New Site

Hi,

Decided to give Wordpress a try and see if formatting stuff is less frustrating. Check out the new Reformanda blog here.

Blessings.

Intelligent Design or Inescapable Disease

Seems like everywhere you look these days the hot topic is ID. Should it be taught in public schools? Is investigating and writing about it enough to disqualify a professor from being granted tenure? The list of questions and controversies goes on and on.

It sure seems as though those who want to believe in Creation and have a desire for others to believe the same have changed tactics. After years of confronting evolution head-on, marching under the banner of the Creator, it at least appears they have opted for a different strategy. On the battlefield it would be called a flanking maneuver. The thinking goes like this: "since we have not succeeded in getting Creation back in the classroom, lets lower our sights a little and do an end-run under the cover of Intelligent Design. We haven't used the "C" word and it is at least outwardly impersonal. Maybe, just maybe, we can pull it off. Of course, it could just happen that the other side isn't as unobservant as we hope and our maneuver fails."

But as I ponder on this weighty subject, I fear promoters of Intelligent Design have at least in part succumbed to the Inescapable Disease. You know, the one Paul described in Romans 1. The one we all struggle against, creating God in our image. Promoters of ID look at nature and, rightfully, see overwhelming indications of design which implies a designer. So far, so good.

But who is the designer? The ID designer is one all sorts of people could relate to: deists, pantheists, agnostics. Certainly the designer is not required to have invisible attributes or a divine nature, things that according to Paul are clearly seen in the things He has made. When we make the designer less than God, what have we done? We have suppressed the truth, we have failed to honor him as God, we have failed to give thanks to him, we have become futile in our thinking with darkened hearts. In short, we have given in to the Inescapable Disease of sin which encourages compromise and watering down the truth. Worst of all, we have made the designer one like us, infinite light years short of the glorious and majestic Creator of all things, and no more than an idol.

And when we reach that point, where the best we can define is some designer with sufficient intelligence to plan all we can observe, where is our hope? As Paul asked a few chapters later, "Who will save me from this body of death?" If the Intelligent Designer is only capable of making things that decay, rust, rot, get sick and die, where is the hope that that Designer is the answer to Paul's question?

We need a Creator, as revealed to us in both natural and special revelation, who has given us value, purpose, meaning, and a hope for the future in his Son, the God-man. Only in the eternal Word by whom and for whom the worlds were created do we find adequate answers to the ultimate questions of life. And death. And what comes after.

Parallel Universe

I came across an interesting tidbit in my blog-watching the other day. There's a new wiki out there! Now that's not news by itself, but the new wiki should be of interest to Christians. It is called Conservapedia and according to the main page on the site it represents "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American." I guess we should all celebrate that someone has had the vision to set up a "user-controlled free encyclopedia on the internet" with a Christian bias as an alternative to Wikipedia, also a "user-controlled free encyclopedia on the internet".

But this surely sounds like Christians are constructing a parallel universe in which to live and interact with one another. Or as my high school Bible class observed, sounds like a monastery or what the stylites did. Now in all fairness, Conservapedia has a ton of company in the parallel Christian universe. National Association of Religious Broadcasters. National Christian Storytellers Association. Christian Booksellers Association. Christian Association for Psychological Studies. National Christian College Athletic Association. Christian Martial Arts Association. Christian Association of Stellar Explorers. "Christian Association" in my favorite search engine returned almost 7 million hits! And that says nothing about second- and third-degree separationism, and on and on and on.

Is it any wonder that the American culture in particular and that of much of the world is going to hell? But that is the starting point for too many Christians today. The world is going to hell, there's nothing we can do to stop it, the best we can hope for is to hang on by our fingernails until Jesus raptures us out of here. If in the process we can get a bunch of people born again, so much the better. At least they won't get left behind and have to go through the tribulation.

How unlike Jesus can we possibly be? Have we ignored or forgotten the question the Pharisees asked of the Disciples: "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" If the Son of God had come to this world and set up his own parallel universe with sanctified associations and collectives, Luke would never have had the opportunity to describe him as one who "went about doing good". Nor would scores of individuals have felt his healing touch, heard his life-giving words, or filled the ranks of the New Testament church.

Perhaps even more important, how disobedient to Jesus can we possibly be? Or is it that we have relegated his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount to some future thousand year period when he rules over the Jews in their homeland? Jesus' discourse was not spoken to the Jews, it was an opportunity he took to teach his disciples: "his disciples came to him [a]nd he taught them". One of the things he taught those who went about planting churches was that they were to be salt and light. Salt is useless until it comes into intimate contact with the thing it is intended to flavor. Light is useless when it is hid under the bushel of our parallel Christian universe.

How many millions of opportunities are squandered each day because Christians are content to hide away in their Christian comfort zone rather than be salt in light in a dark and tasteless world. Shame on us.

