"For our sake Christ was obedient, accepting even death, death on a cross. Therefore God raised Him on high and gave Him the name above all other names."
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Thus says the Lord:
In their affliction, they shall look for me:
"Come, let us return to the LORD,
For it is he who has rent, but he will heal us;
he has struck us, but he will bind our wounds.
He will revive us after two days;
on the third day he will raise us up,
to live in his presence. (Hosea 6:1-2)
"For our sake Christ was obedient, accepting even death, death on a cross. Therefore God raised Him on high and gave Him the name above all other names."
All-powerful and ever-living God,
your only Son went down among the dead
and rose again in glory.
In your goodness
raise up your faithful people,
buried with Him in baptism,
to be one with Him
in the eternal life of heaven,
where He lives and reigns with You
and the Holy Spirit, one God,
for ever and ever
Friday, April 18, 2014
And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews.” [Mark 15:22-26, ESV]
Written over 20 years ago and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, this article goes into graphic detail about the physical pain that Jesus would have endured in his beatings and crucifixion....Here is an excerpt from that article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" by William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer. The original article is substantially longer and detailed, with diagrams and ample citation. Our Lord's manner of execution was like that suffered by a great many others in the Roman world:
…. It was customary for the condemned man to carry his own cross from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls. He was usually naked, unless this was prohibited by local customs. Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb (136 kg), only the crossbar was carried. The patibulum, weighing 75 to 125 lb. (34 to 57 kg), was placed across the nape of the victim’s neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually, the outstretched arms then were tied to the crossbar. The processional to the site of crucifixion was led by a complete Roman military guard, headed by a centurion. One of the soldiers carried a sign (titulus) on which the condemned man’s name and crime were displayed. Later, the titulus would be attached to the top of the cross. The Roman guard would not leave the victim until they were sure of his death. Outside the city walls was permanently located the heavy upright wooden stipes, on which the patibulum would be secured. In the case of the Tau cross, this was accomplished by means of a mortise and tenon joint, with or without reinforcement by ropes. To prolong the crucifixion process, a horizontal wooden block or plank, serving as a crude seat (sedile or sedulum), often was attached midway down the stipes. Only very rarely, and probably later than the time of Christ, was an additional block (suppedaneum) employed for transfixion of the feet.
At the site of execution, by law, the victim was given a bitter drink of wine mixed with myrrh (gall) as a mild analgesic. The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the Romans. The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ, indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across. Furthermore, ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin have documented that the nails commonly were driven through the wrists rather than the palms.
After both arms were fixed to the crossbar, the patibulum and the victim, together, were lifted onto the stipes. On the low cross, four soldiers could accomplish this relatively easily. However, on the tall cross, the soldiers used either wooden forks or ladders.
Next, the feet were fixed to the cross, either by nails or ropes. Ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin suggest that nailing was the preferred Roman practice. Although the feet could be fixed to the sides of the stipes or to a wooden footrest (suppedaneum), they usually were nailed directly to the front of the stipes. To accomplish this, flexion of the knees may have been quite prominent, and the bent legs may have been rotated laterally.
When the nailing was completed, the titulus was attached to the cross, by nails or cords, just above the victim’s head. The soldiers and the civilian crowd often taunted and jeered the condemned man, and the soldiers customarily divided up his clothes among themselves. The length of survival generally ranged from three or four hours to three or four days and appears to have been inversely related to the severity of the scourging. However, even if the scourging had been relatively mild, the Roman soldiers could hasten death by breaking the legs below the knees (crurifragium or skelokopia). …. [the article pdf]
Dorothy L. Sayers on at least part of the meaning:It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. [Luke 23:44-46, ESV]
For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is — limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death — he had the honesty and courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile. (The Man Born to be King, Dorothy L. Sayers)
The Inklings: Good Friday, Between Two Worlds: On the Physical Death of Jesus
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Various Christian denominations place greater or lesser emphasis on what is known as the Christian Year. I grew up in one that emphasized only Christmas and Easter, and observed Lent only because the local ministers' council cooperated in a Lenten series of services. Kevin DeYoung helpfully defines Maundy Thursday for people like me:
.... If you've never heard the term, it's not Monday-Thursday (which always confused me as a kid), but Maundy Thursday, as in Mandatum Thursday. Mandatum is the Latin word for "command" or "mandate", and the day is called Maundy Thursday because on the night before his death Jesus gave his disciples a new command. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34).DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: Maundy Thursday
At first it seems strange that Christ would call this a new command. After all, the Old Testament instructed God's people to love their neighbors and Christ himself summarized the law as love for God and love for others. So what's new about love? What makes the command new is that because of Jesus' passion there is a new standard, a new examplar of love.
