Apologetics – Page 98

Machen Thumps For Christian Schools — Contra R2K

“A monopolistic system of education controlled by the State is far more efficient in crushing our liberty than the cruder weapons of fire and sword. Against this monopoly of education by the State the Christian school brings a salutary protest; it contends for the right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with the dictates of their consciences and not in the manner prescribed by the State.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pg. 68
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

The Magical Mystery Listening Tour — Part I

“Heavenly Shades of night are falling
It’s Twilight time”

Platters

Calvin was a low intensity drug user until the day he mixed some bad “Boomers” with some good Quaaludes. After what he saw on that binge he had a “come to Jesus” meeting and swore off drugs forever.

He sunk into the couch the same way he sunk into his hallucination. Slowly, conforming to both the cushions and the alternate reality, Calvin was one with both sofa and the wormhole. As the mist descended Calvin found himself driving into a Church that had two signs. One, a 1950’s version, was hidden behind the church as if it had been shamed for its overuse while the other was a top of the line Electronic gizmo. The signs were in a tug of war and a company of Wesen and long dead former church members cheered in opposing bleachers, each for their respective signs. If the old sign won it meant irrelevance forever for the Church. If the new sign won it meant Church growth and lots of conversions to Jesus.

Calvin wandered into the Sanctuary, where he heard strains of a “Boogie Woogie” Gospel as performed by a Lounge Lizard nightclub act. Veal and shuffleboard were being sold along with Jesus. It was hard to tell which or who was more popular. The patrons seemed to be enjoying themselves as they raised their hands and cried out “Bingo,” every time Andy Williams belted out, “Because He Lives.”

A few people milled in the Narthex while Tony Orlando and Dawn sang a medley of “Knock Three Times” and “Rock of Ages.” The people in the Narthex were the unhappy ones. Maybe they had also consumed the same toxic combination of Boomers and Quaaludes? An octogenarian grabbed Calvin’s hand and vigorously shook it while asking at the same time, “What the Hell is this?” Calvin didn’t know if the Octogenarian was referring to the shared hallucination or to the Lounge Lizard act. Either way, Calvin didn’t know the answer. Before leaving, the Old Saint added, with a sweep of his hand and in disgust, “JEEEE-SUS!”

Calvin, was suddenly in the sanctuary again where Dean Martin, martini and cigarette in hand, was speaking up the glories of “Joel Osteen.” Calvin was wondering how it was that Dean Martin listened to Joel Osteen. Calvin was more of a Herman Rodeheaver fan himself.

“Right before your eyes we pull laughter from the skies
And he laughs until he cries then he dies then he dies
Come inside the shows about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart.”

Emerson, Lake & Palmer

At this point the meeting started. The assembled crowd was appareled in everything from Tuxedos to beach shorts. Calvin briefly wondered if this was a scene from the last judgment. Where was the Great White Throne? A man in a bikini was holding hands with sewer worker from the Bronx. A Rastafarian from Cleveland was batting her eyes at a female Punk Rocker from Detroit. Calvin recognized Kathryn Kuhlman sitting next to Elizabeth D. Wright and Abraham Kuyper and Malcolm X sitting next to each other. For some reason Calvin wondered what offspring of such couples would be like, then he remembered that two people of the same gender can’t have children. But … maybe they could in this wormhole hallucination reality?

Roll call was made while in the background “When the Roll is called up Yonder I’ll be there” was serving as elevator music. Everyone was present unless they were gone and the Presbytery was declared officially constituted.

Someone from the balcony shouted … “A Song, A Song,” and the next thing Calvin knew he was singing,

Let their be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

He didn’t want the words to come out of his mouth. Calvin wasn’t even sure it was a real song. He was pretty sure it wasn’t real theology. But like the hallucination itself, Calvin had no control over what was happening. He was more spectator than participant.

The assembled, Elders, Elderettes, Deacons, Deaconesses, Ministers, and Ministerettes were now suddenly all wearing dresses. For some reason it struck him as the most sane part of the hallucination.

