"Happy Everyday" by Principito Heredero del Cielo

In the paraphrased words of Christian evangelist, apologist and author Ravi Zacharias:  For the Christian, joy is central to what it means to be a Christian, and all the griefs, losses and troubles that are the shared existential commonality of all people- are for the Christian- periphery to the soul. On the other hand- for the non-believer- all the griefs, losses and troubles that are common to  humankind are central to the person and the joy is peripheral. This is because for the Christian, the big questions of life have a rational answer and indeed, in Christ, they have been answered, this reality gives meaning and purpose to the struggle. It is indeed by virtue of these answers that they are able to be carried. For the non-believer the burden of un-answered angst is still the major burden of the soul including and under-girding all the ordinary and everyday burdens and stresses of daily life.

The music in this post is from my Chilean son-in-law which epitomizes Christian Joy -not in a simplistic and shallow joy that ignores or plays down existential reality- but the deep joy that bubbles up despite it.

Exegesis: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15- A Conversation between R.C. Sproul and D.A. Carson on Exegesis

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

I could not refrain from writing down a quote by R.C. Sproul from this video clip. According to Wikipedia this is actually commonly misquoted from an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson. So here it is as Emerson wrote it, one of Emerson's most famous quotations: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (often misquoted by omission of the word "foolish").

Emerson, who was the champion of self-reliance and self-esteem, meant that individuality and personal authenticity was only guaranteed by a rejection of conformity to external pressures.  We can see this when he writes:

"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius." 

This sentiment appears to me to be strongly reminiscent of Kantian thought which advocates the supremecy and ultimacy of human autonomy.

R.C.Sproul:

"It's been said that- consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds- and if that adage is true then the smallest mind in all of reality would seem to me to be God’s; because God is completely consistent with himself, he doesn’t speak with a forked tongue, he’s not the author of confusion and so we look to see the unity of sacred Scripture because we believe in its coherence- because its author is so eminently coherent."

 Sproul's use of the saying- "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"- is about, in the context of this amiable discussion of scriptural exegesis, the problem of consistency for the biblical exegete. To Sproul, all that encompasses the concept "God" is so great an undertaking for finite human minds, that inevitably without great care, and an accompanying stretching of the minds horizon, there will be inconsistency in our understanding of Him, and the smaller our scope, the less inclined we are able to either overcome or even perceive this shortcoming. Following on from this, arises- in Lewisonian terms- the situation whereby God is put "in the dock" and asked to answer these "inconsistencies", whereas in all reality the inconsistency lies in the poverty of the exegete. Interestingly I find Emerson's thought so true, but his application so bad. His saying is applicable only really to God. Let's revise what he said:

"To believe God's own thought, to believe that what is true of Him in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius."

In the end what is a really "foolish consistency" is conformity to any mind other than the mind of God and so:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" Philippians 2:5

When I first heard on this video file R.C. Sproul speaking of the "hobgoblin of little minds" I headed off to Google to check out these pesky little fellows. Troublemakers, that's what they are- and sure enough one of them was already giving me some trouble. Trouble do you see, because I thought that what R.C meant was that consistency, or rather the lack of consistency was the troublemaker of little minds being referred to. Thus in a neat way confirming what I'd once heard Francis Schaeffer say: "The trouble with Christians is they see things in bits and pieces" meaning they often didn't get the big picture. And if one only sees the little picture, well it's like another story I'd heard well told and it goes like this: Our little view of reality, with our little eye spy eyes are like the person looking through the wee hole in the wall of a fence.

Imagine that there is a big fancy circus that had come to town and today, they were having a street parade to show off all the acts. Imagine also, that you badly wanted to see this parade but there is a big wooden fence between you and the parade. And the only way for you to see this parade is by looking through a small peep hole in this fence. You see the clowns, the monkeys, the elephants and the acrobats but you only see glimpses of all of them and you never see the parade as a whole. You don’t see where it begins and where it ends. You are only viewing this parade in pieces and none of them seem to make any sense.

Imagine now, that God is in a helicopter “above” this parade and he is seeing the whole entire thing, and he is also orchestrating it all and knows exactly when it’s going to end, where it’s headed and what is going to happen along the way.

Well as it happens it has a happy ending because no matter which way you cut it, it ends up the same way. Consistency is not a problem for God, and neither is small mindedness but it is for us. But I'd far rather it that way wouldn't you?

