Mrs. Marinov … Please Notify your Husband that there is Linkage between Genetics and Culture

 

In the graphic below our old friend, Bojidar Marinov, suggest that proof is found that genetics and culture have nothing to do with each other.  He offers this pearl of wisdom, in his trenchant commentary on the graphic,

<i>”The awkward moment when you think that genetics determines culture, and then geneticists tell you that Spain is more “Celtic” than Scotland, and Austria is about as “Germanic” as Ireland.”</i>

Now the point we will be making below the graphic is not that culture is a reflection of only genetics. That position would force one into the unbiblical position of materialism. No Christian can claim to be consistently Christian and believe that culture is alone dictated by genetics.

However, contrary to Mr. Marinov’s views, neither is it, in the least, consistently Christian to deny that genetics has anything to do with culture. Such a position gives us Gnosticism, the very opposite of materialism. Mr. Marinov’s views that whom God has created us to be in our humanity, has nothing to do with culture is the stuff of which Gnosticism is made.

The best approach to culture is that it is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. Note that in this definition we have the inclusion of both what a people think and the fact that it is very real corporeal people, with all their DNA (genetics) who are thinking.

The point that we will be making below the graphic is that Mr. Marinov observation, given above, is just nonsense.

 

View post on imgur.com

1.) We might start by asking Mr. Marinov how it is exactly that Europeans, being closely related to other Europeans, is some kind of “awkward moment.” After all,  Europeans are closely related to each other. That’s not a revelation. And it seems to imply the exact opposite point as Mr. Marinov imagines — that there really is a European / White identity.

2.)  Secondly, we need to note that all because there are different ethnic markers in different places doesn’t mean that  English, Irish, Scots, etc are Swedes, Germans, Danes, etc. Also, we must take into consideration that the West is a lot more mobile now. International corporations have greatly contributed to that mobility (along with the ebb and flow of conquering armies). Corporations have undermined the state and regional loyalties here in the US. So it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a mixture of European ethnicities.

3.) Touching Mr. Marinov’s observations regarding Spain being more Celtic than Scotland. This really isn’t that difficult and if Mr. Marinov knew his history better he wouldn’t be getting out on this limb that is currently being sawed off from beneath him. You see, Galicia (a part of Spain) is borderline one of the Celtic nations. The Gaels who settled Ireland came from Galicia, then went to over to mess with the Picts in Scotland. Also, Celts covered the continent at one point until empires were established over them. Obviously, given this reality one would expect to find just what the graphic reveals. Mr. Marinov’s post demonstrates his ignorance of tribal migration. One hopes this isn’t intentional on Mr. Marinov’s part. Regardless, whether it is ignorance or subterfuge the truth of the matter is that Mr. Marinov is quite inaccurate on this point.

4.) The fact that Europe’s culture is being re-made by the arrival of  non-European people groups ought to be evidence enough that there is a relation between genetics and culture. If one ventures into different parts of “Londonistan” or “Parisistan” one finds a very different genetic pattern accompanied by a very different culture then one finds in French Paris or English London.

5.)  Mr. Marinov says that genetics has no impact on culture. Well, as genetics is determinative of gender (as well as ethnicity) does he really want to advance the idea that there are no genetic differences between male and female such that those differences impact cultures that men and women create?

Are the differences between men and women (not physiological but cultural) only to be accounted for by how men and women think? This is what Mr. Marinov would have us believe if “genetics have absolutely nothing to do with culture.”

Mr. Marinov should visit an all girls school and a all boys school and take tours to demonstrate that genetics effect culture.

More might be said but this is enough to, once again, dismiss the Gnostic impulse of Mr. Marinov.

This rebuttal was a corporate effort by the members of one America’s more illustrious Reformed Think Tanks of which I am a member.

Fisking an idea on how to treat Confessional Documents

In a recent denomination magazine someone wrote a op-ed piece. This is my attempt to find the humor in it.

December 5, 2015 — Discussions about our denomination’s confessions, also known as the Three Forms of Unity—the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism—are ongoing.