There was never any love like the dying love of Jesus. It is tender and sweet (John 13:33). It serves (John 13:2-17). It loves even unto death (John 13:1). Jesus had nothing to gain from us by loving us. There was nothing in us to draw us to him. But he loved us still, while we were yet sinners. .... [more]
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
I discover the works of Rudyard Kipling at ManyBooks.net including Kim (a free download for Kindle, etc.), the author's last, and perhaps best, book. I didn't read it until I was an adult but when I finally did I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
A reader at the Guardian's book blog had this to say about Kim:
...[W]hat makes Kim such a glorious wellspring of comfort is its humanity. The hero is known in the alleyways of Lahore as "Little Friend of all the World", and the book revels in the joy of human company. ....
Kipling has, of course, been roundly condemned by many a post-colonial critic, his very name made a byword for objectionable empire nostalgia. It's certainly true that the India of Kim is an unchanging place, with British rule an incontestable part of the scene. But the warm soul of the book is in its people, not its politics. It brims with Indian noise and heat and colour – a great comfort in itself when the world outside your window is slate-grey and sodden. And yet these roaring bazaars and clamorous caravanserais are peopled not with some massed and inscrutable Other; they are brim-full of friends, men and women with voices and stories of their own.
The other great solace is in the writing itself. There is style without pretentiousness, and simplicity that is neither bleak nor chiselled. It is comfort food that is somehow rich and refined at the same time, and I can read it again and again. ....
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Brandywine Books indicates that these words were found in a concentration camp after the Second World War:
Via Brandywine Books.
"I believe in the sun, even when it's not shining.
I believe in love, even when I feel it not.
I believe in God, even when He is silent."
But, Lord, do not be silent or allow us to be deaf.
Via Brandywine Books.
Nancy Guthrie knows what she doesn't want at her funeral: "Please Don’t Make My Funeral All About Me":
I just got home from another funeral. Seems we've gone to more than our share lately. And once again, as I left the church, I pled with those closest to me, "Please don't make my funeral all about me."One of the best ways to avoid making it "all about me" would be to stick closely to scripture and the Book of Common Prayer gets it right in its service for the "Burial of the Dead."
We were an hour and fifteen minutes into today's funeral before anyone read from the scriptures, and further in until there was a prayer. Resurrection wasn't mentioned until the benediction. There were too many funny stories to tell about the deceased, too many recollections, too many good things to say about the things she accomplished to speak of what Christ has accomplished on her behalf.
But then this wasn't a funeral. It was a "Celebration of Life." ....
...I have decided to write it down. When I die, you won't have to wonder what I would have wanted. You'll know. You'll know that nothing would make me happier than for my funeral to be all about Christ instead of all about me. Please make it all about his righteous life and not my feeble efforts at good works. Make it about his coming to defeat death and not my courage (or lack thereof) in the face of death. Make it about his emergence from the grave with the keys to death and the grave, which changes everything about putting my body into a grave. ....
What you must not do at my funeral is make it all about me. What I want most is that "Christ will be honored in [my] body, whether in life or in death" (Phil.1:20). Those gathered that day have no need for a sanitized, idealized rendition of who I was or what I accomplished. On that day, in fact on every day until that day, "he must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). .... [more]
Monday, April 14, 2014
Via Brandywine Books:
Even before we call on Thy name To ask Thee, O God,
When we seek for the words to glorify Thee,
Thou hearest our prayer;
Unceasing love, O unceasing love, Surpassing all we know.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, And to the Holy Spirit.