Book Review: The Devil's Delusion- Atheism and its scientific pretensions by David Berlinski

If I were to sum up this book in one short paragraph, and this would be very unfair of me, I would borrow the statement, a quote, that I was so impressed with from the book I have just finished and offered a review of: Alister McGrath's book "Heresy"

“For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” Austin Farrer “The Christian Apologist”(1904-1968)

David Berlinski holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University and is the bestselling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newtons Gift. David Berlinski is a self described agnostic that is most indignant with the presumptions and propaganda that has burst forth from the militant atheistic scientists and philosophers' agenda to rid the world-firstly of any sense of credibility in religion and secondly squash any notion that there is a God.
 This book is an enormous help to theists because he isn't one. This means that if there were an axe to grind it  wouldn't necessarily be on behalf of religion. What really seems to irk him is the extravagant and unfounded claims that science has done away with the need of, or disproved God- and that morally, science and mankind can do very well without him anyway, thanks very much. His book is full of rational argument and not a little does he pour scorn on some of the overrated claims of atheistic science. The reason I quote from Farrer above is that though he does not himself subscribe to theism, his arguments at the very least leave theism in a very healthy atmosphere in which faith may be fostered and indeed flourish.

 Typical of his forceful expression p35:

"If the universe is as scientists say it is , then what scope remains for statements about right or wrong, good or bad? What are we to say about evil and great wickedness? whatever statements we might make are obviously not about gluons, muons, or curved space and time. "The problem," the philosopher Simon Blackburn has written, "is one of finding room for ethics, or of placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part."

Blackburn is, of course, convinced that the chief task at hand in facing this question- his chief task, in any case-  "is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order". It is a strategy that merits admiration for the severity of mind it expresses. It is rather as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse.

If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong. good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.

These are familiar questions in philosophy, and if they have been long asked, they have remained long unanswered. David Hume asked in the eighteenth century whether ought could be derived from is, and concluded that it could not: There is a gap between what is and what ought to be, The world of fact and the world of value are disjoint. They have nothing to say to one another. The ensuing chilliness between what is and what ought to be has in the twentieth century grown glacial. The more that science reveals what is, the less it reveals what ought to be.  The traditional biblical view - that what ought to be is a matter chiefly of what God demands- thus stand on his existence, the very point challenged by scientific atheism."

Some of what Berlinski says, reminds me so much of what others have said. G.K. Chesterton in characteristic wit said:

 "Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say. "

At least one of the major reasons that scientists like Richard Dawkins who manipulate their science to promote their atheistic worldview are so popular among the masses is the very situation that Berlinski points out above. Their nihilist,  reductionist view of humanity gives the perfect excuse to live as one pleases with no further moral shackle than the burden of choosing what lifestyle they please. All references to morality are thus preferences, all prescriptive sense of morality is drowned in a morass of relativism.
If deriving an ought from an is remains an insurmountable problem for the materialist- it is no less problematic for these denizens of science than the problem of giving an account for reason itself, or consciousness, indeed for any of the metaphysical properties of humanity.

One of the most difficult tasks of the Christian apologist is made more accessible by the work of this refreshing book. There is, thanks to the word of influential and clever sounding crusading atheists of the scientific and philosophic variety, an overarching perception that faith and science are at irreconcilable odds. The whole world, it seems accepts the neutrality of science, and of course all good science is morally neutral, but- and this is an important distinction to make- and Berlinski does this well; the ethical neutrality of science is one thing- the moral neutrality of the scientific community is quite another. What this points to of course is that all scientists are human before ever they were scientists, and unfortunately they take their moral assumptions and read them into their science and from which we get such misguided and uncertain ethical systems.

It has been said that God wrote not one but two books, therefore -not one, but two revelations- the revelation of God found in nature, and the revelation of God found in scripture. The first book says nothing about the moral nature of God, from this we get the necessity of the second book for knowing his moral qualities. If these atheistic scientists were theologians it would be evident -in their reading of nature- that what comes from them is not a result of competent exegesis- but a defiant eisegesis.

Book Review: Heresy: A history of Defending the Truth by Alister McGrath

I must confess that I found this book difficult to read, but at the same time I am willing to concede that this may quite rightly be more of a reflection on me than the book. 

This book I can say gives the  impression it is very thorough and even-handed in its historical analysis of heresy. Another impression this book gives is that the Christian community can be thankful that heresies and their continued occurrence down the ages are not only useful but essential, in that they provide the necessary backdrop for asking the essential question: Just what does constitute authentic Christianity? In this we see the truth in the words of Paul in his first letter to the  Corinthians:

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."  1 Corinthians 11:19

As C.S. Lewis said, one cannot call a line crooked without some idea of a straight line. And it is the impetus of the crooked in our midst that inspires us to better express what is straight. While for some, this may represent a disappointment in the book-  in that little discussion takes place as to what authentic Christianity is, the book, true to its subject, is all about the history of ideas that have claimed to be authentic Christianity and have been found wanting.

