In Honor of the Publication of a New Emergent Title…An Unpublished, Unfinished Essay

Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten around to knocking off the sharp edges or polishing the smooth ones yet. Nevertheless, here’s an essay I started a couple years ago, but didn’t finish. Enjoy:

The New Revolution
An Irreverent Reflection on New Liberalism, Sometimes Dubbed, “Emergent Christianity”

“…in this last generation, there have been strange new movements in Christian thought.”
–Harry Emerson Fosdick

“But Dan, the need to put everything into nice neat categories is part of the problem. Modern people believed that they could create a nice framework that would pigeonhole everything….At the very least, you have to be ironic or ambivalent about your pigeonholes.”
–“Neo” (ANKOC, 47)

“Meet the new boss. He’s the same as the old boss.”
–The Who

For the last eight or so years, we’ve been watching and waiting, wondering, “Where are they headed?” The pioneering explorers of the Emergent Conversation have been reporting back to the rest of us stuck in our modernist ghettos. They have unrolled some rough maps, opened sketch books and shared journal entries. Sometimes, they came back stinky and sweaty. But people who blaze trails usually do, so we forgave them, offered soap and provided grant money for the next expedition.

In the last three years, some in our midst have begun to question whether the Promised Land these explorers purport to have found is really habitable. Authors like D. A. Carson or Chuck Colson and, more recently, Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck have pointed out some of the less than ideal conditions in the Emergents’ Land of Milk and Honey. And, in general, the Trailblazers have been fairly unwilling to accept our input.

Typically their rebuffs come in the form of: “You guys say what you say because a) you’re stuck in a modern paradigm and we’re speaking a different language or b) our new way threatens your establishment, because your establishment is founded on modern assumptions and misunderstandings. As we remove this modern framework, you’re left without a message or c) You just don’t get it.” Occasionally, they use less charitable language. But, again, we should not judge these responses too harshly. Hard travel and risk-taking can wear one out. And when others, who do not appear to be taking the same risks, have the gall to question your commitment, who wouldn’t get a bit snarky?

The question many of us are beginning to ask is simple: Is the Emergent Church really blazing a new trail? Are they, in fact, entering an undiscovered country rich with potential for the emerging generation of Christians?

On one hand, it would seem so. After all, the land they tell us about speaks an exotic language: postmodern, difference, deconstruction, abductive, post-conservative, etc., etc., etc. (some of them even had the kindness to publish a handy paperback with this new language laid out in dictionary format; isn’t that sort of modern? No, I get it…irony!). It offers the forbidden fruit of mainstream acceptance—appearances with the Dali Llama, press club invitations, glowing editorials, and prominent seats at the table for global warming conventions. And, at least this is what they tell us, the kids like it.

But on the other hand—the one that isn’t grasping at straws—I don’t think so. In fact, it seems to me the Trailblazers have actually rediscovered a land bursting with false promises, brimming over with naïve optimism, burning with the chaff-fed fires of fleeting “relevance.” This land was visited about one century ago. Institutions were relocated, congregations were transplanted and several generations were reeducated in a country then called “Liberalism.”

As far as I know, one of the best ways to tick off a professional historian is to say: History repeats itself. With apologies to professional historians, let me say: I think history is repeating itself. Just as the Evangelical Establishment of the early 20th century was forced to grapple with the basic question of identity in the face of a changing cultural climate, the evangelical community of the 21st century is facing some tough choices. Just as our great-great-grandparents lived in a time of differentiation, so do we. Or, to stick with our guiding metaphor, today’s Trailblazers are yesterday’s Liberals, and today’s evangelicals will have to determine whether it’s time to cease funding expeditions to a proven wasteland.

Old-School Trailblazers

At the turn of the 20th century, a set of revolutions threatened the relevance of Christianity as a social force. Unlike the Enlightenment debates that had challenged Christianity at a primarily philosophical level, these new ideas were “discovered” in the sweat, blood and dirt of historical investigation—bottling philosophical acids as dish soap. Their threat was indirect, but more dangerous because so.

Charles Darwin had birthed a baby so cute and cuddly it made the conventional belief that atheism presented a sub-rational view of reality look like a flat-headed, snotty-nosed child by comparison. In time, the God Hypothesis was as relevant to “real” knowledge as an after-dinner mint at the Ritz—nice, but not on the menu. Archeologists were digging up old stones, tablets and scrolls. As a result, Biblical narratives were being relativised by other ANE records. Comparative religious studies were adding hue and dimension to the rest of the human race previously captured under the heading “Pagan,” opening a new age of pluralism. In short, discovery seemed to be on a trajectory that promised obscurity for conventional orthodoxy.