Free Puppies

“Mommy, mommy, look at the puppies! The sign says they're free, can we get one? A puppy would be so much fun. Can we? Can we please?”

“Well, son, I'd really like for you to have a puppy but we can't afford one right now.”

“But mommy, what do you mean, we can't afford it? The sign says they're FREE!”

“Yes, son, I know that's what the sign says. But puppies get sick and have to go to the vet, they need food, a leash, worm medicine; and all those things are very expensive and cost money.”

“Boy, mommy, I didn't know something that's free could cost so much.”

Humorous, yes, but very familiar to virtually all parents. I'm struck with how quickly we can identify the costs associated with raising a puppy and at the same time so oblivious to the costs associated with salvation. One of the ongoing debates in the religious world centers on the free offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately in practice, a vast majority of those who strongly believe in “the free offer” offer a free Gospel. While salvation is free in the limited sense that it cannot be purchased, it is by no means free in other respects.

Before I continue, let me make it clear that I believe we should offer the Gospel far more freely than we are accustomed to doing. We should offer it without limit, boundaries or restrictions of any kind to all who will give it a hearing. Our offering of the Gospel should be liberal, loud and loving and in the context of a holy life that shows the fruit of the Gospel to a hurting humanity. But that is by no means the same as offering a free Gospel, a Gospel that doesn't cost anything to either the giver or the recipient.

Scripture itself fails for words to adequately express the cost of our salvation that our dear Savior paid out of willing obedience to His Father and love for His people. Even for those who viewed Mel Gibson's Passion only part of the story was portrayed on the big screen – celluloid and mere mortals are incapable of capturing the spiritual and emotional suffering Jesus endured at the hands of His Father as He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” to say nothing of the depths of humiliation accompanying death. And that merely caps the climax of His humiliation, thirty-plus years beginning with His descent from glory and continuing until His ascent and exaltation.

A second facet of the cost of salvation relates to the “free puppies”. Just as puppies who are freely received have ongoing “maintenance costs”, so our salvation which is bought “without money and without price” has ongoing costs as well. When Jesus described what it meant to follow Him, the first thing He said was that the individual must “deny himself”. He also talked about “losing his life for My sake”, being “persecuted for righteousness”, people who “insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me”, and the list goes on.

In a report in Journal Chretien, 6 Jan.'07 according to Professor Thomas Schirrmacher, Director of the Religious Liberty Commission of the German Evangelical Alliance. 3 out of 4 cases of severe persecution are targeted at Christians. According to Schirrmacher at least 55,000 Christians are killed each year for religious reasons. 250 million will face persecution and repression in 2007.

To promote a salvation that is a “free gift, all you have to do is receive it” not only tragically minimizes what our Sovereign Lord has done to accomplish it for us, it also demeans the tremendous price our brothers and sisters in Christ are paying each day throughout the world. Instead, we must spend our lives spreading a Gospel that is true to Scripture and to our Lord, presenting the Lord Jesus in all His winsomeness and authority.

Persevering

I haven't given up on the blogosphere despite the lack of posts for a "while". About a week-and-a-half after my last post, it became real obvious that my mom needed someone to provide around-the-clock care for her. Our youngest daughter who is a CNA and my wife are taking turns providing that care and, needless to say, that has altered family life somewhat.

To assume that duty didn't seem like a big deal to us; we were simply following the example set for us by all our parents and their siblings. Nursing home care for my wife's grandparents and my grandmother was an option exercised only when it became medically necessary and not before. Until that time they were cared for by family members in the home as a matter of course.

But I guess we are the exception rather than the rule and that is really sad, and in more ways than one. We have some flexibility that other couples don't - we have managed quite well on a single income for over twenty-five years and have no debt. What a blessed position to be in at a time like this, and to God alone be the praise for that; it is only by His abundant provision that it is possible. Dependence on two incomes would make it impossible for us to care for my mom which brings up the second point.

It should be no surprise that the "group dynamic" is very different depending on whether it is the daughter-in-law or the granddaughter caring for mom. She relates to them individually and that has taken some adjusting to in this situation. The nature of the care each provides is significantly different; they both can meet her physical needs equally well but the same is not true in the spiritual arena. My wife is equipped to provide a much different sort of spiritual support and also have it received by mom.

And what a difference that has made. The physical decline that occurred in a couple obvious "bursts" would have likely meant the end of her life had mom been in an institutional setting. But the encouragement and support of having a family member present 24x7 I believe is the major reason why we have been able to enjoy her for these last several weeks. From our perspective, it has given us an opportunity to get to know her and love her in different and deeper ways than would have ever been possible otherwise.

Has it been hard work and straining (or should I say stretching) on our relationships? Of course, but without question it has been and will continue to be a priceless treasure. My prayer is that those who know of and observe our present situation would not see us as some sort of heroes because we're not. I pray, rather, that they would be stirred to do the same for their own loved ones if God provides them with the opportunity.