Even with darkness sealing us in, We breathe Thy name,
And through all the days that follow so fast, We trust in Thee;
Endless Thy grace, O endless Thy grace,
Beyond all mortal dream. Both now and forever,
And unto ages and ages,
Even before we call on Thy name To ask Thee, O God,
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Ross Douthat today, in "Diversity and Dishonesty," on the recent controversies involving Mozilla and Brandeis's withdrawal of the invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
.... I am (or try to be) a partisan of pluralism, which requires respecting Mozilla’s right to have a C.E.O. whose politics fit the climate of Silicon Valley, and Brandeis’s right to rescind degrees as it sees fit, and Harvard’s freedom to be essentially a two-worldview community, with a campus shared uneasily by progressives and corporate neoliberals, and a small corner reserved for token reactionary cranks.
But this respect is difficult to maintain when these institutions will not admit that this is what is going on. Instead, we have the pretense of universality — the insistence that the post-Eich Mozilla is open to all ideas, the invocations of the “spirit of free expression” from a school that’s kicking a controversial speaker off the stage.
And with the pretense, increasingly, comes a dismissive attitude toward those institutions — mostly religious — that do acknowledge their own dogmas and commitments, and ask for the freedom to embody them and live them out.
It would be a far, far better thing if Harvard and Brandeis and Mozilla would simply say, explicitly, that they are as ideologically progressive as Notre Dame is Catholic or B.Y.U. is Mormon or Chick-fil-A is evangelical, and that they intend to run their institution according to those lights.
I can live with the progressivism. It’s the lying that gets toxic. [more]
Patterico comments: "What’s particularly interesting about this column are the comments generated. A great number of them example, without the slightest hint of self-awareness, the point Douthat closes with: I can live with the progressivism. It’s the lying that gets toxic."
Friday, April 11, 2014
Via Mere C.S. Lewis:
A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I may repeat ‘Do as you would be done by’ till I am black in the face, but I cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so, as I warned you, we are driven on to something more inward—driven on from social matters to religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home. (“Social Morality” – part 4 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Tom Gilson blogs at Thinking Christian where he makes a case for the faith and then responds to those who choose to comment. Many of those who do are non-believers: agnostics and self-identified atheists whose arguments he willingly engages. Recently he has been arguing that if there are moral laws there must be a law-giver. A prior argument, of course, has to do with whether there are in fact moral laws that transcend individual or cultural preference. If it is just a matter of preference — no real enduring universal moral standards — then morality loses all meaning. Gilson responds to an unusually frank atheist:
.... Shane, like many atheists before him, makes himself the arbiter of right and wrong:Note: Today Gilson somewhat revised what he posted yesterday. The portions quoted above are now from today's version and the links now go there too.
I can understand that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. I can also think that their actions were wrong because they are not things I would do. I do this from the comfort of the future, in a different country of course, and who knows what things would have been like if I was a German soldier during World War II.Had he been a Nazi soldier during World War II, he would have perhaps thought he was doing nothing wrong. If so, then I can’t help but wonder who could have told him otherwise? I can only wonder what it means to be wrong, if the standard is one man’s opinion? By making himself his own standard, he undercuts the whole idea of a standard. Or maybe (it’s unclear to me) he’s making future human opinion the standard.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing expressed here. An earlier commenter named Paul agreed, when I pressed him on something he had previously written, that as an atheist, “I give up the right to say that in their times and places, slavery, suttee, and child sacrifice were wrong.” ....
If there is no transcendent moral standard, there is no moral knowledge, because there is nothing to be known. There is no right or wrong, except for each person’s opinion; and each person’s opinion in that case is indistinguishable from “I favor that kind of action” or “I don’t think highly of that other kind of action.” This is not morality, it’s aesthetics. If it is a culture-wide view rather than an individual’s view, then it is “we” rather than “I,” but the same still holds: it’s still aesthetics.
Or, possibly, right and wrong become shorthand for, “Do more of that,” vs. “Stop doing that.” That, too is not morality. It’s the exercise of power, or at least the attempt to do so.
Aesthetics is not morality. The practice of power is not morality. The language of morality may be there but the reality is stripped away. And if there is no morality, how could there be moral knowledge? ....