The Evangelical Establishment waited out the initial tremors. Few realized that the shaking china was a foretaste of continental drift. There was a wide spectrum of response, but the responses themselves were not yet viewed as redefinitions of the faith.

Then one group began making trips out into the New World opened up by the new science—ironically, traveling to Old World Germany for directions. In time, these Liberals reported back to the comfortable Establishment. And they brought a warning: If our faith is not “thought clear through in modern terms” (Fosdick), we will lose our place at the table.

With stunning speed, these 20th century Trailblazers set to task. Words like demythologization were tossed about as the “husk” of biblical history was thrown away and the “kernel” of spiritual truth was retained. The tribal deity who demanded his Son’s blood was placed in a velvet-lined box and stored in Oriental Studies museums. The Gospel was wholly realigned to the horizontal as a Social Movement, comfortably harmonized with pre-World War II optimism. And the unshakeable hope that Christ would return one day and usher in a new heaven and earth was modernized as the flimsy hope that one day humanity would cure humanity’s ills.

In one of the greatest ironies I’ve witnessed, our day’s Trailblazers fault us for capitulating to “modernism.” Supposedly, doctrines like inerrancy and concerns for clarity are modern anxieties. Yet at the turn of the 20th century, the Liberals were the ones who aligned their faith so closely with contemporary thought that Jesus appeared little more than shrink wrap around the real product.

It’s kind of like a guy who punches you in the nose then faults you for being “obsessed with random acts of violence.” The Fundamentalist response to modernity, if you really take the time to read it, was in large part a response to Liberalism. They were not as anxious about developments in science as by what some believers were saying these developments meant for the Faith.

The incredibly diverse group of scholars and pastors who made up those early Fundamentalists were concerned with inerrancy because the concept of biblical Inspiration was being undermined from within. They insisted on the Virgin Birth because insiders were questioning its relevance. They insisted on Christ’s physical return to earth because so many leaders in the Evangelical Establishment had transmuted it into a “let’s-hold-hands-and-like-each-other-grab-a-free-bowl-of-soup-on-the-way-out” humanism.

The 20th century story is rich with insight for today. I really shouldn’t move on before examining, for instance, how the Liberal takeover of denominations, colleges and seminaries, was facilitated by a third group in the doomed Establishment, the Inclusivists. But I think we have enough here to be getting on with.

A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal

After observing the Liberal’s failed relocation, you’d think we’d learn our lesson. You’d think the empty shells of mainline church buildings and hollow sermonetts of Muslim-Christian Episcopal priests and Transgendered Methodist pastors would sort of clue us in to a basic reality: Liberalism is not only unfaithful, it doesn’t work. Liberalism is a knee-jerk response to culture-shift that so enmeshes itself in passing intellectual fad that when the jeans aren’t worth patching any more, you get thrown into the rag bag along with them.

[NOTE: Contemporary evangelicalism as a whole should pay attention here as well. Though our formal adherence to Scripture distinguishes us from the New Liberals, it does not insulate us from doctrineless foolishness and pragmatic faddishness.]

But are the 21st century Trailblazers really leading us to the Liberal Wasteland? Let’s think about that. Consider for instance, the key doctrines they have placed in their rhetorical crosshairs.

The Virgin Birth—When one of these Trailblazers wrote that the discovery of indisputable proof that Jesus had an “earthly biological father named Larry” would not stop him from jumping on the trampoline of faith, I was concerned. It was very comforting to know that he personally affirmed that Jesus was born of a Virgin, but that comfort rang hollow considering he had spilled quite a bit of ink in arguing that the doctrine was not crucial to the integrity of our Faith.

Biblical Inspiration & Authority—Across the board, the 21st century Trailblazers seem to be redefining the concept of biblical inspiration and authority. When they don’t express outright disdain for inerrancy (see Dave Tomlinson, the inerrancy debate is “a waste of time.”), they do their best to summarize N.T. Wright’s paper on the subject of authority. The Bible isn’t a court of highest appeal whose authority rests not only in its Author but also is vested in its propositional content. Instead, it’s a snapshot of faithful people in action, a conversation partner.

Atonement—Recently, one of the most visible Trailblazers presented his view of the Gospel in a cross-country tour. Having listened to the talk several times myself, I walk away scratching my head. He seems to be telling a radically different story than the one I learned in Sunday School or read about in Luther, Augustine, Paul, Hebrews, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.