Persevering by His grace,
Sundoulos

Bloodshed

I just attended a wonderful mini-conference on the topic of "The Sufficiency of Christ", particularly as He fills His three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King. In the session on "Jesus Christ: Our Majestic Mediator" the speaker observed that the concept of blood sacrifice doesn't play well in our contemporary culture. The irony of that statement struck me especially in light of current events:

• Zealots blow up a kerosene tanker in Iraq killing 37 and wounding 40
• Man repeatedly stabs wife and 2-year-old while motorists watch
• Woman's body found, fetus missing and cut from her womb perhaps with scissors
• Man shoots woman to death in domestic violence shelter

Which set me to pondering the question: Why is it so easy for mankind to shed the blood of another and so hard to accept the blood of another shed for them? By the way, the "headlines" above don't even touch the idea of the 40-plus million babies in the USA and 300-plus million babies in China and the elderly and terminally-ill aborted, euthanized, or assisted suicided on the altar of self.

Just goes to show the absolute depths of depravity found in the soul of every man, woman and child. And that all confirms mankind's utter helplessness to save himself in spite of his thoughts to the contrary. Thank God He didn't leave us to ourselves, or almost as bad, leave the decision up to us.

By His grace,
Sundoulos

Contextualization

The whole idea of contextualization of Scripture and the Gospel message has been around for a while now. It goes by that name as well as others but the basic principle is that in order to communicate a message we must put it into a context that the listener will understand. That can mean a linguistic context or the context of a particular medium or context as in location and method.

Now, I understand that in order for effective communication to occur, there must be a common understanding on both sides of the conversation. The terms that are used to carry ideas from speaker to listener must mean the same thing to both individuals if the message is to be transmitted reliably and accurately. However, we must recognize and acknowledge that we don't understand words instinctively; the first time we encounter a word, it must be explained and defined for us in terms we can grasp. As a teacher, I understand that principle well; if explanation were not necessary, I wouldn't have the job I do.

But there's a world of difference between explaining the message and changing the message; it sure seems that contextualizing changes the message. A couple scenarios for example: Bread to Jesus' contemporaries was an essential staple food; fish is an essential staple to the Inuit. Since the Inuit can't grow grain and have little concept of bread as a staple, we must change Jesus' words to be "I am the fish of life" so that it will have the same meaning to the Inuit as it did to first-century Jews. Since inhabitants of Polynesia never see snow and have no concept or experience of what it is like, we must change God's word through Isaiah to read "they shall be white as lily of the valley", although we can leave that word alone for the Inuit.

I see two significant problems with this method either of Scripture translation or Gospel presentation. The first problem is obvious: when we change "bread" to "fish" or "snow" to "lily of the valley", the linguistic link between original and translation is broken. The translator has selected one facet of meaning of the original word and transferred that narrow meaning to the receptor word. Although communication with one particular language group might be enhanced by that act, at the same time a wall has just been erected with other language groups because that one-to-one correspondence has been lost. I know, idioms and various figures of speech cannot be completely translated; but I think the above described method goes far beyond dealing with inherent limitations in language.

To do this in translating Scripture, at least to some degree, not only changes the Word of God, it alters the words of God. It also conveys the idea that God's Word as He spoke it is unable to communicate conceptually to every language group without alteration by translators; that, my friend, is a dangerous position to hold. But, you say, if they don't understand the concepts then what value is the Bible to them? Which brings me to the second problem.

To maintain that the only way an individual can understand God's Word is if it is translated into a context they understand is very condescending; it implies that the individual is either unteachable or drastically limited in his or her ability to learn. To maintain that we must present the Gospel message in context in order to preserve the receptor culture is to overlook or minimize the purpose of the Gospel message.

The design intent behind the Gospel is that it will change the culture; if it doesn't, then it is a false gospel. The Gospel changes people and since it changes people they will change the culture in which they live. The idea that we must preserve all cultures at all costs is certainly not found in Scripture; in fact, what we see there is quite to the contrary. A study of history clearly demonstrates that the faithful preaching of the Gospel from the Word of God civilizes barbarians and changes cultures.

Perhaps the clearest example of what needs to be done in these circumstances - unreached peoples or postmodern culture - is provided for us in Nehemiah 8 by Ezra, the scribe. Ezra stood before the people with the Word of God in a language they no longer used or understood well. The Bible was in Hebrew but the people had become assimilated into the Persian culture and adopted its language. The scenario painted for us in Nehemiah 8 is that of Ezra reading from God's Word in Hebrew and then, along with Levite helpers, giving the sense and helping the people to understand the reading. Ezra didn't change the message; he faithfully read it from God's Word; then he and his helpers taught the people what it said and what it meant.

To the Scripture and the message is to wantonly disregard an ideal teaching opportunity; sure, the explanation must be in the context, but the message must remain as faithful to the very Word of God.

By His grace,
Sundoulos