Moving

I hate details. I am definitely a “big picture” guy. For this reason and others, I find moving to be very stressful. And today was the worst kind of moving day – heavy furniture, lots of loading and unloading, heavy traffic, multiple stops, etc. To make matters worse, things kept going wrong. We couldn’t squeeze the couch through our back door. I didn’t have the right wiring adaptor for picking up my Uhaul trailer, so I had to get it installed (and got over-charged big time). Then I got caught in heavy traffic for an hour on the interstate with my air conditioning not working.

As one thing after another kept violating my plan for an efficient and relatively painless day, I began to get frustrated. After frustration came anger, and after anger came self-condemnation (“why can’t I ever do anything right?”). I went up the ladder of emotions to what is, for me, the very worst: feeling stupid and invalidated.

In the midst of this, while standing still on the interstate sweating like crazy because of no AC and no wind, I stopped and thought about C.J. Mahaney’s book on humility, which I recently read, and some of the advice it had about noticing evidences of God’s grace around us and cultivating gratitude in the midst of hard circumstances. By the grace of God, I was reminded that he was with me, using these circumstances to humble me, and at the same time kindly taking care of me. I thought of the guy who had installed my wiring, and where I would be if he had called in sick today. I thought of the random stranger who bought our couch via Craigslist who labored with me to get it to his truck. I thought of our friend Becky who, out of the goodness of her heart, helped Esther with packing the entire afternoon. I thought about my friend Jason who spent almost an hour on the phone with me trying to figure out the wiring in my car, despite being busy with a new job. I thought about my wife, who puts up with me when I am grumpy and works cheerfully and faithfully alongside me.

The evidence for God’s grace is all around me. Instead of growing resentful for some (in the big scheme of things) minor difficulties, I could instead allow myself to be humbled and reminded of how good God has been to me. I have it so much better than I deserve. And I have so much to be grateful for.

Read Full Post »

Biographies and American History

I am really on a biography kick lately, especially about people in American history. Esther calls this “my flavor of the week.” Two people I would really like to read a good biography on:

1) James Madison. Because he was such an incredibly important founding father (the primary author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a major contributer to the Federalist Papers), yet often neglected in favor of people like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. He was also a two-term Secretary of State who negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, and a two-term President who oversaw our first war after the Revolutionary War. I think it would be worthwhile to spend some time studying Madison in order to understand the Constitution better.

2) Daniel Webster. Because he was such a great orator, and it would be interesting to learn about our country during the post-Revolution pre-Civil War generation, a time I know basically nothing about. Also it would be interesting to study a Senator rather than a President.

I honestly can’t find a biography on Madison that catches my eye, but this one on Webster looks very solid. If only I were not such a slow reader, I would order it. I try to discipline myself to skim more, but I usually get too engrossed and cannot do it. Some day I will get around to reading it!

Here is a famous excerpt from Daniel Webster’s July 17, 1850 address to the Senate:

“I shall stand by the Union…with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are personal consequences…in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country in a crisis like this?…Let the consequences be what they will…. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall in defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.”

Read Full Post »

Intelligent Design

I have been growing more and more convicted lately about the need in our society for people to speak out against naturalistic neo-Darwinism and not be bullied into silence by the contempt with which intelligent design is often regarded. I am going to frame my thoughts here in a series of questions:

1) Should intelligent design (hereafter ID) be taught in schools?

Whether ID is right or wrong, students should be given all the facts, hear all the arguments, be free to ask any question, and be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This is the essence of free academic inquiry.

2) But is there really a debate?

A large chunk of the general population and many in the scientific community with strong academic credentials (Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, to name a few) question whether neo-Darwinism can explain all the facts. There is only no debate about this if you dismiss the other side as non-existent. It may be a lop-sided debate, but to claim that there is NO debate is simply factually incorrect.

3) But isn’t ID just pseudo-science that only ignorant people take seriously?

The biggest problem in this debate is that anti-ID voices in the scientific community and more generally in culture rely more upon bullying, name calling, caricaturing, labeling, dismissing, and intimidating than they do on arguing. Appeals to authority are frequent and thundering; appeals to evidence are rare. If ID is really so stupid, shouldn’t it be easy to prove that? Why, then, the need for ideological bullying?

4) But isn’t ID not really science?

This whole controversy gets to the very heart and definition of science. ID is only not science if you define science in such a way that it can only study that which has naturalistic causes. But this is a rather restrictive definition of science which is not based on any empirical observations of the world, but on a philosophical presupposition, namely naturalism. This is not the definition of science that Newton or Kepler or Einstein worked under, nor has it been shown why intelligent causes must be out of bounds in order for something to be studied scientifically.

5) But why do so many scientists espouse evolution?

In our cultural and intellectual setting philosophical naturalism has a very strong grip on the sciences. Fighting against this pressure is very difficult, as Ben Stein’s movie shows. In any case, the issue should be settled not by an appeal to numbers, but to evidence.