According to this Trailblazer, the Cross isn’t really about Jesus taking the punishment I deserved. Instead, it’s a dramatic display of the fact that God isn’t all that miffed at us to begin with and only wants us to live in a new way! In fact, the whole idea that God needs some kind of atoning sacrifice is rooted in humanity’s primal, evolutionary anxieties. In the end, God doesn’t need “to hurt something to love.” It’s the systems of Imperial oppression that require such things.

Christ’s Return—Listen closely; you can hear a pebble drop. In the thousands of pages I’ve read, I have yet to find the basic teaching that humanity’s hope is Christ’s return. Instead, our hope is in the ability to live like Jesus and make a new earth. McLaren employs his pen eloquently:

If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn’t  his “real and decisive coming—it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing—then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture….If we remain charmed by this kind of eschatology, we will be forced to see the nonviolence of the Jesus of the Gospels as a kind of strategic fake-out, like a feigned retreat in war, to be followed up by a crushing blow of so-called redemptive violence in the end.

You might find this interesting: When the silver-tongued Liberal preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick preached his most well known sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” in 1922, he chose out four doctrines the Fundamentalists were defending and employed his rhetorical skills in undermining them. They were: The Virgin Birth, Inerrancy, Atonement and Christ’s Return.

Hmmm. Kind of makes you think.

The Real Problem with Liberalism

And this is where we “fundies” always feel so misunderstood, like a trip back to your 15 year high school reunion. Is it that we relish God’s wrath and want him to pour it out on “those baddies”? Is it that we really wish God had given us a Bible like the Oxford English Dictionary (unabridged)? Is it that we don’t give a rip about anything but “winnin’ souls”?

No. That’s not it. Here’s what it is: We’re not easily satisfied.

We don’t think it’s enough to do the sorts of things Jesus did while denying who he was. We don’t think it’s enough to stand amazed at the stories in Scripture while devaluing its propositions. We don’t think it’s enough to hope for heaven in this world while discounting the sticky implications of Christ’s Return as King and Judge.

We don’t think these things are enough. And Liberals, whether Old School or new Trailblazers, seem to think that it is. The crimson cord that binds the 20thers and the 21sters together is a lassie faire approach to the content of our faith.

On one hand, who can deny they have passion? Frankly, I love the way they slap the face of American privilege, trying to waken Christians who pretend the world outside their cul de sac doesn’t exist. I love their passion for the message of Jesus. Sometimes we can fall into the trap of thinking, “Man, it was great that Jesus died for me, but when it came to living, I’m not sure what he has to contribute.”

And who can deny the way in which the Trailblazers call us out of our Lay-Z-Boys and into adventure?!? Without a doubt, one of the greatest gifts the Trailblazers have given us is this: A dissatisfaction with our suburban dreams. Maybe we’ve forgotten that the real call is to live as sojourners. Maybe we really have become SUB-Urbanites, satisfied with a pale earthly substitute for the Eternal City. God help us if we have.

But their passions aren’t enough. The corrective balance they lend to overly-other-worldly theologies aren’t enough. The prophetic calls to consider issues of economic justice and environmental stewardship aren’t enough. Frankly, there are other voices making the same points without abandoning the very concept of orthodoxy.

Let me speak to the Trailblazers directly: Guys, we appreciate many of you. We appreciate your passion, verve and creativity. We appreciate that you’ve given us interesting, if inaccurate, readings of Scripture. At the very least, they drive us to think more clearly in response.

My hope is that some of you will, through the Holy Spirit and humble dialogue, choose not to settle in a land that’s already been proven fruitless. As much as I understand your desire to chart new maps. I encourage you to do something I did as a young Trailblazer flirting with the places you frequent now: Journey back into the wild country of Church History. Journey not as a gold prospector looking for material support for the Liberal wasteland.

Journey as a humble inheritor of a great Faith!

Journey back into Scripture.

Bookmark and Share

Five Ministries You Need to Check Out: #1

In no particular order, we are examining five ministries that you need to know about. Each of these ministries has a few things in common:

1. A clear, fearless presentation of biblical truth
2. A prophetic call to the church in North America
3. A practical set of resources for use in local churches and families

Ministry Number 1: 9 Marks

Bookmark and Share

RCA Integrity Conference

As you may have heard, RCA Integrity is planning a brief two-day conference in Chicago on May 17-18. We will have a website up for registration very soon. The mini-conference will start Monday afternoon (around 3:30) and finish before lunch on Tuesday. We will be meeting at the Rosemont Hotel at O’Hare (with free shuttle service to and from the airport). Mark Dever, from 9Marks and Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington D.C. will be our speaker. He will talk to us about the centrality of the gospel and the local church. Anyone is welcome to attend. The conference will be around $40 plus the cost of the hotel room.

Bookmark and Share

How Would You Respond?

Last year, I was invited to take part in a mock legislative session, representing an anti-Intelligent Design movement to a group of legislators considering a law that would modify how evolution is taught in public schools. Remember, I’m playing the Devil’s advocate here! How would you respond?

Mr Chairman/Madam Chairperson and esteemed Representatives:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.

I am Adam Barr of the consulting firm of Apisto and Moria. Our firm represents Christians United for Teaching Science, Citizens Representing Academic Progress, and the Association of Michigan Middle and High School Educators. We are voicing our opposition to HB 4382. Specifically, we object to the inclusion of section 10. Included in this section is the dubious phrase:
All references to “evolution” and “how species change through time” shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase “all students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator.

Such language casts a shadow of doubt over the theory of evolution that is unwarranted and misleading.
• Unwarranted based on the facts.
o Intelligent Design Theory proceeds by pointing to instances of so-called “irreducible complexity.” Instances of biological complexity which they claim, cannot be explained in evolutionary terms of gradual development and natural selection.
o However, most of the examples such “scientists” indicate have perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations.
• Misleading by indicating that anything but a clear consensus exists among scientists as to the power of evolutionary theory to explain the natural world.

Such language mischaracterizes Intelligent Design ideology as a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary science.
• ID ideology does not represent a contending scientific theory, but a religious and philosophical perspective.
• True science is concerned with providing natural explanations for natural phenomena. Through careful research, disciplined observation and meaningful hypothesis, science has proceeded to explain in natural terms what was previously treated in mystical or magical terms.
• As a means of discovery, true science is not content to push the easy button. The last three centuries of scientific exploration have taught us that true discovery takes an unswerving commitment to natural explanations.
• ID theory is an “easy button” approach. It makes the claim that because something is difficult to explain or not yet explained through natural processes, it cannot be explained apart from the supernatural.
• Any theory that does concern itself with non-natural explanation is, by definition, unscientific. It belongs in social studies or a religious studies elective.

As stewards of the public trust and guardians of our constitution, it is your responsibility to preserve and promote a curriculum that will prepare a new generation of informed students. This bill would, in the short term, confuse students by conflating religious perspective with real science. In the long term, it would contribute to an erosion of scientific discipline. The moment science opens the gate to the supernatural, it ceases to be science. And scientists are give a big, red, “easy button” that may be pushed when the true, natural explanation is not readily apparent. Where would we be today if we had taken that route? I respectfully suggest we would be locked in the Dark Ages! If adopted, this bill would short circuit centuries of discovery.

Finally, I encourage you to consider the legal ramifications of such a bill. HB 4382 will, if adopted, be challenged in the courts and ultimately adjudicated in the Supreme Court. Similar bills have faced defeat. And those who supported them have faced public humiliation. For evidence, type “Dover, PA” into the search engine of your choice. I urge you to vote no on HB 4382. Thank you.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesdays

Every Tuesday, tune in for your weekly dose of Border Devos. The formula is simple: A passage of Scripture or other confessional document, a short reflection, questions for discussion, and prayer. Enjoy!

Belgic Confession Article 13 The Doctrine of God’s Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance … but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement. …. This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father.

Reflection:

I remember my dad drawing pictures when I was a boy. He would pull out a pad of paper and start sketching—a tree, our dog, or maybe the soybean field that stretched out like rippling bronze behind our house. As he worked, I would look over his shoulder and wonder, “What is he drawing this time?” Usually, I would spend a few minutes confused because the first scratched lines looked like random scribbles. In time, however, the picture would emerge, clear and perfect. I was always amazed!

In this short statement, the Belgic Confession teaches us that God is like an artist, and we are like little children. When we look at the sweep of history or the story of our own lives, we sometimes wonder, “What’s the point of this?” or “Why did this have to happen, God?” Though we often have no answer, we can always trust that the Artist has a plan, and that this plan is good! When he holds up the finished sketch, we will see what he saw all along.

Questions:

  • · The Belgic Confession says that “not one of the hairs on our heads…or even a little bird can fall to the ground” without the will of our Father. What does that tell us about God? What is God like? How does that thought bring comfort?
  • · The Belgic Confession says, “nothing happens in this world” that isn’t part of God’s plan. What kinds of questions come to mind when you think about that? Is that a comforting idea or a troubling idea? Why?
  • · Why is it so important for us to trust that God is in control?

