Research Notes on Creation, Theology, and Science

Institute for Creation Research

Principles of Scientific Creationism https://www.icr.org/tenets

Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.) https://icr.edu/mced

To Build a Movement, to Develop Focus, and to Hatch a Plan

MVV

Core Value(s): To #ReturnToGod through Jesus Christ.

Mission: To work alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents

Vision: To build towards #TheFutureCity in the New Earth.

As a statement:

#ReturnToGod and work with #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents to build #TheFutureCity.

This statement takes the form of Initial, Progressive, Final, or in other words Already, but Not Yet.

Strategic Planning

1. Define your vision
2. Assess where you are
3. Determine your priorities and objectives
4. Define responsibilities
5. Measure and evaluate results

(Taken from: https://www.mural.co/blog/strategic-planning-process)

1. The vision of #TheFutureCity needs to be fleshed out. There are many visions out there. Every person, generation, intellectual camp, etc. has to set down their vision. My vision is the one that I can see most conforms to the vision I see in the Christian Bible, most notably in the book of Revelation. It is a theonomic theocracy (more on that later), a monarchial kritarchy, etc. (more terms for "archy" and "cracy" can be found here: https://phrontistery.info/govern.html).

2. The mission of working alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents is where we are at today. There are problems in public schools that we must fight along with other theists who are fighting those battles. There are problems in our laws that we must fight along with cultural Christians, Supreme Court Justices, Congress men and women, etc. You get the point. Insisting on only working with "the pure" will necessarily lead to failure of achieving our goals. "The Pure" do not exist, if you think they do, you yourself will eventually be excised from that group anyways, so what's the point?

3. Theology provides the foundation for all of life and thought. Start there. If you started somewhere else or left, #ReturnToGod.

4. This is something that will be done as the movement is fleshed out. In any case, each person should act in accordance with their conscience. So, take the principles we will present here and work them out! A lot of people will resist anything that's prescriptive, but some people crave structure (due to personality or other factors). Also children, the immature, or those with aging mental faculties could greatly benefit from that which is prescriptive. We shouldn't shy away from that which is prescriptive, we should shy away from totalitarian/authoritarian methods of enforcing prescriptions. We should also be charitable about them as they are often adiaphora, open-handed. The prescriptiveness of some religions are drawing people to them, Christians should consider it.

5. Time will tell. However, we will look to develop SMART Goals! Plan, Do, Check, Act is another methodology which can be employed (with some modifications, or at least clarity of actually understanding the methodology). This is often clarified by true understanding of mission and vision. Where there is no vision, God's people perishes. Often when we truly understand the problem, antithesis, whatever, the solutions seem to readily present themselves.

Everyone Has an Opinion and They...

Aw Shucks!

I posted my opinion on my social media page...

And someone said I was wrong!

BUT, their point wasn't about what I said, their response intimated that I was wrong to say it.

What nerve! I was over it, until...

They used the same form of argument (what I call, "the fight for truth") to support a different cause.

***WHAT?!***

Does this person "get it"? I don't think so. And if I said anything...I don't think we'd be friends on social media after that.

So...

Instead, I take up my "pen" (keyboard) to get my thoughts straight and put them out of my mind (literally) and onto the screen.

First, I'll record my 4/30/20 post here (in response to this video):

No arrests were made, thank God.

Do not read the following if you cannot handle [your own] cognitive dissonance:

In my internal monologue, Christians should never have stopped their religious rites. From the beginning there were contrarian epidemiologists who said Do Not Quarantine.

Interestingly, there were epidemiologists (not contrarian) who said We Are Already Too Late to implement mass quarantines.

I really do believe that we are obeying man out of fear (God is not the author of fear), instead of God. God says, "do not forsake gathering together."

'But God, we have livestreaming, video conferencing, and virtual communion!'

"Hmm. You're right. Your virtual obedience will be granted a virtual reward."

Remember, this is my internal monologue...

If this is acceptable, then it will be acceptable if I "virtual church" after the hysteria passes. If that is not acceptable, then why is forsaking gatherings acceptable now?

The science doesn't even support it. I want to be faithful to God and science (immunology). Both say you must have contact to Live.

But my God ordained authorities [civil and religious] say, "stay home." Since I haven't heard of any religious leaders in my area still meeting, I am resigned to unconscionable obedience or unconscionable rebellion.

Though my conscience has been violated, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. So that's worse. Hence my example of obedience from the beginning.

I ask God to break in on my internal monologue: should I move to a state/county where they didn't shut down? Should I move to a denomination that didn't shut down?

It doesn't exist. You can only find small pockets of resistance. Even I'm not resisting, but I am speaking out. Now you know why. Now you know my dissenting opinion.

But I've always been a contrarian. So this is no different. There is no place where this son of Adam can lay his head. Which is why, "here" is as good a place as any to take my stand.

Here I stand, I can do no other. I'm not resisting. It's not in my nature. But I'll not forsake truth.

I think breaking up this funeral to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion. I think quarantining the healthy and forbidding church gatherings to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion and peaceably assemble.

I believe the religious leaders' absolute obedience to the state to be a violation of God's law.

Before anyone tries to break into my internal monologue (which you are obviously free to do as I'm posting this publicly), I will tell you my basis of belief (so you don't have to waste your time).

I believe in the absolute inerrancy, infallibility of the Holy Scriptures as the Words of God. I hold a conservative approach to theology. Thus, I reject modernist interpretations (evolutionary theory, etc). I reject elitist interpretations (new perspective on Paul, etc).

I believe in obedience to authority and in holding our authorities accountable to the truth. No schism; unless they want to take off your head, then maybe schism.

I believe laissez faire is a biblical approach to the civil sphere. So my economics are Austrian (free market), my sociology is conservative.

I hold that most people are scientifically illiterate, to some degree. And those who fashion themselves to be "of science" are like the scientists that Isaac Newton was deathly afraid of (he was neurotic, but they were too political).

There is nothing "settled" in science. What "we know" is really what we believe based on our current understanding. You will always find reputable scientists disagreeing on the correct interpretation of the evidence.

You will always find scientists in politics, who seek to impose their view as the only orthodox position. Sadly this happens in the church too.

If you want to argue, I will always come back to these foundations, because it's why I believe what I believe. I know my "Why", do you know yours?

There were several decent comments and I gave thoughtful responses whether the commenters agreed with me or not.

One comment rubbed me the wrong way.

It has been my experience that, no matter how much you disagree with your bishop, it is best to work to agree with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

I responded:

 It has been my experience that, in order to "work to agree", the disagreement must be clearly stated.

I lack either truth (egregious), understanding (major), or clarity (minor).

Without searching out the matter, your medicine may be prescribed in error.