6) What evidence is there for ID?

The irreducible complexity of the first cell and sudden explosions in the fossil record (e.g., the cambrian explosion) would be two examples of events or data that are best explained by an intelligent cause. Darwin himself validated both of these points. He thought the cell was relatively simple: we know today that its unimaginably vast, intricate, and complex, needing all of its various parts to be functioning to have any survival value at all. He also admitted the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record stood against his theory. He thought later discoveries would vindicate him; they have not.

7) Why is it important for Christians and others who question neo-Darwinism to speak out on this issue?

Its important because truth is important, its important because academic freedom is important, and its important because the worldview that normally corresponds to neo-Darwinism is a brutal one which dehumanizes people.

8) But what if ID is wrong?

If it is wrong, it should be proven so by science, not bullied into silence by the powers that be. People should be allowed to challenge the consensus – just like Darwin did.

Read Full Post »

Delight

The other day I read Tolkien’s preface to the second edition of Lord of the Rings, published in 1965. In it Tolkien insists that his book has no allegorical significance (apparently a lot of readers and reviewers were speculating that the ring symbolized Nazi Germany since he wrote it during WWII), and that his only aim was to write a really good story which would delight and captivate readers. As I read I experienced such a deep sense of delight that I can only describe it by saying that not only did I feel as though I was reading a good book, but I felt as though I was reading a book that was made for me, a book which helps explain who I am. I felt a similar feeling while reading about Lincoln and the founding fathers a few weeks back – not only is this interesting, but I feel loyalty to it, I feel that it is mine. My pleasure left the realm of happiness and entered into the realm of identity.

To delight in something – to be captivated, enchanted, enthralled, amazed – I taste the goodness of God in this. If nothing else, I want to be known as a person who delights. There is so much in this world to delight in.

Read Full Post »

Comments on Hebrews (1:1-2a)

When I am doing a study, I often find it helpful to write down a succinct summary of various noteworthy conclusions I make so that I can remember them and refer to them in the future. So, as I work my way through Hebrews, I will be making notes from time to time on things that particularly stand out to me. These notes will not be exhaustive or consistent; just occasional thoughts, quotes, insights, questions, comparisons, etc.

My first reading was on 1:1-1:2a:

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (ESV).

Verses 1-2 contain several parallel contrasts:

long ago —> in these last days
to our fathers —> to us
by the prophets —> by his Son
at many times and in many ways —> ?

The speech of God is the prominent thrust of this section. It is the only constant in the two contrasting phrases: “God spoke (v. 1) … he has spoken (v. 2).” There is both continuity and discontinuity between God’s Old Testament revelation and his revelation in Christ, and the profoundest and most basic point of continuity is, they are both revelation. The other phrases all highlight discontinuity. God’s speech was long ago (palai), now it is in these last days; it was to our fathers, now it is to us; it was by the prophets, now it is by his Son. What, however, corresponds to “at many times and in many ways” (which Ellingworth notes is emphatic due its placement, length, and alliteration in the Greek)?

Lane comments: “only one expression descriptive of the old revelation is not taken up and developed in setting forth the distinctive character of the new revelation. It is the adverbial phrase ‘at various times and in many ways.’ The omission of this phrase implies that when God spoke his word through the Son he spoke with finality” (31, italics his).

There is thus one more contrast which is implicit in 1:1-1:2a, in addition to the contrasts mentioned above which are explicit. It is this: diversity —> unity. Or perhaps better: diversity —> climactic singularity.

My conclusion: the writer of Hebrews begins his letter with a comparison of God’s former speech (v. 1) and his Son-speech (v. 2) which highlights the finality and importance of this latter revelation. This contrast anticipates and undergirds his further argumentation throughout the letter for the superiority of the revelation of Jesus Christ to everything which proceeded him in redemptive history.

Read Full Post »

Samuel Rutherford quote

For graduation my parents got me a copy of Samuel Rutherford’s The Loveliness of Christ, which is a compilation of extracts from his letters. Rutherford was a 17th century Scottish pastor after whom I am named (my middle is name is Rutherford).

I have been reading from it each morning and greatly enjoying it. Every page demonstrates such a deep affection for and acquaintance with Christ. Its very nourishing. Here is a good sample quote:

“I am sure that the saints at their best are but strangers to the weight and worth of the incomparable sweetness of Christ. He is so new, so fresh in excellency, every day of new, to these that search more and more in him, as if heaven could furnish as many new Christs (if I may speak so) as there are days betwixt him and us, and yet he is one and the same” (p. 45).

Read Full Post »

Tensions in Job

I have been thinking about the book of Job over the past few weeks, since we discussed it in my Psalms and Wisdom Literature class. One of the things I like about Job is the tensions the book confronts us with, especially in the way each of the major characters (or group of characters) is presented. I don’t think the tensions are un-resolvable, but I do think they highlight some of the book’s subtlety and profundity.