Yet every child knows there’s such a thing as right and wrong. You and I knew it as early as six months old. It takes “growing up” into atheism to discover that we can’t know right from wrong after all. .... [more]
Monday, April 7, 2014
Timothy George on "John Donne in Lent":
.... Donne would be a lot more popular today if he had been a “name it and claim it” kind of Christian. But however ecstatic his experience of God might have been, the dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral continued to struggle with such disagreeable realities as sin, suffering, repentance, sickness, decay, and death. We prefer a Lent with all lilies and no ashes. But Donne knew that the difficult disciplines of prayer, fasting, self-denial, and cross-bearing, together with the holy discontent of waiting for an answer that does not come—such rigors are necessary medicines for what he called the “insatiable whirlpool of the covetous mind.” ....
At the beginning of Lent, 1630, Donne delivered his most famous sermon at Whitehall in the presence of King Charles I. Published as “Death’s Duell,” it was a meditation on death: the death of Christ and the death that comes to every person, both to paupers lying in a nameless grave and to the high and mighty in their “half-acre tombs” with elegant epitaphs chiseled in stone.
Even in the depth of any spiritual night, in the shadow of death, in the midnight of afflictions and tribulations, God brings light out of darkness and gives his saints occasion of glorifying him, not only in the dark (though it be dark) but from the dark (because it is dark).... This is a way unconceivable by any, inexpressible to any, but those that have felt that manner of God’s proceeding in themselves, that be the night what night it will... they see God better in the dark.John Donne confessed to his friend George Garrard that it was his desire to die in the pulpit. Although he did not leave this world mid-sermon, his last deliverance at St. Paul’s left a distinct impression. From his emaciated body and dying face, he peered out on his congregation. Many of them, his biographer said, “did secretly ask that question in Ezekiel: Do these bones live?” Draped in his funeral shroud, Donne still looks out on those who come to St. Paul’s to see his effigy. The last line on his epitaph is his own: “He lies here in the dust but beholds Him whose name is Rising.” [more]
Sunday, April 6, 2014
In an article that is probably behind a subscription wall (I subscribe) David French explains why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, why it was then passed unanimously by the House and 97-2 by the Senate, signed by President Clinton, and is under attack today. From the article:
.... Rather than finding a compelling government interest in enforcing drug laws, the Supreme Court (with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion) articulated a new religious test, one that essentially relegated the free-exercise clause to the scrap heap.
Under this new test, if a law was “neutral” and “generally applicable” (in other words, not aimed at religious practice), the free-exercise claim would fail. This meant no more balancing tests, and thus no more compelling-government-interest requirements for state actions. In short, this meant dramatically diminished constitutional protections for religious minorities. ....
RFRA was the result. The goal was hardly revolutionary: It was simply to restore the status quo prior to the peyote case, with the same balancing test and the same compelling-interest requirement. ....
YET now, 21 years later, RFRA and its various state incarnations are the Great Satan and Little Satans of American statutory law, the diabolical gremlins that the Left claims will bring back Jim Crow, spur “secessionist” impulses, and potentially cause the engine of American progress to stutter and stall.
What happened? Why do the principles that the Left applied to protect peyote now threaten the republic when they protect a chain of hobby stores from having to pay for products that are widely (and cheaply) available on the open market?
To borrow an excellent phrase from Greg Lukianoff, a liberal civil libertarian and the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, America began “unlearning liberty”—including religious liberty. It’s a story that’s been told a thousand times. Free speech and diversity of thought—useful concepts to dissenters charging the barricades—became annoyances (and worse) when the dissenters gained tenure, or became GS-14 deeply embedded in the alphabet soup of federal agencies, or ran television studios and wrote our songs and sitcoms. ....