Without a conversation, how am I to know what I need to repent of?

I have a blog length, stream of conscious response if you're interested. It should be enough to help you understand where I'm at and to properly assess what kind of assistance I may require.

Thank you for your concern and taking the time to comment, I appreciate all feedback, even if I disagree or dislike it. I can only grow from the interactions :)

They did not respond.

Oh well.

I don't know if they lack either the ability or desire to respond. It surely makes it difficult to "speak with my enemies [frenemies, and even friends] in the gates."

I wrote a much longer, stream-of-conscious response that I did not post. I considered making it a blog post, but did not do that either. I thought the short response was better. But, I'll include my longer response here [with minor edits].

What I wanted to say...

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate the sentiment. 

But [your point is] similar to what I was sidestepping when I started attending and joined my current [Anglican Church in North America] ACNA parish. 

Although I didn't abandon my former [Presbyterian Church in America] PCA church or the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] OPC to which I considered myself to be an adherent of. I waited until the Navy moved me from SC to WA, to make the switch.

I would have agonized over leaving if I was a permanent resident in SC and still member of that church.

In consideration of the argument of authority that you brought in, should I go back to the PCA? Should I seek to formally transfer my membership out of the PCA? Does authority mean that I cannot disagree? Is it a silencing? When can I speak out for truth? When can I pursue it without fear of man? Any man?

I'm merely an aspirant [assuming you think I'm ordained, I'm not]. The ordination vows are one of the things that holds me back from relentless pursuit of ordination. My lack of [a Master of Divinity Degree] MDiv is what stops them from pursuing me, so to speak. 

One of the main reasons I left the PCA was my being convinced of paedocommunion. How could I stay and work towards agreement in that case? What about the lack of true Christian discipleship [that I did not get]? Not a lack of desire, but effective implementation. Or is assent merely enough?

I'm good enough at "playing the game" to know that I'm terrible at it and I don't care as much [about that] as I should care. I say, "No, no!" But then I obey anyways. Others say, "Yes, yes!" And get advanced to further their agendas. Who has done the will of the Bishop?

I am obeying. Am I to be silent? If I do not speak/write constructively, the fire in me will burn destructively.

If you can teach me to quench the prophetic spirit, I will follow your advice. I'd rather not carry this burden to [seemingly] feel everyone's pain and [ostensibly] know the truth being withheld from them.

My professional employers to date have tried to snuff it out. But I get the feeling that I can't give up, that I'm not supposed to. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do everything right, it means that I'm going to do what God has created me to do, but I'm willing to be corrected along the way.

How can I incorporate your correction? Can we sharpen iron and get to brass tacks in this matter?

Please don't mistake my questions as resistance. I really want to know. But I go deep into whatever I pursue, so you've got to be patient with my questioning and not take it personal (hard to do, I know).

To let you in on my process, I reduce everything into propositional thinking, if I can. This is why it can be tiring. If I'm wrong to do so--is it wrong for me to have left the independent Baptist Church when I left home for college and attended the OPC? Is it wrong for me to have left behind homophobia, legalism, bullying? No? Then after all that I've left behind in the pursuit of truth, why now have I seriously misstepped? Why is there a tendency among the ordained to mistake [what should be] servant leadership with authoritarian leadership (often in minute [or "seed"] form)?

Why do I notice and why does it bother me so much? And yet, I say nothing. Where is the forum in which I can faithfully express myself? I don't hold self-expression over faithfulness. But neither do I hold faithfulness as a lack of self-expression.

Matthew 18 suggests that if you're correcting me, that you do so privately. And if I resist, that you bring along others to establish the two witnesses requirement of biblical law.

I am not correcting my Bishop or priest [otherwise I'd be violating Matthew 18]. I have seen my priest act in [obedient to God] subversion to the state (according to my understanding), for which I am grateful, but I wasn't going to state it in the [original post] OP, for fear of getting him in trouble. 

More than correcting, I am writing in exasperation. And asking the question, which you did not answer, but instead told me to accept it and seek to agree with it.

I cannot seek to agree with it IF you give me no reasons. I must have the "why?" answered to be able to agree with it, given everything that I know. 

IF I did not post, everyone would think me in alignment. I would be certified "good" even if I [actually] disagreed or did not understand.

Instead, I question, in hopes that my concerns can be addressed, which makes me "bad" and not able to be certified [as "on the team"].

This is how it was in the previous bureaucratic hierarchy that I was employed by. I do not wish for this to be my future once again.

How am I to employ the gifts that God has given me? I'll rear seven boys with the same beliefs, but [to your apparent chagrin] they'll have more courage than I to stand and fight. Unless someone can tell me where I err on my thinking [I won't be changing how I bring them up].

Can you? Will you? I'd love to chat. I have no fear of being absolutely transparent. Either I'm mad or a "true believer". You tell me. Could I know if I was mad?

Everyone tells me I have such great kids, but they don't like to hear how I get the results. [Biblical, I'd say, but others think uncivil.]

Everyone thinks I'm a certain kind of person, but they have no idea as to the internal warfare going on in my [head,] heart and soul. You now have some clue.

Welcome to my internal thought life! Am I right or wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong, I need no reward for where I'm right, that's grace at work. I need Spirit and Christian community to tell me where I'm wrong, so I can continue to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. 

Sadly, [many] people love darkness more than light. I have sought for discipleship within the church and have been let down by those whom I've asked. The church hasn't failed though. My discipleship has happened through their unkind corrections, through internal conviction by the Holy Spirit, and a lot of reading [late] theologians/pastors.

So, while I glean what I can from others, I'm seeking to reestablish a modern catechumenate. One that redeems the totality of the person for Christ. It's scary because I've learned that servant leadership means getting held accountable by those whom you serve!

I drafted this, but did not publish it. Recently however, this person made social media posts that advocate the fight for truth. They essentially made the same point I was trying to make. The only difference is in what social issue they chose to fight for. I suppose they aren't inconsistent with their post. The Bishop would have to disagree with their stance on that social issue, so I'm not accusing them of being inconsistent.

Rather, I'm saying that I can take their posts and seamlessly substitute my social issue for theirs. I am about to quote their posts with my social issue inserted in place of theirs. Here is their 5/28/20 post [with my edits].

I "Loved" what they posted...

As a theologian it is easy to fall into the trap of a [sic] worshipping a God who has become a specimen for examination, dissection, and analysis. A God that lives in a petri dish or in jar of formaldehyde or in a cage next to the other rodentia upon which we subject our experiments only to be left in the lab at the end of the day, apart from the daily messes that our short lives on this spinning ball in a seemingly endless universe is no God at all.