Some believe that we should preserve these confessions as they were written. Others argue that we should adapt them to contemporary times but continue to affirm their authority. Still others argue that we should do away with these confessions altogether and start anew. And some have proposed that we add a fourth document to the Three Forms of Unity, such as the Belhar Confession, to make our testimony more complete.

I propose that we refer to the Three Forms of Unity as the “historical confessions” of the CRC. This implies, of course, that the exact language of each confession be minutely preserved. After all, they are historical documents that reflect the precise spirit of their time. These documents should never be altered, and for that reason should always be referred to as “the historical confessions of the Christian Reformed Church.” Further, these historical confessions should never be considered normative for our times because their normativity for today would violate their historicity of yesterday.

Bret responds,

Great idea. Lets apply this reasoning to other historical documents.

1.) I propose that we refer to my wedding vows as the “historical wedding vows.”  This implies, of course, that the exact language of the wedding vow would be minutely preserved. After all, those vows are a historical document that reflect the precise spirit when I was married. This document should never be altered, and for that reason should always be referred to as “the historical wedding vows of Mr. & Mrs. Bret L. McAtee.” Further, this historical wedding vow should never be considered normative for our times because its normativity for today would violate its historicity of yesterday.

II.) I propose that we refer to the membership vows that our members take as their “historical vows” to the local church. This implies, of course, that the exact language of each membership vow be minutely preserved. After all, they are historical vows that reflect the precise spirit of their time. These vows should never be altered, and for that reason should always be referred to as “the historical vows of the members of sundry Christian Reformed Churches.” Further, these historical vows should never be considered normative for our times because their normativity for today would violate their historicity of yesterday.

III.) I propose that we refer to the  Scriptures as “historical Scripture” of the CRC. This implies, of course, that the exact language of each Scripture be minutely preserved. After all, the Scriptures are a historical document that reflects the precise spirit of their time. This document should never be altered, and for that reason should always be referred to as “the historical  Scripture of the Christian Church.” Further, these historical Scriptures should never be considered normative for our times because their normativity for today would violate their historicity of yesterday.

Except for assorted 5 year olds, closed head injury patients, and adult post-moderns who “reasons” like this?

How is it that Historicity is put into antithesis with normativity?

With this kind of methodology how is it possible to still believe that true truth is timeless?

“Yes Aunt Agnes, I know in your time serial adultery was wrong, according to the historic Confessions, but today the normative confessions say that God is pleased with serial adultery.”

What would be normative, however, is a Contemporary Confession. Such a new document would be similar to the CRC’s Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs to God, but not necessarily identical to it. This Contemporary Confession would be drawn up by the CRC synod. From then on, a synodically appointed standing committee would, upon the instruction of the annual synod, recommend certain modifications, alterations, or additions to the Contemporary Confession as needed.

This process would be repeated at the commencement of each subsequent synod, at which time all the synodical delegates would also subscribe to the Contemporary Confession. The document would then be normative throughout the entire year. Newly elected or appointed office-bearers would also be expected to subscribe to it.

Something to think about!

 

 

Wasn’t this tried before? Some guy, wearing a pointy hat speaks ex-cathedra from the synod (whoops… I mean “The Chair”) and then all of Christendom knows what is true and what they should think. After all, if Synod says it is true then  why would anyone disagree? Didn’t Luther have something to say about this idea.

“I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils or CRC Synods, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning.”

I can just see it now.

“My only comfort in life and death (until next years synod meets) is that I am not my own …”

This year the Heidelberg gives us “Sin and Misery,” “Our Redemption,” and “Gratitude.” Next year the Heidelberg could  be divided into, “Low Self Esteem,” “Our Self Actualization,” and “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough,  and doggone it, people like me,” categories.

Really, I fail to understand how any thinking person could reason like this.

 

Christ as the Light

Intro

The book of  John has several words that end up winding their way all the way through both his Gospel and his Epistles. In his Gospel John sets forth the Reformed antithesis with the repeated words “Light” and “Darkness.” St. John, inspired by the Holy Spirit sees men in only on of two camps. They are a people of the light or they are a people belonging to “Darkness.” There is no third category and no tertium quid.  If one belongs to darkness they belong to death. If one belongs to the light one belongs to Life.