Prayer: Heavenly Father, we want to thank you for your good plan for this world. We thank you for taking care of us. We thank you that whether things are going well or poorly, we can totally trust you. We thank you that you promise to work all things together for our salvation, even if we sometimes feel lost. Help us to trust you more and more each day. In Jesus Name, Amen.

Bookmark and Share

Redefining Marriage

When Christians object to gay “marriage” as a dangerous redefinition of society’s central institution, we’re often shouted down: “What’s wrong with love? Isn’t it better for two people to share life together in a committed relationship rather than have numerous partners?” Apparently, the majority of same-sex marriages have redefined “commitment.” This story from the NYT is a must read. Here’s an excerpt:

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The article goes on to celebrate this open view of marriage as a possible lifeboat for the sinking institution of marriage.

Bookmark and Share

A Brief Reflection on the Parable of the Widow

Luke 18:1-9 (ESV)
1 And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. 3 And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’ ” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

1. We should pray because we serve a good God– Unlike the unrighteous judge, God always acts on behalf of justice. He is not moved by begging or pleading or a desire to get us off his back. God sees our need perfectly and responds justly. He welcomes our cry for help. Amazing.

2. We should pray because unless we do, we’re going to lose heart–Jesus makes the point that we shouldn’t lose heart in our praying. That is, keep praying. But I think it’s also fair to say that by praying, we guard our hearts! Here is a strange thing: When we pray, we want to pray more. When we pray, our heart for prayer is enlivened.

3. We should pray because prayer and faith are proportional, prayer and pride are inversely proportional: Luke tells us Jesus spun this story for a reason: to encourage his disciples to pray and not lose heart. At the very end, he poses a poignant question, “Will the Lord find faith on the earth when he returns?” Prayer is the most basic, incontrovertible evidence of faith. Prayer indicates a dependence on God and demonstrates that our hope is anchored in him alone. Conversely, the more prideful we are, the less we perceive our own neediness. Prayerlessness equals pridefulness.

Bookmark and Share

Animal Rights?

A while ago, I made the mistake of combining Sunday lunch with a documentary about PETA. If you know anything about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, then you know why it would have been a uncomfortable to munch away on chicken quesadillas while seeing undercover footage of chicken processing plants and fur factories. I do not suggest the experience.

Nausea aside, it was worth watching. The film—I Am an Animal (adults only!)—covered the history of PETA and its founder, Ingrid Newkirk. Ms. Newkirk is a fascinating public figure and has opened eyes to the truly inhumane ways people abuse God’s creatures. But along the way, she has said some controversial things like:

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.”

She has drawn lines of moral equivalence between the slaughter of Jews in the Nazi death camps and the killing of chickens for food:

“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”

and,

“The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps.”

Throughout the documentary, one thing was clear: Ms. Newkirk and her PETA comrades are driven by a set of moral convictions, however misguided they may be. They believe that animals have the same rights as humans. And they’re willing to do almost anything to convert others to their position.

Doctrine and Life

The Christian Story, summarized in doctrine, provides the only view of life that can make sense of our deepest intuitions and life experience. Christian doctrine describes a world. And when we look at our world through that lens, things start to come together. Because Scripture is GOD’S view of reality, those who understand and embrace it will find integrity, meaning and Truth.

On the other hand, when we adopt any view but Biblical Truth, we are left holding an empty paper sack. And the moment life drops something heavy into that sack, it will be ripped to shreds, leaving us confused and unable to cope.

The Doctrine of Creation
The Doctrine of Creation teaches us that God, who has existed for eternity in perfect tri-unity, created all things. After calling a universe, an earthly home, and all the animals into existence, he hand-crafted humanity. And He made them in his own image. This event is described in Genesis 1 and 2, but it is referenced throughout Scripture.
From this basic story, we can draw a few conclusions about God, the world, and ourselves.

We learn that God is powerful beyond imagination. While the Creation myths of other cultures speak of warring gods and forces of chaos, the God portrayed in the Christian Story simply speaks, and light springs forth. He is not in competition with forces outside his control; he is the origin of all things!

We learn that Creation is much more than physical law and chemical reaction. It is poetry and paint. It is the work of an Artist and Communicator, showing and telling us something about God Himself.

And we learn that Humans, one part of God’s Creation Song, are qualitatively different than the rest of it. While every other thing is spoken into existence, humans are shaped, molded, and enlivened by God’s own hands and breath. They are made “in God’s image.”