And so, in cases across the land, sexual liberty has directly confronted religious liberty, and religious liberty has often lost. Whether Christian photographers are compelled to photograph gay weddings, Christian students of counseling are compelled to mouth pro-gay platitudes, or pro-life activists are compelled to shut their mouths when close to abortion clinics, the argument has been the same: Religious liberty is hateful and hurtful, and it must recede so that sexual self-actualization may proceed not merely unimpeded but increasingly uncriticized. .... (David French, "Restore the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," National Review, April 21, 2014, pp. 25-27)
I have never read Conrad apart from a few things assigned in literature classes. Films, like Hitchcock's Sabotage (based on Conrad's The Secret Agent), or Lord Jim, may have acquainted me with some of the plots, although no doubt unreliably. Theodore Dalrymple, in a good essay (the only kind he writes), "The Noble Conrad," reminds me that I probably should add him to the large collection of authors I ought to read (but probably won't). Dalrymple:
...Conrad’s attitude toward prose was only a special case of his overarching philosophy, which was that of Ecclesiastes:
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
In finding something for his hand to do, and doing it with all his might, Conrad always kept morality in view. For Conrad, probity was perhaps the highest good, the moral quality he admired most; for him, very distant goals diluted probity and finally dissolved it utterly. The good that resulted from doing something with all one’s might had therefore to be tangible or immediate, and not so far removed that it entailed or permitted the doing of evil in the name of the eventual good that it would supposedly produce. The risks of distance are shown by the colonialists in “Heart of Darkness” and the revolutionaries in The Secret Agent (and other antirevolutionary books and stories). Kurtz has grand plans for a mission civilisatrice in the depths of the primeval forest that end with decapitated heads impaled on poles; while the principal achievement of the revolutionaries surrounding Verloc in The Secret Agent is the death in an explosion of a half-witted boy, much loved by his sister, revolutionary rhetoric having driven him to a willingness to commit a bomb outrage.
The principal truths for which both the revolutionaries and the colonialists have forgotten to ask are about themselves and about the limits of human possibility. On this matter, Conrad is both clear and, many would say, bleak. ....
Conrad allowed no transcendent meaning, purpose, or design to the universe; there were therefore no ultimate consolations for our earthly travails, except such as we can find for ourselves, and that are inevitably modest. .... [more]
Conrad seems to have been right about so much and yet denied himself the consolations that do, in fact, exist.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Geisler concludes that this objective moral lawgiver is part of what we mean by "God." ....
- Every law has a lawgiver. (Premise)
- There is an objective moral law. (Premise)
- Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver. (From 1 and 2)
.... In fact, few of us even doubt the objectivity of moral facts. Are rape, murder, or torturing children for fun things we simply don't like, or are they really (objectively) moral atrocities? For those persuaded that these are objective moral atrocities, then this may provide a person-relative-proof of God's existence.
The reason objective laws, if they exist, are non-natural is because they are true immutably and cannot be reduced to any of the physical sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, etc. A scientist is able to show that torturing children for fun is painful, but its being painful doesn't make it morally wrong.
Thus, we are left with a supernatural explanation for objective moral facts. Theism fits this description; so at the very least, the reality of objective and non-natural moral facts makes theism more plausible than in their absence. .... [more]
The argument works for me.
Friday, April 4, 2014
August marks the centennial of the beginning of the First World War — the Great War — perhaps, as the paragraph quoted below argues, the most consequential event in the history of the 20th Century. The quotation is from a very good Economist review article about some of the many books that have been and will be published on the subject of the war.
.... The war destroyed empires (some quickly, some more slowly), created fractious new nation-states, gave a sense of identity to the British dominions, forced America to become a world power and led directly to Soviet communism, the rise of Hitler, the second world war and the Holocaust. The turmoil in the Middle East has its roots in the world it spawned. As Fritz Stern, a German-American historian, put it, the conflict was “the first calamity of the 20th century, the calamity from which all other calamities sprang”. .... [more]
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Andreas J. Köstenberger and Justin Taylor, authors of The Final Days of Jesus argue that today, April 3, is the anniversary of the most important event within history:
To be clear, the Bible does not explicitly specify the precise date of Jesus’s crucifixion and it is not an essential salvation truth. But that does not make it unknowable or unimportant. Because Christianity is a historical religion and the events of Christ’s life did take place in human history alongside other known events, it is helpful to locate Jesus’s death—as precisely as the available evidence allows—within the larger context of human history.
Among the Gospel writers, no one makes this point more strongly than Luke, the Gentile physician turned historian and inspired chronicler of early Christianity. .... [more]
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
On what would have been the hundredth anniversary of his birth, a remembrance of Alec Guinness:
He was off to the races, making film after film—Oliver Twist (1948), in which he played Fagin; Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), playing multiple D’Ascoyne Family roles (The Duke, The Banker, The Parson, The General, The Admiral); The Lavender Hill Mob (1951), in which he played Holland; The Man in the White Suit (1951), Jim Wormold; and The Ladykillers, Professor Marcus (1955), among other British films and roles.