As we are going to see this is is a theme that develops its way through the book of John.

I.) Light as Promised Re-creation (John 1:4-9)

When we look at Scripture as a whole one of the ways that we break it down is to speak of the Scriptures as God’s story of “Creation-Fall-Redemption and Re-creation.” This promised “Re-creation” is spoken of in Isaiah as connected to Light.

In Isaiah, for example, we can read of Messianic light that is coming that will announce God’s eschatological promised age to come,

Isaiah 60:1-3  Arise, O Jerusalem; be bright, for thy [a]light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. 2 For behold, darkness shall cover the [b]earth, and gross darkness the people; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 3 And the Gentiles shall walk in [c]thy light, and Kings at the brightness of thy rising up (cmp. Isaiah 42:6-7, 16).

I begin here because this Isaiah passage forces us to begin even earlier for in Isaiah 60 here the way that “light” is mentioned echoes Genesis 1:2-4. When Isaiah says, “darkness will cover the earth, and deep darkness the peoples” likely is a connection with to Gen. 1

2  …  and [e]darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God [g]moved upon the [h]waters.3 Then God said, Let there be light: And there was [i]light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated [j]the light from the darkness.”

So Isaiah 60:1-3 is setting forth the coming re-creation and restoration of Israel against the back drop  of the initial creation. The re-creation will have light shine upon it just as the initial creation did. When we get to the Gospel of John and when we note the application that the Lord Christ is the light we suspect that He is the Light of which Isaiah wrote. In the Lord Christ the fulfillment of the Isaianic prophecies has come to pass.

John opens up his gospel by saying of Christ, “In Him was life and the life was the light of man.”

We are being told here the long awaited re-creation has come in the Lord Christ. Christ is the light that has come that Isaiah spoke of.  In Luke / Acts there is especial application between the Light in Isaiah as applied to the Gentiles but here we see that John opens with Isaiah’s idea the light has come to God’s people.

4 [k]In him [l]was life, and that life was [m]the light of men. 5 [n]And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness [o]comprehendeth it not.6 ¶ [p]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This same came for a witness, to bear witness of that light, that all men[q]through him might believe. 8 He was not [r]that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. 9 [s]This was [t]that true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Side-note #1 — Christ as “the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” confirms that all men are culpable. No man has an excuse against God for their rebellion for the true light which lighteth every man has come into the world.

Side-note #2 — When John speaks of the Light (the Lord Christ) having light in Himself this is another claim to deity we find in John. John will quote Jesus later saying that as the Father has life in Himself so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

II.) Light as that which exposes and condemns (John 3:19f)

John 3:19And this is the condemnation, that that light came into the world, and men loved darkness rather than that light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every man that evil doeth, hateth the light, neither cometh to light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be made manifest, that they are wrought according to God.

Here the Lord Christ sets forth the reason that the world rejects Him. In His arrival the Lord Christ is the light that exposes whether a person is righteous or not. So, this light that comes into the world that bespeaks the restoration and re-creation is an offense and elicits hatred from those who love darkness.

And that is what we see in the ministry of the Lord Christ. He was despised, hated, and rejected by those who hated God.

One Implication

Now in as much as we are reflectors of this light we  likewise will be  hated by those who doeth evil. Really, in this culture and in these times it really is the case that our expectation should be to be hated by all just the right people.  We need to remember that “If the world hates us, we know that it  hated Christ before it hated us. If we are of the light we will get the same response as He who is the Light.

As I mentioned at the beginning we should note here in John 3 the interplay with darkness. In John the theme is not only light but darkness. We shall see that as we move through these passages. One of the most interesting ways that John uses the idea of darkness is to note the presence of  nighttime. Nicdoemus comes to Jesus, John records, “when it was night,” and in the Judas betrayal. John tells us that Judas goes to betray the Lord Christ and then John adds, almost as an aside,  that “it was night.” Judas goes to do his hate work of quenching the light and He does so in the context of darkness (night).