(1) The first character in which I see tension is Job himself. Is Job right or wrong? In what ways is he right, and in what ways is he wrong? On the one hand, Job is presented throughout the book as an utterly blameless and righteous man. He is introduced in this way (1:1); the Lord describes him in this way to Satan (1:9); he is presented in this way in his response to his suffering (1:20-22, 2:10); and the Lord again establishes this verdict at the end of the book (42:7). Its obvious that, at the most basic level, Job is an innocent and righteous man.

On the other hand, why does the Lord’s reply to Job appear more of a rebuke than a vindication? Why does God claim that Job’s words “(darken) counsel by words without knowledge” (38:2)? Why does the narrator report in 32:1 that Job is “righteous in his own eyes?” And finally, why is Job’s ultimate response to despise himself and repent in dust and ashes (42:6)? To me, this exposes a tension and prompts the question: if Job is truly righteous, why is he rebuked, what is he repenting of?

(2) Secondly, I see tension in the presentation of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Job’s friends often get a tough rap, but there must be some kind of truth and authority in the words, for I Corinthians 3:19 quotes Job 5:13 approvingly, and the same with Job 5:17 in Hebrews 12:5. Moreover, it is obvious that they have a genuine care about Job and do some things well, like weeping with him (2:12) and being silent with him (2:13).

On the other hand, their continual appeal for Job to simply repent of whatever evil he has done is an obvious misdiagnosis, in light of the prologue (chapters 1-2). In the end, Job’s friends anger God with their words and require Job’s intercession (42:7-9). So how can the New Testament can quote Job’s friends approvingly, when they misrepresent the truth and anger God? There is tension here.

(3) The third character in whom I see tension is Elihu (chapters 32-37). Elihu adds some complexity to the book. In my opinion, he cannot be neatly lumped in with Job’s other friends, for three reasons: (1) indignation at the words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar is part of the motivation for his speech (32:12); (2) the content of his speech differs significantly from that of his friends; and (3) he is not included in the Lord’s rebuke or Job’s intercession for these friends in 42:7-9. On the other hand, (1) the Lord may not judge him along with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, but neither does he validate his words with those of Job (42:7) – they are simply not commented on; and (2) Elihu can have some pretty harsh words for Job as well (e.g., 35:16), which establishes some continuity between Elihu and Job’s other friends.

What is the function of Elihu in the book of Job? Kidner suggests that he delays, and therefore builds anticipation for, the Lord’s response in chapter 38 (The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, IVP 1985, 70). I think this is helpful, but beyond this, I am uncertain how to interpret Elihu, although I am inclined to be more sympathetic than unsympathetic. Unless we seriously violate the text by taking the higher-critical view that Elihu must be a later redaction, there is tension here.

4) The final tension that I see in the book is with the Lord himself, and his final response to Job. It is so unlike what one might expect! Several notes:

1. God speaks to Job “out of the whirlwind” (38:1). He is on the offensive, unapologetic, masculine, direct. He does not explain, comfort (yet), or encourage.

2. God completely changes the subject. Rather than defending himself from Job’s questions, he simply ignores them. Kidner: “the inference could hardly be plainer that Job and his friends have not only found the wrong answers; they have been asking the wrong questions (70).

3. The essence of the Lord’s speech seems to be a reminder of the Creator-Creature distinction. He is saying, “Job, I’m God, and you’re not. Do you want my job?” Kidner: God’s speech “cuts us down to size, treating us not as philosophers but as children – limited in mind, puny in body – whose first and fundamental grasp of truth must be to know the difference between our place and God’s, and to accept it” (72).

While some might see it as harsh, or a non-answer, I find it beautiful that God does not apologize to Job. This, combined with the humility and joy reflected in Job’s response, reminds me that simply seeing God face, though not the answer we usually ask God for in the midst of confusion and suffering, is nevertheless the answer we most often really need. Like Orual discovers in C.S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces, there is a kind of joy that is far better than what we think we want.

Read Full Post »

Finished McCullough’s John Adams

A few minutes ago I finished David McCullough’s biography of John Adams, which I had been hacking away at, off and on, since December. A couple of times I feared I would never finish, but with school over I was able to crank through the last big section more easily and finally cross the finish line. I love that feeling of satisfaction when you have finished a significant book! If I were to begin discussing all that I learned, enjoyed, and appreciated in the reading of this book, this post would probably be longer than my post on Abraham Lincoln, so I think I will just say by way of summary that it is an absolutely engrossing read which I heartily recommend if you are (1) looking for a model biography or (2) interested in early American history.

The next book on my summer reading is Manhunt, which I am about 1/3 into and am determined to finish without too much skimming. I never would have expected this, I am becoming more and more interested in history.

Read Full Post »