An important distinction made in this work is that Christianity began with few Creedal statements and a very basic set of beliefs about Christ. Again C.S. Lewis made another discerning comment- that good philosophy must exist if for no other reason than to answer bad philosophy- and this truth also applies to theology. The growth in the creedal affirmations and more methodical, systematic theology of orthodox Christianity grew out of the need to answer bad theology. So in a sense, as more and more subtle but on the whole sincere attempts to better articulate what was true about Christ in order to fit into the presuppositions of other worldviews, other thinkers joined the fray to protect the purity of the Gospel.

Although perhaps not a direct aim of the book, what comes abundantly clear to me, is that what is utterly vital if Christianity is to continue to be consistent with its 2000 plus years  of its history; is that eternal vigilance is the price of Christian liberty, and therefore the dialogue, the debate and the discussion must continue apace and this at least, is in the Spirit of Christ.

McGrath does an admirable job of showing how some of these attempts to redefine Christianity were motivated by a perceived need to genuinely make Christianity more palatable in terms of the contemporary thinking and culture of the time or the place in which they occurred. They were rebutted as the perception arose that these views tended to erode or destroy Christianity.

He examines the psychology of heresy. He rightly examines the tension that exists between authority and the role of conscience and how this played out historically in the reformation.

He also does a good job of making clear that when Christianity became a political force that heresy also was politicized. Heresy ceased -in a sense- to represent heterodox views but became merely the loser in a battle for power. This is an important distinction for today also, and a cogent reminder that there is much and warranted suspicion in today's context of post-modernism that "orthodoxy" is not connected necessarily to truth at all but exists merely as a ploy for power over others. As one would expect the lessons from history will continue to have a bearing on the direction that Christianity takes in the future. For that reason alone this is a valuable contribution to Christian thought.

The truth of the gospel is rightly thought of as, like our God-  “the same yesterday , today and forever” there is an unending legitimate progression of innovative ways to express these timeless truths, and as our knowledge of His world around us grows, so does this give us growing opportunities to express the Gospel in contemporary terms, for contemporary problems but without compromise. But it is this writers view that truth by nature is objective and universal and therefore  timeless- what changes is the culture and we need innovation in the sense of re-applying timeless truth to contemporary thought. I think there is inherent danger in the idea in McGrath's comment (p.221):

"Orthodoxy is thus, in a certain sense, unfinished, in that it represents the mind of the church as to the best manner of formulation of its living faith at any given time." 

What exactly does he mean here?The mind of the church is not necessarily the mind of Christ. If that is the sense he intends then well and good, however When Christ said "it is finished" he incorporated (and this is a good word) the sense of a finished and complete gospel. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..."  This then means that we need to strive for the true Gospel expressed in the best possible way for today, but not a gospel that is really in a state of flux, with constantly changing goalposts. There is a danger as Ravi Zacharias, speaking of the "emergent church", recently spelled out: "What! After 2000 years of Christian thought and suddenly we didn't know what Christ was on about!"

If there were to be any one statement that I would seriously call into question it is in the section about the Arminian controversy.(P214fwd)  McGrath proposes that the newly formed movement now known as Protestantism, while struggling with such heresies as anti-Trinitarianism,  "was able to deal with such heterodox trends by an appeal to the consensus of faith of the church as set out in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon." Earlier in the piece he said:"The Protestant approach to heresy worked well , providing it was restricted to the reaffirmation of the church's condemnation of existing heresies or their revival in new forms." And then, referring to the question of Arminianism which he alludes to a little further on, he questions: "Yet what of new religious teachings, arising specifically within Protestantism, that had no real precedents in earlier Christian history?Could these be described as heretical if they were found unacceptable?"

Firstly, the idea that Arminianism is wholly new is not entirely accurate. Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism had indeed already been dealt with (and seen to be heretical) in earlier councils and the new controversy was simply another angle on that. In that way Protestantism could have fallen back on the authority of the earlier councils but by extension relate it to the new-ish but related controversy.