III.) Light as a metaphor for God’s Law-Word (John 8:12)

In  Psalm 119 as combined with John 8:12 we notice a connection between the God’s law-word as a light that shines upon one’s path and the Lord Christ. In John 8 the metaphor of a light to illumine a path may well be a connection to  Psalm 119. This idea of God’s Law-Word being a light unto our path  is taken up by the Lord Christ as he applies it  to Himself.

The Psalmist says,

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a [b]lantern unto my feet, and a light unto my paths.

The Lord Christ can say,

John 8:12 [d]Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am that light of the world: he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have that light of life.

So, we might say here that in this couplet of Psalm 119 and John 8 that the Lord Christ is declaring that He Himself is the incarnation of God’s Law-Word which for the Psalmist was his lamp and light. If we remember that Psalm 119 is all about the delight that the Pslamist finds in God’s laws, precepts, and judgments we would be well served to remember that there is no avoidance of walking in the darkness apart from the Light which is the law and whom also is Christ.

IV.) The Light as connected with the Healing ministry of the Messiah (John 9:4f)

In Isaiah we read of the promised Servant and His work,

Isaiah 42:16 ¶ And I will bring the [s]blind by a way, that they knew not, and lead them by paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them…

In John we see the Lord Christ as the Light that quite literally fulfills all that Isaiah spoke of.

John 9:4 [c]I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is [d]day: the night cometh when no man can work.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

This passage is in the context of the man born blind. Immediately, after referring to himself as the “light of the world” Jesus heals the blind man. Those present would likely have seen Isaiah’s prophecy playing out before them.  Isaiah spoke of a Messiah who would be a light who opens the eyes of the blind and would make the darkness light before them.

The Lord Jesus is the Messiah who is bringing the new creational realities to bear upon the fallen world. In Christ, the age to come has come and in Christ, who is the Light of the World, the age to come is reversing the sin corrupted realities of this present age. The healing of the blind man (living in a world of darkness) is evidence that the re-creation has come in Jesus who is the Messianic light.

V.) Light as our identity (John 12:35)

John 12:35 [n]Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have that light, lest the darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in the dark, knoweth not whither he goeth.36 While ye have that light, believe in that light, that ye may be the [o]children of the light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and hid himself from them….46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me, should not abide in darkness.

Isaiah 9:2 — The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.

As we talked about earlier our connection to Christ is to be so intimate that we take on His character of light.

Conclusion

Really this has been just the briefest of survey of the usage of light in John. There are more connections that we could make. This gives us enough to see that this metaphor that Christ uses has an important background. The theme of “Light” weaves itself all the way from Genesis to the very end of Revelation.

We  speak of Christ as “the light” being a metaphor for God’s Truth, God’s presences, God’s recreation, God’s condemnation unto those who hate the light, God’s direction via His Law Word.

We would note again that Light in the OT was spoken of in the context of the Messiah and the promised re-creation. The Messiah has come and, in principle, this present wicked age has been and so is being rolled back.

This is objectively true and does not depend upon how we personally feel about it. The Light has come. We are children of the Light.

We have to live then, as we have been fully declared to be.

Calvin College Professor; ” Both unity in Christ and differentiation in creation are very good”

As many have noted, the idea of separation and differentiation, of dividing and consigning, is a prominent theme throughout the first chapters of Genesis as the world is being described.” The concept of separation and division, the making of things that are different essentially, each having an identity and self-action, controls much of the further presentation of material in the book of Genesis. But in particular it is that which gives the cultural mandate to man to develop (differentiate) the whole earth its concrete content and meaning.

We learn then from Scripture that no choice has to be made between unity and sameness in Christ and having distinct earthly identities. In other words, no appeal to the dynamic directive of redemption to be one in Christ can be made to determine the structures of earthly, institutional life. Both unity in Christ and differentiation in creation are very good, the former representing God’s work in redemption, the latter, which data relevant theory investigates, God’s work in creation. Oneness in Christ is no alternative to natural separations and differences in the world and hence is no alternative to a social theory of separate cultural development.