Hollywood finally snagged him for the role of Prince Albert in The Swan (1955). This laid the groundwork for his selection as Colonel Nicholson in The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), directed by David Lean, for which he won the Best Actor Oscar. It was one of many Oscar nominations he would receive. ....
.... There was, of course, more to the man than his acting—a taste of which is conveyed in his poignant faith journey, the dramatic turning point occurring during the filming of Father Brown (1954) when a small French child mistook Guinness for a priest.
That little encounter inspired him to return to his Anglican faith. Soon thereafter, his son Matthew, then just 11, tragically contracted polio and was paralyzed from the waist down. A grief-stricken Guinness began stopping by a little Catholic Church every day, praying to God that if He would let his son recover, he would not stand in the way should he wish to convert to Catholicism, which was his son’s desire. ....
Every morning, Guinness recited a verse from Psalm 143, “Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning.”
He died on August 5, 2000, this time winning a greater much greater prize—Heaven. [more]
Guinness is one of my favorite actors and I own DVDs of almost all of the films referred to above [and more] — the exception is The Swan. It was very pleasant to learn that he was a Christian.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Wesley Hill imagines how the Apostle Paul would have read the story of Noah and how the film gets it backwards:
Paul didn’t talk about the Noah story in his extant epistles, but here’s how I imagine he would have read it.
Noah found favor with God, says the text of Genesis (charis, or “grace,” in the Greek translation of Genesis 6:8). And, for Paul (in contrast to many of his fellow Torah-reading contemporaries), “grace” is defined as a gift given to the unfitting (Romans 4:4-5). Genesis subsequently notes that Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9), and according Paul, that’s the proper order: first grace, then the status of righteousness. It’s not that God found someone who had already attained a certain level of goodness and then crowned it with the verdict of justification. For Paul, the reverse is true.
And this is what Aronofsky’s film complicates. ....
...[N]ear the end of the film, Emma Watson’s character, Ila, gives up the game. She says to Noah that perhaps God preserved him because God knew that he had a merciful heart. Perhaps, she speculates, that’s exactly the sort of person God could count on to renew the world non-violently, peaceably, and responsibly after the flood. And in this way, the film ends up locating the rationale for God’s mercy in some native spark of goodness in Noah that will, viewers hope, make the new, post-flood world more livable than the antediluvian one. ....
The point of the Noah story...is not that Noah possesses in himself the seed of a better humanity. The point is that God promises to show mercy, even when Noah’s offspring prove just as violent and evil as the descendants of Cain. [more]
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Cornelius Plantinga recently criticized Evangelical worship because, he says, it neglects sin:
.... Anglicans, Catholics and Lutherans continue to include confession or a rite of penitence as a regular part of their worship services, he noted. But in evangelical and Reformed churches, he sees "less and less" sin-related material every year.
Over 158,000 churches in North America get the music for their worship services from Christian Copyright Licensing International....
Looking at the content of CCLI songs, Plantinga observed that there are "very few penitential songs." The "biblical tradition of lament, which is all through the prophets and the Psalms is gone, just not there," he said.
One of the reasons Plantinga believes evangelical worship leaves out sin is a desire to be "seeker friendly" and avoid topics that may turn off non-Christians or new Christians.
"Mindful that seekers come to church in [an] American no-fault culture in which tolerance is a big virtue and intolerance a big vice, worship finders in evangelical churches often want nothing in the service that sounds judgmental," he said. And for that reason "lots of evangelical churches these days are unrelievedly cheerful."
The Apostle Paul would not feel welcome in many evangelical churches today, he added. "Where is [Paul's] easy smile? Why does he want to discipline people? Why is he so doggone dogmatic? Where are the stories in his sermons? ....
This was not always the case with evangelical churches, Plantinga explained. "They used to be champions of the holiness of God, of contrition for sins against God's holiness, and therefore grace that justifies sinners," but "a lot of that has dissipated."
When churches leave the topic of sin out of worship, they are not relevant to the lives of their congregants, Plantinga believes, because people encounter sin and sin's consequences daily.
"[Un]ceasingly cheerful worship does not fit with the lives of people who come to worship," he said. "... Churches that silence the biblical message of sin and grace simply aren't anywhere near where people actually live their lives, including people in their own congregations." .... [more]
We have erred and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep: