Submission

But that thou art my wisdome, Lord,
              And both mine eyes are thine,
My minde would be extreamly stirr'd
              For missing my designe.

Were it not better to bestow
              Some place and power on me?
Then should thy praises with me grow,
              And share in my degree.

But when I thus dispute and grieve,
              I do resume my sight,
And pilfring what I once did give,
              Disseize thee of thy right.

How know I, if thou shouldst me raise,
              That I should then raise thee?
Perhaps great places and thy praise
              Do not so well agree.

Wherefore unto my gift I stand,
              I will no more advise:
Only do thou lend me a hand,
              Since thou has both mine eyes.

—George Herbert, The English Poems of George Herbert (ed. Helen Wilcox; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 47.

The Massive Entailments of a Clear Theology of Creation

C. S. Lewis, speaking on a clear theology of creation, as it comes to us in the Psalter, over against the alternatives of the ancient world:

Now we all understand of course the importance of this peculiarity in Judaic thought from a strictly and obviously religious point of view. But its total consequences, the ways in which it changes a man's whole mind and imagination, might escape us (Reflections on the Psalms, 93). 

This is astute. And all the more so sixty-some years after Lewis wrote this. The worldview implications of God's making all things of nothing cannot be overstated. Along with working out a biblical view of man that is desperately needed today (anthropology is the battle ground in our day, not soteriology, not anything else), there needs to be a renewed emphasis on the Creator and his spoken world. The entailments are far more numerous and pervasive than many today, it seems, seem to be able to consider. We live in a dream world. A delusion.

Being drilled for so long now in a materialistic view of things from the secular standpoint, we are hardly able to think rightly about reality at all. I say this advisedly; I don't think this is overstating the matter. It is no accident of history, for example, that we are more muddled about man (what he is, and what is his place and purpose in the world) than ever before. Lewis serves here as a salutary reminder that we need to give renewed attention to attending to the world and the Word who made it.

Unmistakable Marks of Glory

Calvin:

The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men's minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him. Indeed, his essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception. But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance.

—John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.5.1

What Is a Worldview?

Many attempts to explain what a worldview is fall short of doing the phenomenon justice. And part of the problem is that the word itself (which suggests how we view the world and hence primarily intellectual involvement) points us in the wrong direction. But if the concept doesn't include more than one's mental furniture, or mere mental outlook, it is woefully lacking. (Another problem is that there's also no better word on offer at the moment.)

So how ought we to define "worldview"? And specifically, how should we define a worldview that attempts to connect with the true, the good, and the beautiful, and attempts to comport with reality? I'm acknowledging that some worldviews don't attempt to approximate ultimate reality or logical coherence or epistemic loveliness. In other words, I'm pointing out that there are defective worldviews. But I want, and I want others to want, to pursue a worldview that really does make sense of all things and accounts for the entirety of life lived on the stage of our world, and not one we wished existed.

So here's my attempt: A worldview (a sound one, more or less) is a comprehensive understanding of reality in word and deed. It includes the culture of a group or people. And the elements that make it up are narrative, catechesis, liturgy, and lifestyle.

Theses four aspects of worldview I've identified here I learned from N. T. Wright and Doug Wilson. These elements cover the ground of word and deed necessary for achieving a biblical worldview that is theologically satisfying and faithful. And, as you can see, I refuse to reduce understanding worldview to one's way of looking at the world, though of course such is included in my definition.

Creation Care in Perspective

It is not unusual for (post)modern evangelicals to sound the alarms arm in arm with the secularists about the pending doom of creation if we don't act fast. It's commonplace, at least in my quarters of evangelicalism. And it's not that I am against stewardship of God's creation, but I do want to speak against what I perceive to be a lack of proportion and priorities.

I do believe that Christians should be good stewards of creation. But we need a focusing of our priorities. And so let's begin with creatures created in God's image who are eternal beings, and who are killed by the millions in our nation. It seems mentally and spiritually imbalanced to get bent out of shape over creation and not care much about God's image-bearing creatures who are taken to the slaughter in abortion clinics near you.

Now of course I realize that politically one issue is accepted and encouraged by many secularists (creation care), while the other isn't (civil rights of unborn children). And so therein lies the challenge. It's easy to go along with creation care in our culture—unless we're talking about the crown of creation, namely, human beings.

Many evangelicals are zealots when it comes to saving the planet (whatever that means), but these same evangelicals often just don't appear to care much about the unborn who are slaughtered by the millions, butchered for profit, with their parts sold cooly and calmly for grand and noble purposes (like buying a lamborghini). 