Stated in general terms, God’s act of creation is an act of separation, definition, and law-giving. The unity of things is a moral and religious principle, not an alternative definition of what being should be like. In fact the unity of things is dependent, according to Christian faith, on their distinctiveness in being. If the central ecclesiastical argument against Apartheid is that its idea of separation contradicts the biblical idea of reconciliation in Christ, then the ecclesiastical critics are simply theologically wrong, cashing in on a biblical and religious idea to legitimate a taken-for-granted “natural theology” of integrationism for which they are dependent on the homogenizing philosophy of modern, British political liberalism. Though there is a moral and emotive point to the outcry that Apartheid is a heresy, in substance this charge is a simplicism that is unbecoming of the best of Reformed social thought and practice.

Dr. Henry Vander Goot
Former  Professor of Religion and Theology,
Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
“Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis in the Reformed Community Today” , pgs. 111-112

 

Ask the Pastor; What About The Nations?

Dear Pastor,

I am glad to see that you agree that God’s actions in Genesis 11 are to be understood as a judgment and curse upon idolatrous man. Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant consitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me. Which ethnic/national/racial divisions? The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

Bryan Peters
Johnston, Iowa

Dear Bryan,

First off, thank you for writing and working on clarifying matters.

Bryan writes

“Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant constitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me.”

Of course I assert this. I am Reformed. Reformed folk hold to a hermeneutic of continuity. It is very odd of you as a Reformed person to assume a hermeneutic of discontinuity. That is very Baptist of you. Why should you think that God who ordains ethnic division in the OT would reverse that in the NT? Where in the NT does God say, “I changed my mind on ethnic and national people groups. The death of  my Christ eliminated race, nations and people groups as corporeal realities?” Really Bryan… who is the one stretching here?

Bryan wrote,

Your assertion that the blessings of the New Covenant constitute an affirmation of ethnic division seems very stretched to me. Which ethnic/national/racial divisions?

Bret responds,

Bryan, you offer me more of a riddle here than a question. You imply the impossibility of ascertaining ethnicity, nationality and race and yet you, as the questioner, takes for granted the reality of ethnicities, nations and races in asking the question. If you, and most others know your own ethnicity etc, your implying of the impossibility of identifying those divisions is edges on torpidity. If you assume the reality of races in order to impugn them, you are engaged in existential pretzel logic.

The NT has no problem identifying ethnicities, Nations, and races. The Lord Christ speaks of “Nations” in Mt. 28. Dr. Luke identifies Nations in the Acts record. In Revelation St. John speaks of Nations repeatedly and even as they exist in the New Jerusalem.

Bryan writes

Which ethnic/national/racial divisions? The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

Here, Bryan you are practicing the “Loki’s wager” fallacy. Loki’s Wager, is a form of logical fallacy. It posits the unreasonable insistence, in this case, on your part, that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Bryan,

Where do we start in distinguishing legitimate divisions or do we merely affirm the de facto divisions which exist at any one point in time?

In reading various histories one thing that strikes me is the continuity of ethnicities spanning millennia. I read A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German people, and the author, Steven Ozment provides a glimpse of the continuity of the German identity well before Christ came. Political boundaries have shifted extensively, but we can still reasonably identify the major ethnic groups that exist today. Europe was populated by Southern Mediterraneans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Alpines, Slavs, etc., and these groups go back to just after Noah. It seems you are conflating political boundaries for ethnic distinctions.

Bryan writes,

“The divisions which existed in the first century have morphed into very different divisions in our present time. “

Oh? How so? This looks like the fallacy of petitio principi to me.

Even so …. on this score consider what I wrote earlier,

In reading various histories one thing that strikes me is the continuity of ethnicities spanning millennia. I read A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German people, and the author, Steven Ozment provides a glimpse of the continuity of the German identity well before Christ came. Political boundaries have shifted extensively, but we can still reasonably identify the major ethnic groups that exist today. Europe was populated by Southern Mediterraneans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Alpines, Slavs, etc., and these groups go back to just after Noah. It seems you are conflating political boundaries for ethnic distinctions.

Finally Bryan, keep in mind that the very existence of Covenant constitutes an affirmation of ethnic division. Think about it.