This sort of God stands silent in the face of the atrocities that [the powers of this world] inflict upon [the oppressed] and remains silent as we politicize those atrocities. But this is not the God of Christianity. Yes, our God stood silent in the face of [persecution] and [tyrannical] power and remained silent in the face of [despotic rule] ending in his own execution at the hands of both an oppressive power structure and the zeal of those who lived beneath its foot. But he did so then in our stead...so that we, His people, need not stand silent. His silence before Pilate leading to the cross is the space into which we now speak - not before a Roman Governor but before our own failed systems of power and control [promoted by our states' governors and legislators].

We speak into it neither with lack of self control nor with fear but with purpose. We are not called to speak as oppressors or oppressed, slave or free, jew or greek, male or female but as citizens of a Kingdom in which such atrocities as the [depriving people of their livelihoods] have no place. We speak from a place not of what we are trying to make the world into but from a place of what we believe God is doing, here and now.

We challenge power when power becomes [corrupt] precisely because such power has no place in the world. We challenge zeal when zeal has lost the plot and becomes about [fear-based control] and not justice. Our words are actions, our actions our prayers, [sic] and our prayers, we believe, can change the world.

Let us pray for the soul of [each person deprived of their livelihood] and of all other victims of [state] violence and atrocity...let us pray for our city, our world...and then let us go out into that world as those sent to live in it as it ought to be in opposition to the imperfect and oppressive status quo.

I wish I wrote my original post with such passion! Not really, I would have been seen as too extreme, so my words were more measured. Only because this person wrote in line with the mainstream rhetoric could they write so freely.

Oh that my beliefs walked in silver slippers!

And their 6/5/20 post [with my edits].

Keep writing letters to your various political leaders. Keep making phone calls.

They have [questioned the constitutionality of the lockdowns], but change has still not come to our system of government. Especially important is citizen review for the [governors' executive orders] - where we the people have a say in how we are [governed] and served.

Don't forget to include city officials as well. We need change on a city by city basis too!

So, in response to their improved words (tongue-in-cheek), I will respond as they responded to me.

It has been my experience that, where my bishop has remained silent, so will I. If he is not speaking out against the systems of power, neither will I feel compelled to, though society demands it. No matter how much you disagree with your bishop's silence, it is best to work to align with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

Hmm. Not a fan, though I use their words back to them. You can see what Jesus meant when He said, judge not...

For your own judgment will be used against you. If your own words used against you seem to reduce to absurdity, then they were absurd when first uttered. That is my judgment. Please, for my own sanctification, use what judgment I use against me. If I am found wanting, I shall repent.

Go and do likewise.

So what is my point? 

I'm not leveling a charge of inconsistency, but one of justice. It is not just to try to silence me by appealing to a vow which I have not taken. Even if I had, it seems to me that it would still not be just. When we switch the issue to their pet social issue, it becomes glaringly obvious.

They would not stand by in the face of a Bishop that follows society into a violation of social justice. 

Why should I be compelled to follow my Bishop into what I perceive to be a violation of true justice.

I'm not accusing my Bishop of malice. I think there is a discussion to be had, which hasn't happened. I think even if my Bishop agreed with me, the path chosen may still have remained.

Why?

Because discretion is the better part of valor. If enough people in the diocese would feel mislead by a Bishop going against the state, he would be hard pressed to lead them against subtle tyrannies. 

"Live to fight another day," or in this case, live to fight against egregious tyrannies.

Is God's Kingdom in Earth? Heaven? Both?

I'm not treating the title specifically, but more pointedly. This blog post started out as a facebook comment, which has grown in size beyond the etiquette of posting on facebook! This is in response to a post on an eschatology (the study of the "last things") forum, "Postmillennialism - The Eschatology of Hope."

Short response:

Mark 9:1 "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

If this is a friend and/or friendly debate, it's probably worth it, but if it's just an avatar on the screen, *shrug*--ya' know?--discretion is the better part of valor.

If you really want to engage, check out my longer response at your leisure.

Feedback is always appreciated! Please let me know what you think. God bless!

Long response:

My Story
In my experience, all thinking is circular. That's not to say "all arguments are circular", which is a very different thing. Revelation breaks upon us and wrests our pride away from us, if we allow it. In our humility, we can stop justifying our beliefs and "transcend" what we hold as inherently true.

God has done this for me in my life. My father/the church did this for me from my youth. David Chilton/Gary North did this for me when I was 18 yrs old. Everyone I interact with becomes a source for me to rethink my thinking.

Why do I say this? If you subscribe to a coherent system of thought [of which Augustinian-Calvinism vs. Pelagian-Socinianism (per AA Hodge) are the two rival, theological systems], then you must understand the evidence proffered as proof from within that system and how it's necessary to that system to function. Anything less is throwing stones.

My opinion.

Note, most arguments are just stone-throwing-contests. It's why I've bowed out of general debate, which I did heavily in my twenties. I'm in my thirties now and OH SO WISE! (sarcasm of course; really, just burned enough, when I realized that even I didn't know what "Calvinism" actually was even though I defended it. Herman Bavinck helped).

How to Respond?
For a practical turn here from "my story", what can this person offer as evidence of their claim "Postmil[lennialism] by implication contradicts that and many other texts."?

You can continue to try and defend your stated position, but how well do you know it? People are often tripped up, not because they are defending the truth or a lie, but because they can't seem to defend it.

I believe a commitment to truth keeps more people in it than ability to defend it and that's okay. Obedience is more important than the sacrifice it takes to become a superb thinker/speaker/debater.

In "defense" of thy kingdom come...
I understand what they're saying. From their perspective this "proof text" does not constitutes proof. Agreed! Check out Mark 9:1 for something more like a proof text.

But their response fits well my understanding of thy kingdom come. Let me explain...

Theoretical and Practical Postmillennialism
IF they actually do what they're saying, I'd argue that the faithfulness of the bride increases AND influence increases. Or else the church is impotent.

What the church militant does in history is the apparent way the kingdom advances on earth (by His direction). If they reject that, fine. If they can't understand postmillennial thinking as a system of thought, well "aye there's the rub."

Epistemology (How we know "what we know")
Appealing to "context" is not a good argument against systematics. It's a good argument against eisegesis, aka "forcing in" our thoughts. But who would accuse Jesus or any of the Apostles with interpreting out-of-context when they applied the Old Testament in ways that were hitherto unconventional?

This person claims that postmillennial implications contradict Jesus' teaching. Can they show how? How can you be expected to respond with "truth in love" if you have nothing to respond to?

I wish I could sit down with every person I disagree with and we could logically work through every disagreement. Alas, this will not happen. And there's not enough time.

I hope this helps as you think through important issues.