Reports were read while nobody paid any attention. Votes were held while the gathered ministerial potpourri and paparazzis grunted out various “yays” and “nays.” The Clerk and the Moderator, dressed as the Mad Hatter and Mad Max respectfully had the meeting well in hand.

“The magical mystery listening tour
Is waiting to take you away
Waiting to take you away.”

John, Paul, George, & Ringo

The Trip suddenly changed gears and Calvin found himself in a gymnasium. Or was it a fellowship hall? Or was it the place where Firing Squads plied their trade? He couldn’t tell. It looked like all those venues at the same time. People pressed the flesh and somebody official arose and said …“Let us have a listening tour. Let us listen.”

Everything went quite. It was silent. There they sat in silence for what seemed like days. Somebody finally screwed up the courage to offer that it wasn’t possible to listen unless somebody talked. Everyone agreed that this was a stroke of brilliance and as one the assembled magpie Elders, Elderettes, Deacons, Deaconesses, Ministers, and Ministerettes began to talk.

The official rose again and said, “Let us talk and listen about something official?” The assembled Elders, Elderettes, Deacons, Deaconesses, Ministers, and Ministerettes marveled at such a profound declaration. Instantly before Calvin there was a sheet of questions to spur official conversation.

The hallucination intensified as Calvin looked at the sheet and read the questions.

1. What are the pastoral priorities should a same-sex couple begin attending your church?

2. Why do they use Monkees to test for both HIV and cosmetics?

3. What do you need most from the CRC to help you navigate questions that arise in response to same-sex marriage?

4. Why would anyone put Mercury in a Vaccine and why would anyone take such a vaccine?

5. The survey the committee sent out is revealing very diverse perspectives within the denomination. What would you see as implications arising from this reality.

Calvin saw that he had been seated at a table of 8. Indeed, the room had been filled with tables of 8 as far as the eyes could see. It looked like tables of 8 going on for infinity. At Calvin’s table of 8 was the Octogenarian who had vigorously shook his hand earlier.

The Octogenarian leaned over and whispered in his ear, in between tongue thrusts, I’m a Universalist.”

Calvin responded, while dabbing at his saliva filled ear with a table napkin, “We are all Universalists now.”

The other 6 at Calvin’s table were Twiggy, and Calvin’s sodomite Uncle Lester “the Molester,” who had done prison time for fondling boys in the family. Also seated there was Bruce, one of Calvin’s sodomite college friends that he used to visit “gay” bars with, Smokey Bear sat catty-corner in one direction from him while kitty-corner in the other direction sat Marilyn Monroe. Next to her sat Zoe Saldana. Calvin regretted that his Boomers didn’t include Marilyn’s and Zoe’s ordination.

Up front were the two officials who were conducting and facilitating the meeting. Why Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers would be interested in leading a Church meeting only the Quaaludes knew. As the listening conversation rolled the officials paced about to observe.

One of the officials interrupted,

“A new Commandment I have for you, Thou shalt not reference your theology when discussing these questions. Theology is verboten in this magical mystery listening tour.”

All the participants immediately raised their hands to ask, Can you tell us what Theology is so that we make sure to avoid it.”

The discussions continued. The Octogenarian and Calvin were thumb wrestling while they each contended for their points.

With a thumb thrust to the left Calvin offered, “But what of Romans 1, I Corinthians 9, I Timothy 1, and Galatians 5? How can we support sodomy in any way given those passages?”

The Octogenarian countered Calvin’s left thrust thumb move with a up and under curl thumb riposte, “I knew a gay person once who was an excellent theologian and he wasn’t allowed to minister in the Church. Besides, two gay people come to the Church and want to get married and what does the Church tell them? What does the Church tell them? The Church tells them “no.”

Calvin went for the swooping head and shoulder fake thumb move, “Maybe the reason the Church tells them they can’t get married is because it is an ontological impossibility for two people of the same sex to be married. Such a thing is a surd. It defies reality. It is like asking for a woman to be her own mother”

At the same exact moment Calvin caught himself wondering at the irony of appealing to “reality” while participating in this drug induced haze. As he was thinking this through he heard Smokey Bear say that he wanted to talk about the Monkey and HIV / cosmetic question. Marilyn and Zoe were interested especially in the cosmetic side of the listening tour. Twiggy was furiously taking notes. It all began to bleed into one for Calvin.