Perhaps even worse, many just don't want to get into it because it involves swimming against the tide culturally and politically. It involves cross-bearing. And that's uncomfortable to our tender little evangelical hearts. If we stand up for the unborn, in Jesus' name, we just might not be accepted. And above all we can't have that.

So, yes, let's be good stewards of creation. But let's not let secularists define for us how this looks. And surely the crown of creation—image-bearing human beings—ought to be the focus of our energies and efforts in caring for creation. God cares more about human beings than he cares about trees and lions. (Not doubt about it. Not afraid to say it. But, at the same time, this is not the same thing as saying he doesn't care about trees and lions at all.) And perhaps once we've stopped shedding so much human blood our hearts might be in better shape to think and act straight about trees and lions and the like.

How could anyone argue otherwise? Well, actually, no one, so far as I know, is arguing that caring for creation while ignoring creatures is the way to go. Yet the relative neglect of concern for the unborn among creation-care types should give us pause before following their lead. When these folks start giving themselves to the most vulnerable and most valuable among God's creation, God's beloved image-bearers, then perhaps we should pay a little more attention to what they're saying. Perhaps then their hearts will be in the right place to speak wisdom about creation care.  

Science and God

Eric Metaxas on science increasingly making the case for God.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

This is Wencel baby number four at eight weeks, measuring 1.6 centimeters and presenting with a heart rate of 163 beats per minute.

Almost needless to say, but always good to express, we're grateful to God for his kind and creative handiwork, and for sustaining this little life.

A Large Echo Chamber

"The Academy is a very large, self-authenticating plausibility structure, with the words Echo Chamber stenciled on the door."

—Doug Wilson, Seven Reasons Why BioLogos Is a Threat to Classical Christian Education

The Glory of God

Jonathan Edwards:

All that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God's works, is included in that one phrase, the glory of God. . . . The thing signified by that name, the glory of God, when spoken of as the supreme and ultimate end of all God's works, is the emanation and true external expression of God's internal glory and fullness; meaning by his fullness . . . God's internal glory, in a true and just exhibition, or external existence of it. 

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 242.

The Long Sunday Afternoon Nap

Among God's greatest creational gifts (conjugal love, toddlers, indoor plumbing, coffee, cheese, salt, beer) is undoubtedly the long Sunday afternoon nap.

Jack Spratt on the First Law of Dietetics

The good Doctor on dietetics:

Now you will often come across people who advocate ways of living or methods of treating diseases which completely ignore that [no two of us are alike], and which are therefore obviously wrong. I have often said that the first fundamental law of dietetics is just that old word which tells us that:   

          Jack Spratt could eat no fat,
          his wife could eat no lean.

Quite right! It is amusing in one sense but on the other hand it is a very vital, fundamental principle for dietetics. Constitutionally Jack Spratt and his wife are different, and to suggest that the same diet would be the best for both persons is to be guilty of a fundamental fallacy.  

—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression (Hannibal: Granted Ministries), 9.

Biblical Wisdom in a Modern Proverb

The familiar proverb to "mind your own business" appears to be biblical. The apostle Paul told the Thessalonians: "mind your own affairs" (1 Thess. 4:11). Similarly, Peter tells us that meddlers bear the name Christian rather poorly (1 Pet. 4:15). And Solomon cautions us that it's a bad idea to "take a passing dog by the ears"—or, which is the same thing, to "meddle in a quarrel not your own" (Prov. 26:17).

Have You Ever Noticed This Contrast?

Writing to his friend Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis remarked:

Talking of beasts and birds, have you ever noticed this contrast: that when you read a scientific account of any animal's life you get an impression of laborious, incessant, almost rational economic activity . . . but when you study any animal you know—what at once strikes you is their cheerful fatuity, the pointlessness of nearly all they do. Say what you like, Barfield, the world is sillier and better fun than they make out.

—C. S. Lewis, Collected Letters: Books, Broadcasts, and War, 1931-1949, ed. Walter Hooper (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 930, as cited in Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 57.

Goods Well Spent

"O Lord, come to me and use my bread, silver, and gold. How very well they are spent if I spend them in your service. Amen."

—Martin Luther, Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 96.

The End for Which God Created the Local Church

With the passing of time and the experience of living longer in this world and in the anemic American evangelical church, and with another year passing of reading through holy writ, I'm convinced that the heartbeat of every church—palpable in doctrinal statements, vision statements, and all of church life—must be a passion and zeal for the glory of God. Anything else is too small, too man-centered, too sub-biblical.