Woman as Shield and Protector

I'm supposed to be writing a paper on authority. It's going to defend Paul's words according to the direct reading, but it's also going to dig a little deeper and find some agreement with the egalitarian position, though my paper will likely be seen as "complementarian." The problem is that Paul only seems to tell "half the story." Here, in this post, I try to finish "the other half" so that I can crystallize my thoughts. This will allow me to get back to report writing.

Let's begin with Psalm 3:3 (NIV).

But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head. 

The Head of the Woman is Man

As I was thinking about the nature of "male-headship" (in I Cor 11:3-10), I wondered what it could possibly mean, other than "authority over," which is a forced concept. Although this is the nature of systematic theology:  you are trying to tie loose scriptures together into a coherent system of thought. Sometimes it looks like Picasso.

Paul uses the word "head" for a reason (I think he means head) and it's not directly apparent when you have the debates between Christian feminists and patriarchalists bouncing around in your head! As I continued to read, I realized that Paul is talking about this in relation to head coverings. I wondered, 'is Paul insinuating the head as a form of covering?'

As I thought about coverings, the shield as a motif of scripture popped into my mind. I searched for verses on shields and pulled up a page with ten verses on God being our shield. I noticed one verse that talked about God being our helper and shield. Then I thought of woman as helper. My next thought was, "Is woman as helper also shield?"

The Shield Lifts the Head

I then realized the connection between the shield and the lifting up of the head. Warriors hang their head in defeat when they have no "shield." It is when they feel fortified that they can lift their heads and face their enemies! The shield's effect is to protect and as a byproduct, lift the head ("lift the head" means so much more than that, but it also means just that too, so it's enough for now).

This dovetails cleanly with the imagery of the husband as head. That means the wife is the "body." Yes, she even turns the head! Lifting up of the head is one of the ways in which she has the power to turn the head. The head needs the body, the body needs the head.

Woman Represents God as Protector

In any case, I am seized with the idea that woman represents God as protector. This cuts against the grain of so much of what I have heard. But as I ponder what my "momma bear" would not do to protect her children, I know it is true. Woman is the protector.

Most of us also know woman as the nurturer. Putting them together, I see the woman as the nurturer-protector. It is in this way that she represents God. God is nurturing. God is our protector. Woman is the nurturer to the little ones. Woman is protector of her home. This is normative. I'm not speaking about theories.

What is Woman?

Woman is life: she is the mother of all living. Woman is occupier: she carries the life of the child within her. Woman is nurturer: she feeds the babies. Woman is protector: when evil comes to hurt her child, she contends with evil.

Woman is intelligent. The studies show it. Women know it. Interestingly, in the paradigm where man is "the authority," and the woman must appeal, the more complex position requiring greater intelligence is the appellate role. It's easy for a simpleton to say, "No!" It's eminently more difficult and requires greater intelligence and finesse to appeal the decision, thereby "turning the head."

You may think I'm justifying a broken system. I disagree. And I'm willing to have a discussion about this. I have thoughts about what this means for man.

Man Represents God's Authority

In the direct reading of scripture, man is the head. Traditionally, when taking all of scripture together, man is understood to be the leader of the home and the prototypical leader of the church. If woman is nurturer-protector, then man is leader-and what?

Is it a stretch to look for symmetry? I don't think so. What emerges is that man is leader-'judge.' In the servant leadership paradigm, his leadership is a "submissive" function. It's in the judging that the power-under-authority is exercised. Wait a second.

Woman Also Represents God's Authority

What does this mean about the role of women? The protector role is also an authority function! This makes the nurturer role a submissive function, as it expresses servant-hood, similar to leadership. So men and women both represent the authority of God, but in different, dare I say 'complementary,' ways. Likewise, men and women both represent the submission of God, but in different ways.

Men and Women in Unity Actually Represent God's Authority

Each without the other, we cannot represent God fully in his authority nor can we represent him fully in his humility. But there are differences in roles. So if Paul says that he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over men, it's in the leading-judging way that is meant. Women are not meant to cast their own vision, but to flesh out the vision of the man (similarly, men are not to cast "their own" vision, but to cast the vision which belongs to Christ; I know you'll think I'm equivocating, I'm not. However, it's too big to discuss in a parenthetical). And when I say man and woman, I really mean husband and wife, in the sense that marriage is normative in Christianity.

But women are to exercise authority in the form of protection. No man will oppose this, not in his right mind!

Why Do We Need Authority Anyways?

While there is evil in this world, God will need judges (those who sentence) and protectors (those who implement) on the earth. He has set up a paradigm *in the creation order* along the lines of sex, however unfair it may seem. I take this to be normative, but I don't take it to be exclusive ("I do not permit ... " would seem exclusive, but as I've stated, I think it's because it's a judging authority, vice a protecting authority, which is an authority under the judging authority. Think 'judge and bailiff').

Also note that in the absence of men exercising the judgment function of leadership (i.e., leading authority), women have risen up to exercise their protection function (i.e., nurturing authority) as a substitute. Because I don't view these roles as exclusive, I do not argue against temporary, limited, or minimal role-reversals. It is not normative, but I don't think it is forbidden. "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial."

Back to the Beginning

Over the years, my wife and I have worked out these concepts in our marriage. You may say that it is only for our marriage. Okay, but is true peace only for my marriage too? What about happy, obedient children? Is that only for my family or is it for all families? There are scriptural principles which apply to all.

Whether you accept or reject them is another issue entirely. I know my wife has been my shield. I know how she has protected this family. I know how she has protected others outside of our nuclear family. That is her role. It is normative. She does it without thinking about it.

Those of us who ponder things could learn a lot by observing those who do not. I didn't have to tell my wife to be a shield, she just is. But, ya know, now that I've told her that she's a shield, she understands her role much better. She can live in freedom. And so can I, because she's got my back! She is my earthly shield, protector, helper, and defender!

UPDATE 8/24/19:
I read an article which refined my thinking about the paradigm (see edits above inside the asterisks) being tied to creation order vice the curses at The Fall. Check it out: http://www.rabbisaul.com/articles/childbearing.php

My Terribly-Stream-of-Consciousness Answer

Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!

Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him. 

Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it.  Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.

As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence.  Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.

I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought.  The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions.  If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.

We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles?  If God is for us, who can be against us?

I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture.  I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).

There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture.  All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives.  To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.

Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points.  Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.

This undermines consistent reasoning.  If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.

Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.

In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.

If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?

The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it.  They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.

I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God.  I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision.  I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.

I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program.  I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.

I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes.  As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more.  Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.

After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating.  This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism.  In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.

If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad.  That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it.  This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly.  Instead it will be a by-product.

Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present.  Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world?  Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life?  Only  Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.

Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous.  They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times.  When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented.  Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.

Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled?  You betcha!  And it is then that we are taken.  Every time.  Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").

Some may consider me uncultured.  Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be!  But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion.  And I am a critic.  I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.

That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe!  Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing  PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent.  These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.

Their depth exceeded their breadth.  I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).

I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp.  I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself.  I trust those whom I read who have done so.  If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.

But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing.  Why entertain fantasies?  Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!). 

Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin!  We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God.  But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.

I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped.  Character first; knowledge second!  Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).

Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life.  If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).

I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters.  We should influence, not be influenced.  This proposition is not a simple one to implement.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

The Long Answer to a Fairly Complex Question (Short Answer is Bolded)

NT 500:  Introduction to the New Testament
Dr. Cletus Hull
Starter Question (in italics) - Week 1 (posed by a classmate)

My first question is: I wonder if there is anything instructive for us today in looking at how the Hellenistic world received the gospel.

Do we know such things?  Can we homogenize the Hellenists that came to faith into a single group in order to do such things?  If so, we should figure it out and employ what we learn.  

We are saved as individuals and a body...Yes, but can we really talk on grand scales?  I see balance between objective/corporate faith and subjective/individual faith, but I have a hard time talking about overarching schemes at the expense of the introverts of the world.

I think we need to be careful about viewing our efforts on the grand scale.  Did the "Hellenistic world" receive the Gospel, or did individuals receive the Gospel?  I ask these questions, but as I come to the end of these thoughts, I realize that half of people (possibly more than half) are extroverts.  

But this thought only complicates matters.  Some people align themselves along social norms.  Are they to be condemned for doing so if they are aligning themselves with the Christian faith?

Does this bear out the necessity of the Christian nurture of our covenant children?  If so, shouldn't we be fighting for Judeo-Christians ethics as the basis for civil law? More than that?  I think I raise more questions as I attempt to share my thoughts!

Are there any similarities with how people are inclined to hear the story of Jesus today? 

I hear your question about similarities, but first I have to address a dissimilarity so that I can move past it to your questions.  The Greeks and Romans lived in a time before Christ and the ascendancy of the Christian church.  

We, in the West, live among pagans who know that Christianity is/was the dominant religion of the West.  I think it's important to keep this in mind as we talk about the enemies (aka, the mission field) of the cross.  It is especially important if/when we discuss a special case: militant/hostile ex-Christians.

"It's all about peace man."  I feel like a lot of people (in the Pacific Northwest) hold to the idea, "It's okay to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  Partnering with the idea of peace, we can talk about the Prince of Peace.  

People will resonate with the idea that Jesus was "all about peace."  It gets tricky when we have to talk about forsaking all else to follow Jesus (i.e., the point of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 10:34).  Ultimately Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  

We will eventually have to teach ethics, which will run contrary to "do whatever you want."  I think we need to learn how to understand, then teach the concept of accountability as a tool for promoting peace (cf. Matt 18:15).  I believe there is a way to have these discussions with pagans, ex-Christians, "unchurched," etc.

Could we describe certain aspects of our culture as neo-pagan, and should this impact how we minister and bear witness in our own present day?

Absolutely!  Self-consciously so, in fact.  People in the West are purposely throwing off the "schackles" of Judeo-Christian ethics.  You don't have to look far to see the cultural fascination with pre-Christian paganism.

Before we got rid of Netflix, there was a whole slew of new shows coming out which heavily featured pre-Christian paganism.  While we had Netflix I watched/knew of several shows featuring magic (the practice of which was a capital crime in the OT).

As the ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Gospel spread, we will come to face violent opposition (until/unless revival really happens; I'm neither a doomsdayist nor a revivalist).

Understanding where people are coming from will always help in how we frame the discussion.  Ultimately, that's what we're talking about, right?  How should we frame the discussion knowing what people believe?

See Matthew 10:16ff.

I wonder what their experiences of living under oppression and waiting for a messiah can teach us about bearing witness to Jesus in our own age, in which we wait not for a messiah but for his return. 

As long as we understand a few things.  Jewish captivity came as a result of covenant breaking.  We are not under severe oppression in the West, though it could happen.  Anything can happen!

Did they obey the law of God?  Did God bless them as He promised to do so in the law?  I think these would be strong indicators of what model of faith to follow.  Even after God could have rejected them for breaking covenant with Him, he continued to bless them when they were faithful, even in the years of captivity and oppression (brought about by their own disobedience!).

But this is the pattern shown to us by scripture.  God's mercy endures forever!  He wouldn't bring back the Israelites from Egypt too soon.  He wouldn't bring judgment on the Amorites before their time.  God is gracious and we should not presume on His kindness.  

He left a Priestly order in the city of Salem (Melchizedek, cf. Hebrews 7:3) calling them back to repentance.  How many generations scoffed and God was patient?  We don't know.  We only know the bits we have in scripture.

So we wait.  We occupy till He comes.  No matter what.  I believe that's what the faithful Jews did.

Overall, my question is: What is important about the religious and cultural milieu into which Jesus was born? 

For me, understanding this milieu helps me tie in even more strongly to what Jesus did and said.  If he had grown up in an ascetic community, it might be easy to write him off as a product of his upbringing.

However, he astounded people because a "person of the land" was not 'supposed' to live a holy life or speak with such authority/doctrine.  But he did.  We would be wise to hear him.  I am encouraged that what I learned as a Pentecostal youth still applies.

I can live for Christ with abandon!  If this statement does not make sense, try to follow Jesus words explicitly and see what opposition you find.  Apply Jesus' words principally and even more resistance will develop.

Jesus grew up around people like us.  He gave us an example of holiness we can follow.  He gave us an example of learnedness that we can follow!  Praise be to God!

Should we study it purely to understand the history of the early church, or can we see in that world a parallel to our world, especially now that we are living in a society that many are calling post-Christian?

History is as bad as memory.  We can learn from it.  We can also "rewrite" it.  How we frame the narrative matters a lot.  I think we should study history so that we can learn from it.  In my mind, there would be no greater purpose for "understanding" the history of the early church.

Of course, I'm a fish in water.  I live in a "post-Christian" world (haha).  Transport me to a different time and place; maybe I would think otherwise.

Dr Hull chimed in:

I would love to hear about the methods people in the class are reaching others for Christ in a neo-pagan and post-Christian world. What can we learn from how the apostle Paul dealt with this situation?

See Ecclesiastes 12:9-12.  I think there is wisdom in understanding Greco-Roman culture and beliefs but there is also a danger.  I think there is wisdom in learning what people today believe, but there is also a danger.  