The Octogenarian was the thumb wrestling champion of the Universe and he would not so easily be put off. He countered Calvin with a “But my Sister was a Transgender professional and he was a nice person.” The rest of the table began to chant, “So say we all.”

Someone at the next table sent a note that Zoe read saying, “Having to be right is poisonous.” It was written 10,000 times in chartreuse colored lipstick. Every time it was read the table of 8 genuflected and said “Amen.”

Calvin began to laugh the laugh of the demented.

End Part 1

A Man With An Experience Is Never At the Mercy Of A God With A Revelation

A short examination of a minister who is trying to hard to be deep and insightful and who thinks he succeeds at it.

Preacher Conway (PC) writes,

I hope to explore how I read and understand Scripture, to wonder together what it is to pick up this book and to wrestle with it. I begin here because this continues to be one of the most challenging and dynamic facets of my faith. What does it mean to say that God is revealed by Scripture? What does it mean for me to be intellectually honest as a scholar and as a human being and yet trust that the Bible is more than just any other book?

Bret responds,

1.) Note the implied difficulty in being both a scholar, a human, and taking the Bible seriously … as if it is just such a labor to square this circle. Nevermind that it is a circle that has been squared by intellectually honest Scholars for millennium. Did Augustine, Anselm, the Cappadocians, Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc. take the Bible seriously? Were they scholars?

2.) I don’t want to over extrapolate here, but it sure seems, that right out of the gate, there is a hint of the glory in uncertainty. Look at how much angst I’m in, given all the uncertainty I have. Look how I have to wrestle the uncertainties of God’s revelation. How noble it is to be uncertain.

PC writes,

I begin here because this is a fundamental presupposition of my faith: our experience of faith and understanding of Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. Whenever we talk about God, Scripture, Jesus, etc. we stand on the shoulders of giants. Our modern understanding of faith has been molded and shaped by a conversation that has been happening in homes, churches, and the halls of academia for centuries. Our individual and collective experience of faith enters into a small part of this dialogue, a small branch of the bigger conversation about who God is, about the world He created, and about how we live, move, and have our being on this planet we call earth.

Bret responds,

1.) Note that our understanding of Scripture is totally immanent. Our understanding of Scripture is totally subjective. Our understanding of Scripture is not accounted for by any Objective or transcendent categories. There is no reference to the God breathed nature of Scripture. No mention of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. All there is, is human conversation.

This is not to deny the subjective dynamic of understanding Scripture. It is merely to contend that if all we have is the subjective then there is nothing objective there to understand except some kind of wax nose Bible.

2.) If all we have is the subjective then who is to say which subjective is the one true subjective? Why is Calvin right and Kierkegaard wrong? Why should we subscribe to the TFU or Westminster and not the Schleitheim confession? Why prefer the Historic Church and not the Cathars?

3.) He begins with “our experience of faith” and then insists that “our experience of faith” is conditioned only by our experience in talking about the faith with others. It is experience, and only experience all the way to the bottom. There really is no authoritative Transcendent word.

4.) Allow me to submit that the only Giant’s shoulders PC has been standing on is a German chap named Schleiermacher. He was another bloke who knew a thing or two about subjectivism.

PC writes

“I begin here because I must acknowledge something that causes fear and consternation among many Christians. Yes, as I have come to understand more about the world around me, about, say, evolutionary biology or the dominance of patriarchy, my understanding of Scripture has also undergone a transformation. Some Christians will immediately throw their hands in the air in disgust at this and immediately conclude that my faith has acquiesced to the world. The world as I perceive it has shaped my faith rather than vice versa. God is unchanging and His Word is eternal, some may say, so how can you let your faith in this unchanging God be shaped by the shifting theories of science?”