That means that humans are different. We were made to be different, and we were made to do something different.
We were made to be relational, as God is. We were made to think, believe, create and love like no other thing in creation. And we were made to enjoy fellowship with God—something no other creature can claim!
In the anceint world, great emperors would crusade, seeking to expand their empire. And the Romans did it best. They rolled through the known world and left their mark everywhere they went.

To this day, you can journey in lands far from Rome and find monuments to the Emperors who once ruled at the center of all roads. These ancient Emperors would raise arches, similar to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. These artifacts are carved with the deeds of the Emperor who commissioned them to be built. And each one stood to remind people: There is a Ruler in Rome. He may be far from here, but he is still in command.

To be “made in God’s image” is to be a monument to God himself. We were made to stand as a testimony to the rest of creation: There is a God in Heaven. He sits enthroned. And if you want to get a glimpse of his power, his might and glory, look at humanity. This Biblical teaching that every human is made in God’s image provides an ethical framework for living.

So, what will happen if we look at our life today through the lens this story provides? How does this story, unlike any other, provide a view of life that makes sense?

Let’s take another look at PETA.

While being interviewed, Ms. Newkirk confessed atheism as her framing worldview. She finds it impossible to believe in a God who would allow animals to suffer. Presumably, she adopts our culture’s dominant Origins Myth: Evolution. Like all “educated” people in our day, Ms. Newkirk believes that humans are one more animal produced by a series of lucky mutations.

So, on the one hand, the human animal is part of one more species— struggling to pass on our genetic information to the next generation, like biological Xerox machines. Only the fittest survive.

On the other hand, Ms. Newkirk considers the wounding of another animal a great injustice. “Humans have no right,” the reasoning goes, “to exploit another species, even if it means our own will advance.”

But these two guiding ideas, that humans evolved and that animals have rights, fit together as well as a square peg in a round hole! In other words, they don’t. If everything, including humanity, is the result of impersonal physical laws, then nothing, including any animal, is endowed with moral status. Humans, like everything else in the universe, act according to physical law, not free choie guided by moral conviction.

So, while Ms. Newkirk pleads for “animal rights,” her worldview cannot support the idea that any creature has rights!

Here we discover the ultimate, and truly sad, irony. The righteous indignation embodied by Ms. Newkirk and PETA cannot find purchase in her world. Like a candle in a vacuum, it cannot burn. Though her deepest intuitions (correctly) point to a world with moral rights and wrongs, the story she has adopted to explain that world denies Morality any air to breathe.

On the other hand, the Doctrine of Creation provides us with view of life that can address questions about animal cruelty. We possess a view of God, Creation and Humanity that calls us to care for Creation because it belongs to God. Animals should not be treated with care because they are equal to humans. Humans should care for animals because we, like God, are called to tend, protect and defend. Just like the King who rules in Heaven, we are called to care for God’s creatures, great and small.

Of course, we haven’t been able to get into the particulars. But I’ve always believed that if you want to get somewhere worth going to, you must start off on the right foot.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesdays

Every Tuesday, tune in for your weekly dose of Border Devos. The formula is simple: A passage of Scripture or other confessional document, a short reflection, questions for discussion, and prayer. Enjoy!

Reading: The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Reflection:
The Apostles’ Creed provides a summary of what Christians have believed from the very beginning, but the Creed is more than a statement of facts. It is the outline of an adventure story! In these few words, we have all the makings of a story like no other. A powerful, good King. A humble, broken Savior. A people caught in dangerous rebellion. A new community, brought together by their death-defying Hero. The Gospel is the greatest tale ever told! Over the next few weeks, allow yourself to be caught up in the adventure of God’s glory on display.

Questions:

  • Having read the Apostles’ Creed, what would you say if someone asked you, “What is God like?”
  • What did Jesus do so that we could be saved from our sins? (be sure to look at the Creed)
  • If we really believe the things we talk about in the Apostles’ Creed, how should our lives change?

Prayer: Heavenly Father, we thank you for making this amazing world! We thank you that, even though we sin and fall short of your glory, you sent Jesus to save us. We thank you for your Holy Spirit, who lives in us and makes us more like Jesus, and we thank you for your Church. Help us to live for you until you return or call us home to be with you! In Jesus precious Name, Amen.

Bookmark and Share

John Lennon: Expanded Comments on Jesus and Rock n Roll

Give this a listen (you’ll have to click add to hear the full clip, but its worth it!):

So…what do you think?

Bookmark and Share