As Tolkien said in the Fellowship of the Ring, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill.”  Be careful in trying to integrate worldly philosophies/ideas (note: I am an "integrationist" according to the Assoc. of Certified Biblical Counselors; though I consider Biblical counsel 'alone' to be the starting point.  I know, I know, we always read from our context!).  Colossians 2:8 may apply here.

See Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

Truth is truth.  Philosophers will eat me alive for saying what I just said but [T]here is a simple truth (wisdom) in obedience.  It is not complex, but it is true.  

Growing up in fundamentalist circles, I have seen the misuse of Scripture as pretexts for whatever rules seemed right.  And yet, I also see that the scriptures may be reduced to principles and adapted/applied.  

However, I have come to learn that a lot of people do not read things the way I do.  For those who can get to the principles of scripture using an English bible, the study of languages, history, and culture will move us from reading "black and white" to reading in "technicolor"!  

For our more linear thinkers, these studies are indispensable.  They must get to the original mindset of the writers with more effort (they have incredible strengths elsewhere, but intuitively getting to the writer's mindset is not one of them.  The ability to predict what someone would say is reason enough to assume you understand them.  Take 'em or leave 'em; those 'er my thoughts!).

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Notes: Comparing The Trinity and The Three Aspects of Transcendence/Immanence

Transcendence/Immanence: Creation, Redemption, Revelation

[Five Point] Covenant Theology

Reference:  That You May Prosper, Ray Sutton (at https://www.garynorth.com/SuttonCov.pdf)

Here are the five points identified (for an explanation read Sutton's book!).

T - Transcendence/Immanence/Sovereignty

H - Hierarchy/Authority/Legal Representation

E - Ethics/Laws/Obligations

O - Oath/Sanctions/Reward/Punishments

S - Succession/Continuity/Inheritance

Sutton quotes Meredith Kline, 

The purpose of the covenantal Preamble is thus to proclaim the lordship of the Great King, declaring transcendence and immanence and making it clear from the outset that his will is to be obeyed by the vassals, his servants. Biblical treaties set forth God's transcendence and immanence by referring to one or more of three activities: creation, redemption, and revelation.

Sutton's footnote citation: "David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 49. Emphasis in original."

Heidelberg Catechism

Reference at:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.vi.html

Part of the discussion of the necessary articles of true Christian belief (i.e., the "Apostle's" Creed) follows.

Question:  "How are these articles divided?"

Answer:  "Into three parts:  The first is of God the Father and our creation; the second, of God the Son and our redemption; the third, of God the Holy Ghost and our sanctification."

My Thoughts

I have previously identified (though it appears I have never written it down) the connection of the five points of the biblical covenant with the three persons of the Trinity in terms of roles(? Help me clarify this connection!).  I will outline it here.

T - God the Father
H - God the Son
E - God the Son
O - God the Son
S - God the Holy Spirit

This lends credence to the emphasis on Jesus, but reminds us that we are Trinitarians and why it matters.  I will have to write more on the reasons and implications in another post.

The point I am trying to make concerns the three aspects of transcendence/immanence and its explicit-though-not-exclusive relation to the roles of each person of the Trinity (I don't think the Heidelberg Catechism would have intended an exclusive position either. Certainly the Father created, but we know He created through/with/by the Son).

Incidentally, the Heidelberg Catechism identifies two aspects of transcendence/immanence with two persons of the Trinity (i.e., Father and creation; Son and redemption).  I am merely proposing identifying the third aspect of transcendence/immanence, Revelation, with the Holy Spirit.  Instead of sanctification* we should talk about the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of revelation, specifically general revelation** as realized through the growth/maturity of the church on earth.  Or as Jesus said it, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples" (John 13:35, ESV, emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Anyways, getting back to the Heidelberg Catechism, this means that the true articles which must be believed are simply statements concerning God's transcendence/immanence (point 1 of the covenant).  

Philosophical Postscript (I'll toss this in here for free!)

We see the full participation of the Trinity in the first point of the covenant.  If we looked at each point of the covenant, we would find the same pattern.  It is fractal-like.  This implies (or maybe I've merely inferred) that as we break down all of reality into its component pieces, we should be able to identify the full participation of the Trinity at each distinctive point.

Footnotes:

*On a side note, sanctification as a theological term may not be enough to quantify the relevant issues (I have previously posted about the weaknesses of the theological terms: justification and sanctification at http://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2015/02/using-bible-to-define-justification-and.html).  

**According to Sutton, special revelation aligns with the third point of the covenant, ethics, which I explicitly-though-not-exclusively associate with Jesus.  To illustrate this, Sutton, supporting his supposition that "history is covenantal", has a footnote which contains the statement, 'the third point of covenantalism called "ethics," or law, being "special revelation" to man'.  This forces me to clarify my association of revelation to the work of the Holy Spirit with the term general revelation.  Also implied, is that Redemption, an aspect of transcendence/immanence, through the person of Jesus shares a connection to Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions.  To be clear, you are not saved by external observance of God's laws.  You are saved by the lawgiver, unto good works (as exemplified by Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions).

PSA: Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You

PSA or PST or (P)
I continue to think about the critiques of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement.  Here are my latest meanderings!

The article at this link isn't a defense per se, but it's a good read.  I hope that it could help as you think through your take on penal substitution.

Years ago I wrote a blog post pertinent to sin and redemption, which covers Christology, Anthropology, and Soteriology.  I identify the only two internally consistent rival theological systems of thought in Christianity and a third compromise system.  Most Christians likely fall into the compromise position, somewhere along a spectrum of developed theology.  You can find it here.  The post largely captures what I believe, though I might state things today in a more nuanced way to achieve a greater specificity in some areas or to open it up to more debate in other areas.

Flipping through the dissertation (The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement by Blaine Swen) has led me to some further conclusions:

• I believe the author is Arminian and develops his theology along these lines.  This means that many of our fundamental premises will differ (I am a Calvinist).  Also see my blog post linked above on why this is an issue.  His reference list is radically different from what mine would be, if that makes sense.
• I am interested in the idea that Jesus appeared to forgive without demanding reparation.  The author of the dissertation does not put a citation in that sentence, but cites a Calvinist presentation in the previous paragraph (a bunny trail here, I follow up in the fourth bullet) (read it here).  As I am a Calvinist, I am interested why a speaker would say something that I would take issue with.  But it became clear to me after listening (reading software!) to most of his speech that we come from different camps regarding the continuity between the OT and NT as specifically relating to the application of biblical law in the NT church (I am a Theonomist).
• In searching for the speech I just mentioned (I found the above link on this page), I discovered a [late] former evangelical christian then agnostic atheist who criticized penal substitution.  Interestingly he also criticizes Philosophical Theology.  I kind of agree with his assessment of Philosophical Theology as he sort of agrees with my position (I am a Presuppositionalist), though he does not perfectly represent it.
• After realizing I was looking at the wrong citation, I edited the second bullet and followed through on the relevant citation. Perusing the Google book, looking up names (Rene Girard ... mimetic desire and scapegoat mechanism ... NO!), and reading the back cover has left me bewildered why the author of the dissertation would even quote this book favorably.  Maybe the philosophies align with his Arminianism.