Bret responds,

1.) PC acts as if his understanding of the world around him is unmediated by faith / theological / Worldview categories. PC speaks as if his mind was tabula rasa and with his tabula rasa mind he understood reality quite apart from any beginning theological-faith presuppositions or axioms. He speaks as if he arrived at facts apart from a philosophy of fact.

2.) So, my question is, “What theology did PC employ in order to understand the world around him?” I mean, PC’s understanding was mediated by some theology. “Understanding of the world” does not come to us theology free. The reason that Aleister Crowley understood the world one way and that Cornelius Van Til understood the world in a different way is because the lens (beginning axioms) through which each looked at the world were dramatically different.

3.) As such, a Biblical Christian theology would have helped PC to conclude that “evolutionary biology” is a myth, and that “biblical patriarchy” was and is good and proper. You see, Biblical presuppositions then work to interpret one’s experience as opposed to having one’s autonomous experiences interpret Scripture. This is the heart of PC’s problem. He is allowing his own putatively autonomous experience (and not really autonomous because all experience is pre-interpreted by some theological grid) to trump the perspicuous teaching of God’s divine revelation.

Paging Dr. Schleiermacher.

4.) Interesting that PC never answers that last question in that paragraph above that he has hypothetically presented to himself.

PC writes

“No matter how we formulate our faith, regardless of the conclusions at which we arrive regarding such issues, our understanding of God and Scripture have been shaped by our experience in the world, by our upbringing, and by a host of other environmental factors. To find ourselves asking questions about Scripture because of experience in the world is not itself a bad thing. On the contrary, these questions may have the potential to bring us to a deeper and fuller understanding of God and our relationship with Him.”

Bret responds,

1.) Notice it is “we who formulate our faith,” and not “the faith that formulates us.”

2.) Notice how it is our understanding of God and Scripture which is shaped by our experience and not our experience that is shaped by God and Scripture. Notice how environment trumps God and this in spite of the fact that it is God who predestined our environment that men “would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.”

3.) Asking questions about Scripture is good as long as the answers we arrive at are formed and shaped by Scripture.

Look, it has always been a staple of the Reformed faith (PC and I are both Reformed) that God is always prior.

PC writes,

“At some point in our lives, for instance, we all must come to grips with the realization that God’s answer to our prayers does not necessarily come in the form in which we expect or want. Such experiences help us come to a more complete understanding of verses like Matthew 7:7-8: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” The point of this example is not to explore a theology of prayer; rather, my hope is to demonstrate that our experience in the world impacts the way in which we approach and articulate our faith.”

Bret responds,

Is PC concluding that God doesn’t answer prayer the way PC wants it answered? Amazing insight there. Generally, Biblical Christians take for granted that the problem is with them and not with God.

PC writes,

“The reality is this – while experience does not dictate the answers at which we arrive, our lived experience in this world often prompts our questions, and questions, it seems to me, are rarely a bad thing.

I begin here because this is perhaps one of the most unacknowledged challenges we have when it comes to reading Scripture – the Bible is a complicated, multifaceted book. Whether we like to admit it or not, the way in which we describe the central themes of the Bible have been shaped by our experience. This is not to say that experience trumps Scripture.”

1.) PC has spent the whole piece more than hinting that experience trumps Scripture and now at the very end he merely asserts that is not the case. Go figure.

2.) Given everything that PC has said up to this point how can it be that “experience does not dictate the answers at which we arrive?”

3.) I will agree that questions are not a bad thing.

In the end PC does not have Scripture. He has a Gestalt empty chair he calls “a Bible,” and a Rorschach Ink blot he calls God’s revelation.

One wonders what PC does when his experience is over and against that of his Council or one of his congregants? Who’s solipsistic experience ‘wins’ the argument?

Given this kind of “reasoning” is it any wonder that churches are just one big “encounter group”

Pointing out the Obvious

I picked at part of this quote in the previous entry but I just have to come back for another bite at the proverbial apple.

D. G. Hart writes,

“So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)?”

1.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one posit, that acting in a non-Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents would be a Christian thing to do?