The combination of a pervasive man-centeredness today and the pervasive presence of texts like the one I read this morning—

Help us, O God of our salvation,
for the glory of your name;
deliver us, and atone for our sins,
for your name's sake! (Ps. 79:9)—

conspire to make me more eager than ever for God's name to be hallowed in all things in the life of the Church, in the world, and in homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Texts like the one quoted are everywhere in Scripture. It is the major note struck in the Bible. It is the major note God is striking in the symphonic narrative of redemptive history that he has orchestrated. And yet (to my great dismay and grief), it is hardly even a minor note in many, many churches.

As Jonathan Edwards reminds the church so well, the display and approbation of the glory of God is the end for which God made the world. And if it is God's end or goal in creation—and it most certainly is!—it ought to be our end in everything we think, say, plot, and do in the local church. Such a heartbeat ought so to thump in a local church that it is felt immediately and pervasively by all who come in contact with her living and breathing ministries and members. That is, unless she is dead or dying. 

Specifically, the glory of God must be manifestly known and prized. We must manifest that we know something about it, and then we must show how we treasure it above all else. And this must be included in doctrinal and vision statements, but must go way beyond such statements. In other words, it needs to be institutionally up front and center, like the first thing you see when you go to a website; but it must not be a dead letter, either. The glory of God affirmed on paper only is only an indictment. 

Even more specifically, based on Eph. 1:6, the aspect of the glory of God that needs to be highlighted and emphasized and gloried and rejoiced in is the glory of God's free grace for sinners. God's redemption planned from eternity past aims at this: "the praise of the glory of his grace" (Eph. 1:6, translation mine). So we should openly and vocally exist for this ultimate reason. 

So many other things in vision statements are good and right in their own place. But inasmuch as they are penultimate (that is to say, not the display and enjoyment of the glory of God), then they ought to exist openly for the ultimate: the glory of God. Otherwise, they betray a profound betrayal of the Bible's dominant emphasis and the goal of the universe—that is, God's goal to glorify himself in all things. 

So my prayer for local churches today is for the name of God to be esteemed and hallowed and praised and gloried in and valued above all else—manifestly, palpably, pervasively. 

Following Christ in Handling Genesis

Speaking of how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis, Henri Blocher says this:

We must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God, clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to "the analogy of faith." How could we reject that method if we claim to follow Christ?

—In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, transl. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 17.

Shallow Reductionism and Homosexuality

D. A. Carson on popular discourse about homosexuality:

Not for a moment should anyone deny that the evidence as to what "makes" a homosexual is extraordinarily complex. Few have matched the care and objectivity of the study by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse. In popular discourse, however, virtually none of that complexity is allowed to surface in the public square. It is everywhere assumed that people are simply born that way, and that's all there is to it. Even if that were the case—and the evidence simply will not allow such shallow reductionism—it would not in itself establish that the practice of homosexuality is a good thing, absent a number of other assumptions

 —D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 134.

Some Did Count Him Mad

"A man there was, though some did count him mad,
The more he cast away, the more he had."

—John Buynan, Pilgrim's Progress (New York: Penguin, 2008), 265.

An Incomparable Treasure

Calvin tells us what he perceives to be the core of Colossians: "The principal object at which [Paul] aims to teach is that all things are in Christ, and that he alone ought to be sufficient and more than sufficient for the Colossians." I find this to be on the face of the instruction in Colossians, and pure and wholesome doctrine.

Then Calvin reasons why we should esteem this epistle as an "incomparable treasure":

All parts of our salvation are placed in Christ alone, that they [the Colossians] may not seek anything elsewhere; and he reminds them that it was in Christ that they had obtained all their blessings, in order that they might the more carefully make it their aim to retain him to the end. And, truly, even this one article is of itself perfectly sufficient to make us reckon this epistle, short as it is, an incomparable treasure; for what is greater in the whole of heavenly doctrine than to have Christ drawn to the life, that we may perceive his power, his office, and all the fruits that come to us from him?[1]

Let us then, with that great man of the Reformation, reckon this Pauline epistle according to its true worth as we perceive the wealth of Christ. I wouldn't trade it for all the estates and assets of both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. Would you? More strongly, I wouldn't trade it for 10,000 worlds!

---

[1] John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (eds., Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F; trans. Parker, T. H. L.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 298.

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd;
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought.

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

—William Wordsworth (1770-1850)