I truly believe that the biblical approach to be taught is to reason from scripture (theology) not to reason to scripture (philosophy).  There is an inherent danger in attempting to reason to scripture.  I think that all Christians should be shepherded to reason from scripture and only mature Christians should be encouraged to join the great discussion (speaking with the enemy in the gates) and attempt to reason to scripture.  There is the danger of sophistry and making shipwreck of ones faith as Ken Pulliam did.

Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You
As I have reviewed these issues I am reminded that theological camps differ greatly and that premises determine outcomes (if arguments are cogent).  That being said, I don't wish to end the discussion but I would rather discuss presuppositions, world views, philosophical underpinnings, etc.  If you want to know why someone would be a Calvinist or the type of Calvinist that I am, I would love to discuss it.  Anything else is window shopping (as opposed to "how did the product get there?").  Choosing your theological camp largely determines your theological positions with regard to specific doctrines.  That sounds like a tautology.  But my point is to say that arguing which building has the greater structural integrity without discussing foundations is futile.

Musings and Interesting Articles

What I wanted to find was an accurate map or globe.  I've seen different map projections over my life and during my time spent as a civil engineering student.  While searching for this information, I read an article on the true size of continents in relation to each other linked to a cool little resource.  Check out this interactive map.  I was reminded about the earth being an oblate spheroid and learned that it's not really perceptible to us, so a sphere globe is fine.  I read an engaging article about the earth being a "bumpy spheroid."  What I found interesting is a quote by geophysicist Richard Gross about the crust "rebounding upward on the order of a centimeter a year."  He calls it postglacial rebound.  In my mind, I cross-referenced it as possible data supporting the earth expansion (EE) theory.  So, is the crust rebounding or is it bounding or both/neither?

Returning to my informal online research, I find this snippet about the earth gaining mass.  Hmm.  Physicist Dave Ansell attributes it to space dust and an effect of global warming (BTW, it's 0.4% of the mass that space dust adds, but hey "global warming").  What I'm really interested in however, is the nuclear reactor that he says is at the center of the earth!  If I remember correctly, this is the sort of thing that the EE theory says is at the center of every planet (obviously every star too, but that's not disputed; although fusion vice fission, eh, a topic for a different discussion).  Getting back to the article, the writer states that Uranium is the "most dense substance in our planet."  But there are transuranic elements!  What is he saying?  Oh, maybe it's in reference to actual availability instead of mere possibilities that can be created "in the lab" (or in the cores of nuclear reactors!).  So, let's take a look at a graph of abundance of the elements in the earth's crust (on a log scale).  Anything not on this graph, is just about theoretical (I mean, we predicted it and produced it or found it somewhere and documented it, but we don't dig the stuff up).  Despite having been challenged to think about the reality of the earth's elements outside of the framework of the periodic table of the elements, it seems like the Space Daily article will be a fun read for most scientifically minded people.

As I was reading this article (haven't finished it yet), I'm reminded about what Eric P. Dollard says about the creation of mass that occurs from "the square root of negative one."  It makes me think about God in the act(s) of creation.  I think, if a uranium powered natural reactor is "powering" the earth from the inside, what are it's capabilities?  Does it take part in the creation of substances we find in the earth?  We know that elemental decay is required to initiate and sustain the nuclear chain reaction.  But what about creation?  Can the decay (or spontaneous creation and recombination) of elements be a part of the creative or re-creative process?  Is God using the decay even now for "making all things new" (Revelation 21:5)?

These thoughts seem far outside the scope of scientific inquiry.  But I make no qualms.  God created the world; I am simply trying to figure out how he did it.

The (In/De)structive Power of Knowledge

ty·pol·o·gy
tīˈpäləjē
noun
1. a classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences. "a typology of Saxon cremation vessels"
2. the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible.

The "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" as Typology

In the garden of Eden, mankind was tempted to disobey God and to acquire knowledge outside of the timeline providence had laid out. I believe that every single one of us, fail in the exact same way as we choose independence from God as our first sin. We seek knowledge, experience, and life in ourselves: the very definition of selfishness. This can strike at any age. If you haven't looked into the face of a child, you understand that previous statement. But it matters little. You have but to speak truth in your heart to discover where you have done this in your life. I am ever the pursuer of greater knowledge. This has led me to the worst experiences of my life. Conversely, obedience followed by an unraveling of true knowledge has led to the best experiences of my life. By 'best' and 'worst,' I mean that my experiences themselves haven't changed much but my perception of them has. So what is typology and what are we looking at today? Think of the word symbolism when you read 'typology' and you'll be mostly there. It's more than that, but that will suffice for now. Today, I want to explore the idea that we can get too much knowledge too quickly or the wrong kind of knowledge too early.

Let's start with the easy examples. A two year old learns to unlock the house doors. He wanders out of the house at his leisure, which is dangerous if you live anywhere. Cars, animals, geography can quickly snuff out a life that acquired knowledge before self control. Oh, and then there's sex and drugs. I wonder what it's like? Pleasure is a type of knowledge. Ever heard of carnal knowledge? In our adolescence we explore. Are we doing so before we have the requisite character to exert self control? In most cases, I'm guessing, that is how it is. Anecdotally, I know it to be true for too many people. Lest I subscribe to an error of generalization, I look for more evidence in self reflection and in the source of true knowledge: christian holy scriptures. Upon reflection, I know that when I have pursued carnal knowledge, it has ruined my relationships. Weathering the storm, I realized if I had but followed the simple truths I knew to be true, but did not trust to be true, my life would be on a "higher path," so to speak. I say this as a warning to those who think themselves clever or wise. Follow the old wisdom and you will save yourself much heartache in life. I now understand that God had a timeline laid out for me. I would have learned what he wanted me to learn but it would have been in his timing and his way of doing business. The timing would not have been to my liking. I want to know things as soon as I can but it's not always for the best. Additionally, his way would have caused me a lot of turmoil but doing it my way cost me more. In the scripture, Judah and Dinah each in their own stories wanted to experience what others around them were experiencing but it did not go so well for them. Of course we have the prototypical story of Adam and Eve in the garden. They were supposed to eat of the Tree of Life. They were supposed to live forever! They were supposed to build their character and self control, in short become mature people. Then and only then would God grant them fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowledge of Good and Evil is not bad, but it is very bad to give that fruit to a child, this includes people who are "children" in their intellectual understanding and/or emotional maturity. I have not reached this conclusion lightly. But I do believe there is an innocence which must be protected in children. Training for obedience is the best way to do it. Everything else is secondary, but almost equally as important. In my line of work we say, "Trust but verify." It's exactly the right way to conduct this messy business of life. Find someone worth trusting, trust me on this, then trust them. Then verify that what they say is true. We do not advocate for blind trust here, but we do advocate for a thinking trust and loyalty. Back to obedience, children really want to know what it's like to grab that knife, but obedience serves them far better and when they develop the maturity to handle the knife, their curiosity has not lessened one bit, but there self control and self discipline has shot through the roof.