2.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one not think, that acting in Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents, would always be in the best interest of non-Christian constituents?

3.) By what standard are we defining “best interest?”

Darryl asks,

“But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

1.) I guess every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is understood to have the addition “except in the public/common kingdom.”

2.) So much for “whatever is not done in faith is sin.”

3.) This quote suggests that if someone is voted in by all the Americans then there are times when it would be wrong to act in the best interest of Christians vis a vis the Christian constituents.

3.) Are we being told by a Dr. of the Church that it is wrong, at times, (by what Standard?) to act as a Christian when in a public capacity?

4.) If one is not acting as a Christian then how is one acting? Perhaps it is the case for Hart that it is Christian to not act as a Christian when you are a public official representing all the people?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Hart continues,

I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers.

So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?

1.) Only a Christian Umpire, or a Umpire influenced by a Christian worldview would think it important to call balls and strikes as “balls and strikes” in a Phillies vs. Pirates game. A non-Christian Umpire would call that outside pitch a third strike on Andrew McCutchen every time and be glad he was able to do so.

2.) Acting in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers would be to always act as a Christian.

Where R2K World’s Collide … Dr. Darrell Hart contra Dr. R. Scott Clark

Recently, public officials of the California State University locations, ruled to “de-recognize” the Christian campus ministry called “Inter-Varsity.” See story linked,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/intervarsity-sanctioned-california-state-university_n_5791906.html

Now according to R2K Chieftain Dr. D. G. Hart, this was a understandable move since,

” … if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

Now, it is at least possible that the public officials of the California State University system were Christian and it is possible, that since the California State University system was not to show any religious preference, therefore those Christian public officials of the California State University did the right thing.

However, even if the all the California State University officials who made this decision were pagans, it still is the right decision, according to Hart, since the University system was not to show any religious preferences. I mean, after all, who does Inter-Varsity think they are requiring leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs? The University, per Hart, was correct to shut this travesty of unprincipled pluralism down.

However, Hart’s colleague, Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks that the California State University was wrong to de-recognize Intervarsity. Clark offers this morsel,

“One area that ought to be a matter of growing concern for Christians (and other religious folk) is the attempt by some in our society to use administrative and bureaucratic positions to silence views with which they disagree. Such impulses are fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

Scott, sees de-recognizing Inter-varsity as something bad. But, we might ask, “bad,” by what standard? By a Biblical Standard? 1000 times no. Scott’s standard for faulting the California State University system’s decision as bad bad bad is that it is “fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

But applying Darrell’s principle it most certainly is American and just. After all, the California State University system is to show no religious preferences and allowing Intervarsity to only have leadership that is Christian is the very apex of religious preference.

Pursuing a brief rabbit trail one wonders why Dr. R. Scott Clark appeals to the Confessions in order to gain traction for policy in the Common realm? Certainly, if Scripture is not to be our guide in the common realm, per R2K, then the confessions would be out of bounds also right? Why should Christians care what the Confessions have to say concerning common realm activity? Well … they might care what those Confessions say about the common realm when they are in the Church realm but the minute they leave the Church realm they would have to forget that they cared what the Confessions said when they were in the Church realm.

Scott also complains about the California State University system trying to impose ideological conformity from above but if the University system would do what Scott wants by allowing Inter-varsity to operate untrammeled wouldn’t that also be a case where the University is imposing a top down ideological conformity? The University can either impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced,” or they can impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced except Christianity.” Either way, the University system is imposing a top down ideological construct. No neutrality Scott … remember? It is never a question of “whether or not top down ideological construct,” it is only ever a question of which top down ideological construct.

Scott complains about the unfairness of it all, but what is fair outside a Biblical standard?

Scott asks the question,

“From what mountain did the administers descend, what revelation did they receive that gives them the authority to banish historic Christian orthodoxy from campus?

I hate to be bearer of bad tidings but the answer to this question is they descended from Mt. positivistic law or they received the Revelation from St. Natural law. The further bad news for Scott is that the only thing that can combat each and both of them is Biblical Christianity in the common realm.