 The question of predestination by God or whether-quote- "human beings were, if only to a limited extent, implicated in their own election...could equally claim to represent coherent interpretations of the Bible"   I see that as a most unfortunate framing of the controversy. Of course it is true that "human beings were...implicated in their own election." We must choose Christ or we are not saved, we are not, without that decision- of that number, the elect. To the extent then, of making a conscious decision, there is no doubt humanity is implicated in their own salvation and election. I don't know any Calvinists that would deny this. But I assume this is also quite clear to McGrath which is all the more reason why I wonder why he expressed it in this way. The real question is: does this choice, this act of human will originate and is it attributable directly to the Holy Spirit or is it an act of libertarian free-will? And that is where I most strongly object to the latter half of that statement where he concludes that either view: "could equally claim to represent coherent interpretations of the Bible". Cohere- yes but equally- no. Arminianism has been correctly diagnosed as the humanist approach to Christian soteriology. All that is good and true about Arminian theology is subsumed in Reformed thinking. Analogously Arminianism comports with a beautiful seascape complete with icebergs and all manner of interesting phenomena.The reformed view is the same but is- like the camera half in the water and half out- whereby all that lies beneath is laid bare and is of far more beauty, complexity and consequence than what shows above the water line alone.

Secondly, according to my reading of McGrath- it seems, to him at least, to represent an insurmountable problem for Protestantism- and that is how to deal decisively with heresy. McGrath seems to be alluding to an inherent problem within Protestantism and that was the question of authoritarianism over against the freedom of conscience. In so doing we can be thankful to McGrath for addressing a problem that is fragmenting Protestantism to this day. In the old authoritarian order the clergy- and in finality- the Pope, were authoritative in proclamations of the faith, it fell to them to make the final call and force that view. But, and this is where he rightly questions the robustness of Protestantism- how do we fare with questions that have not been dealt with before, what, in the absence of the final authority of the Pope- will become of questions of heresy?

Well in a word- they convene a council or synod and upon due deliberation make their decision as they did in the Synod of Dort where, after the 154th meeting, on May 9, 1619, voting representatives from the Dutch Reformed Church and eight foreign Reformed churches concluded that Arminianism was a heresy.

I believe that answer- and which I hope is not being unfair to McGrath to say so- is left somewhat unsaid in his book. The authority of scripture- Sola Scriptura, and the power of critical thinking and a good conscience are vital. The answer has to do with the very thing that McGrath has so ably set out before us in the history of heresy. That is- that we should continue to dialogue in the form of discussions, debates and whatever other tools that can be used to facilitate an awakened conscience to the claims of truth.

McGrath:

"A heresy is a teaching that the whole Christian church, not a party within the church, regards as unacceptable."

It appears that McGrath is attempting to adjudicate between the merits of an autocratic system where, on the one hand a supreme head (as in the Pope) forces a conformity to a judgement- such as the Arminian controversy- on the whole church, and where on the other hand -admittedly only a section of the church- declare a controversy to be heretical but leaves open the possibility of a divided, fragmented Christianity. The situation where there are as many "orthodoxies" as there are believers is  regrettable but I think preferable to forcing decisions of orthodoxy.  I believe he fails here to appreciate- despite writing a whole history of heresy- that though an autocrat may forcibly declare a controversy to be heresy on the whole church, it by no means stops the said heresy.In I think, words similar to his own, it goes underground and simply pops up somewhere else or at some other time. Force never really works, if a person just can't see the truth of a particular point, then forcing him to confess it is counter productive. As Luther reputedly said:

"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

The hierarchical structure of Judaism was not unlike the authoritarian muscle of  the Church before the Reformation (and in places of Protestantism today is looking distinctly like being repeated). What did Jesus do? He was notably angry with an authoritarian structure that was used for personal gain under the guise of "guardian of the faith", and indeed he suffered and died under this forced observance of Judaism as many  martyrs have since- under a forced "Christianity". His own form of leadership was more reasoned than it was autocratic. To imagine that the God who created all that exists ex nehilo- out of nothing, would, in the incarnation of Jesus, so engineer and limit his miracles in such a way that even his resurrection could be swept aside with a dismissive wave of incredulity- palpably and eloquently (if we have eyes to see)- demonstrates his attitude to force. This has been a characteristic of authentic Christianity ever since and long should it remain so. The magnitude and extent of his miracles were only ever- such that would gain him traction with the attention of his hearers- and from that point his energies were constantly focused on reasoning with people. And that is the answer to dealing with heresy.

One of the highlights of this book for me was the nugget mined up by McGrath on p.184:

“For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” Austin Farrer “The Christian Apologist”(1904-1968)

In summary, what I have said is, some may rightly contend, quite inadequate- and I would agree, to remedy this- I recommend you read his book.