Now after saying all of that, I am not saying we should leave everyone in the dark until they blindly obey. I don't want blind obedience. I want obedience. (Babies) Then I want thinking obedience. (Children) Then I want thinkers who choose to obey. (Adults) This is how I see the path to the greatest knowledge. It passes through the corridors of the greatest maturity. Every other path reaches a dead end. Yes you will find great knowledge, just not the greatest. Yes, you will get more than you bargained for, just not exactly what you were hoping for. Self control must precede knowledge.

Should we teach our children philosophy? It's a double edged sword. If they do not have the requisite maturity to handle it, no, we should not. If we evaluate the individual child as being ready, yes, absolutely we should. Why do we "evaluate" children by age? We would do far better to take the time and effort (oh boy!) to individually assess and train up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord while challenging them to think.

Have I made my point clear? I'm not sure and will not be taking the time to take this "rough draft" post and clean it up. Knowledge is power. It can be instructive power for those mature enough to handle it but it can be destructive power for those who are not ready. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, because no one is ever mature enough to handle absolute power.

Church-State...Christians-Politicians

I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).

What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.

The Fallacy (?) of Sola Scriptura

Where do you find that in the Bible?
Sola Scriptura?
Sola Scriptura

This country needs reform, let alone its prisons.

"Fleming is among more than 1,350 inmates exonerated nationwide in the last 25 years."

Wow, that is heart-breaking. How do we stop wrongly convicting the innocent? Is it better to err on the side of more or less people in prison? Traditionally we say to err on the side of safety...don't assume more people in jail is the "safe" option. We place non-violent "criminals" in prison with violent criminals-literally creating criminals that will surely never leave the US criminal "justice" system. Rehabilitation occurs in the real world, not in lockup with [really] bad people.

Political Groupthink

If you think like we do, you deserve the freedom and liberty to be enslaved by groupthink.

If however you exercise the freedom and liberty to think differently you will be enslaved to the court of public opinion.

Enter Bundy.

His words couldn't be less palatable to contemporary sensibilities...but the question isn't "is he right or wrong?"; the question we should be asking is "does he have the right to think differently?".

Women's Ordination

William Witt's Article Series on Women's Ordination

John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Complementarianism

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE): Free Articles

New Perspective on Paul, N. T. Wright

N. T. Wright New Perspective on Paul

So…unlike the fear mongering that I am used to from the reformed presby's, N. T. Wright does not engage in 'you're a heretic if you don't believe me.' Now that I am researching/studying Anglican theology, I see another side. In Anglicanism I see ecclesia catholica semper reformanda. I see Anglican theologians working within the constrictions of the 39 Articles…whereas the reformed presby theologians work within the even more narrow thinking of the westminster confession.

Don't get me wrong; I absolutely respect the reformed presbyterians. But I always knew something was missing. Now I know. Now I'm even more convinced I'm Anglican.

Big Bad Bureaucracy

Man who never served prison sentence on clerical error awaits fate

So they made a mistake...but in a bureaucracy you can just shift the decimal, or in this case the date to the right and make it "right." Forget about the human element; forget about forgiveness; forget about his family. If they now incarcerate him, it would be a travesty against humanity. The only "slippery slope" is not punishing the bureaucrats who failing at their job would punish a woman and four children for a "clerical error."

We Have a Crisis in America

We have a mental health crisis in America. I cannot condone the violent actions of the tortured souls that have responded in the only way they thought that they could make their voices heard. It's sad, pitiable, but absolutely a problem that must be addressed. It's also a place where politics should not be involved, but alas politics is already involved. I have a friend who works in special needs and he says we have problems.

Some of the things he outlines:

Segregation

We segregate those who need to have healthy-minded individuals around them to only be around others whom have mental health issues. So instead of the "town fool" of yore, we have mental hospitals (where we don't have to see, experience, or feel responsible to help those whom need it) where those who could live fairly normal lives learn bad behavior from other mental health patients (i.e. we treat them like prisoners; it has been observed that we have created a wicked process by which non-violent criminals are segregated from society with violent criminals and they themselves typically become violent criminals).

Poor Treatment

Who wants to work with the mentally ill or at nursing homes? My friend told me that the treatment is typically poor because the caretakers feel they can easily get away with it (similar to parents who mistreat their children). What recourse do the victims have? Who will take their side? I have seen what it's like in nursing homes.

I'm not saying everyone under care is mistreated and all caretakers are evil. I am saying we should not take the mentally ill out of society. We need to keep them in society. We need to embrace them as members of our community. We may have to watch them a little closer as we would with our children (because we care) but not "treat them as children." With positive peer pressure they will try to fit in as best they can and will be a part not set apart. They will feel heard not ignored. They will feel that they matter, that they have a voice. We need to listen on our terms not their terms because we have a responsibility to care. If we ignore the problem, this is what will continue to happen:

Study: All But Two Multiple Public Shootings Since 1950 Took Place Where Guns Were Banned (I disagree with the "aggressive institutionalization" statement. Mental health point made.)

Why did the Ft. Hood gunman do it? Because a gun-crazy country let him (Self-admittedly this author has made slop of argumentation, and when corrected stuck to his non-sequitur conclusion, otherwise note his pointing out of the mental health crisis we are in. Instead of advocating for help on this point he simply has a gun agenda.)

Fort Hood Victim's Dad: Gunman Snapped After Seeking Time Off

On the Other Hand

James Holmes: Mental Illness or Social Frustration? (Exactly! Regardless of whether it's mental illness or social rejection or some combination, it is a societal problem not an institutional fix.)

So really, we have a social crisis in America. We have forgotten how to be a community. Mental health is an issue, but how much of an issue would it be if we had true community? We would help each other physically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, et cetera. We do this to a small extent but on such a small scale. There are pockets of community in this country. Certain churches practice community (but there is a line between community and cult). Certain neighborhoods practice community. In the military there is a sense of community but it's two-dimensional and needs expanding. I will pray for the cultivation of Christ-centered community which will truly enrich the world, because that is what we need now.

Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...

Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.

I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant