements with Piper.

Good freakin’ grief. People- Grow up. This is kindof mental.

Proof that I need to read more than John Piper books.

It is not my duty to vote but my delight.

It should go without saying that there is a world of difference between “the duties of a Christian” and “my duties as a Christian, aka ‘Christian duties’” I have many, many, many duties in this life which are semi-tangential to my relationship with God.

This is cool but kinda sad. I like O’Brien’s humor a bit more yet for some reason I just don’t DVR it :-/

The sentence is incomplete. The usual meaning behind that sentence is:

It is your Christian duty to vote… Republican

The duties of a Christian are to love God (whatever that means) and to love people. That should be obvious. If you vote for the love of God or the love of people, then yes, you are performing Christian duty. Of course it probably matters more to the homeless person that you offer him your extra room or couch than voting for a politician who promises to start a program to steal money from one group to built a free house for him.

Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?

No. That’s just silly.

Your duty (haha, I said duty) is to the CHURCH. Our allegiance is to Jesus, God, and the Church. We, believers, are actually apart of a Monarchy and we have a King who rules over Kim Jong-il and President Bush.

Can we agree with Jesus and say “My kingdom is not of this world”? We happen to be passing through and we have the opportunity to vote to create a more peaceful world both locally and abroad.

Ken: Interesting question. The rationale behind “it is your Christian duty to vote,” as I have always heard it, is more or less this:

1. It is our duty to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us.
2. God has entrusted to us this society which depends on our vote.
3. Therefore, it is our duty to do what we can to ensure that this society continues in a way that allows us to live quiet and peaceable lives, as long as it is within our ability to do so.

To a certain point, that makes sense. Clearly we must be good stewards—though I think case could be made for those stewardship parables and teachings applying more directly to the deposit of faith and the hope that lies within us—and the syllogism is clumsy, but not completely screwy. OTOH, the idea that anyone can read the N.T. and come away thinking that we have no duties as Christians makes my kidneys hurt so bad I think that they’ve exploded.

I’d more impressed with a statement that said “It is your duty as an American to vote,” frankly.

I would suggest that any time the Founder of the Christian religion (or one of His chosen representatives) tells His followers to do something, and that something is distinctly tied to being a follower of the aforementioned Founder, then the answer is Yes, there are Christian duties.

In light of the graceology of BNAT, I would ask if there are any “Christian duties”?

Politics is finally served by the right demographic.

This statement in our church bulletin [It’s your Christian duty to vote], prompts this question.

Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?

An interesting…ha…op-ed peice.

Eric: Definitely praying for you and your step-bro-in-law.

Interesting: The Houston Chronicle reviews a book by a guy who infiltrated a fundamentalist Baptist church for three years to produce a documentary about those nasty right-wingers.

And then, moved by the care and concern of the people within that church, converted himself.

My step-brother-in-law is on his death bed. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the middle of summer, but we all expected him to make it longer than this.
He is a pediatrician in his early 40s, he has two middle-school-aged sons and a wife prone to severe clinical depression. This is and is going to be so hard on all of them and the rest of us.

Please pray for Tom and family.

Also, but less of a priority, please pray for me. This is one of those times that tests a person’s belief that God is in control of everything and that He has a reason for everything. I believe both of those truths, but I have had some very candid prayers lately. When I think of what those boys have already been through in their young lives and what they are going through and what they are about to go through…

Please pray that my faith will be strengthened.

Kent: Are you sure your trefoil picture isn’t trillium? Also, you seem to like photographing mushrooms. Do you ever eat the wild varieties? Did you ever find jewelweed?

Anybody who hasn’t seen all 100 of Kent’s photos, please do yourself a favor and check them out. They are simply breathtakingly beautiful. Out of the 100 pics he has on flickr, at least 99 of them are perfect, maybe more. :-)

This is God’s nature at its finest.

Michael: Your latest piece is simply fantastic. Thanks for writing it, Sheriff!

Best yet, Michael.

This is the real heart of the mystery, lived out. Jesus being resurrected, I can grasp. Water into wine, I can swallow.

But this almost schizoid existence, I cannot grasp. The here and now; the war that you sign up for by believing the gospel. This present life is the real mystery that we stumble on as a church.

I have probably wasted 99% of my “religious life” worrying about these &$^#ned things rather than trusting in the God who prefers the company of sinners.

two random things from the bible which blow my mind.

Remember when Jesus was preaching to the common folk and putting down the synagogue leaders? He said “do what they say, but not what they do.”

Did you catch that? Most people don’t because they focus on the 2nd part of what Jesus said. The first part was do what they say.

Another.

At some point, I may actually hear “well done, my good and faithful servant” from my master. That blows my mind.

I don’t remember whether I’ve ever plugged the [Acton Institute] on BHT ever or not, but I should have. Here’s [an article on how faith-based organizations should govern themselves] that some of you might find interesting.

Prayer: I continue to pray for Noel’s church family. I lost my father to suicide nearly thirty years ago, there is a way that it injures the loved ones left behind that is fathomless.