Master 239: Matt Jenson on singleness and homosexuality

Sometimes I wonder about my readiness or willingness to broach difficult or uncomfortable topics on my blog. Of course I recognize that the simple fact of my Christian commitments puts me on one side of a proverbial fence. It's simply not possible to agree with everyone, (if you think it is then try agreeing with my last statement) but I do always try to be congenial in my discourses. And I don't plan to stop being congenial any time soon, but I do want to flag my particularly acute awareness of the unease often associated with the two topics that this blog is concerned with: singleness and homosexuality. These topics touch me and close friends of mine very deeply, and, I recognize, touch a lot of people's lives in a number of different ways.

I have a friend, who actually knows something about writing, who chides me for being so apologetic in my blogging. So that's all I'm going to say by way of preliminary qualification. And, in fact, I'm not going to say anything about these topics in this entry. (What a cop-out that is.) Instead, I'm going to direct you to a chapel message, given by Professor Matt Jenson over at Biola University. I found it to be a very encouraging, thought-provoking, and challenging. Note: this is not a message just for singles or those struggling with homosexuality. There is something in this message for absolutely everyone. I hope that it is helpful to you. Here's a link:

Matt Jenson: Reflections for Singles and Those Struggling with Homosexuality

Matt Jenson blogs at the Scriptorium|Daily. And, in case you were looking for suggestions, I also particularly enjoy following Fred Sander's postings on that site.

Listening to Matt's message makes me still more aware and appreciative of those in my life who have been (extended) family to me. Here in Riverside, I think particularly of the Jansens, Hubbards, two Bishop couples, and two Wallace couples. Here I'm just mentioning sets of spouses--and that list is still incomplete. Steve Gerali, from APU, has probably done more to teach me about the church as family than anyone else. Like I said, I think there's a real challenge for all of us here.

Well, I'd like to write about the church and postmodernity, what I've been learning about trusting in Jesus, the dangers of dwelling on fantasy, how to love God, cognitivism and non-cognitivism in the philosophy of action, the last installment of my Ann and Voskamp series, spiritual disciplines, and a whole lot more, but there simply isn't enough time for that. Oh well. I'll try to get around to some of it.

Blessings all,

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 238: The Little Things

"The Christian way is different:... Christ says 'Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked--the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.'" (Mere Christianity, 196-197)

This is one place where C.S. Lewis tries to encapsulate what is meant by and involved in the "Christian way". The tone may strike some as rather harsh and exacting. And even for long-time Christians it can conjure distasteful notions and impressions, of self-denial, mortification, and asceticism. Many have the uneasy sense that serious Christianity involves selling everything you have, living out of a cardboard box, being perennially outcast, having to say 'no' to everything that you have ever enjoyed or cared about, doing missions work in an alien and hostile environment, always being poor, always being hungry, always lacking. Even many Christians seem to operate under the idea that serious Christianity would most likely mess of their lives.

There are lots of things that could be said in response to this reaction that many people have when confronted with the idea of real devotion or commitment to Christ. One would involve asking whether we are really thinking through the picture of God that is operating in the background here. What does it reveal about our view of God that we are unwilling or fearful of trusting Him? We may say that we have placed our faith and confidence in Him, but is that really the case?

One might also point out that, once you really get clear on what the way of Christ leads to, what does it say about us that we're willing to forego that. I've used this example before: on at least a couple occasions, I've heard preachers joke about how you shouldn't pray for patience. Because learning patience involves being placed in tough circumstances; and if you pray for patience, God will place you in those tough circumstances. --But isn't some of the humor that comes from this point a kind of guilty humor? Because how many of us hear that and then go on to pray for patience. Probably not many. And the reason for that is that we have the sense that to seriously pursue patience would involve our becoming worse off. Imagine that: thinking that by becoming patient people, we would be worse off! Of course most people don't actually entertain that explicit thought; they just act in accordance with it.

Both of these responses could be explored in greater depth, but I want to focus on a different response. After saying all these things about giving all and killing the natural self and surrendering desires, you might expect Lewis to follow up with some very weighty applications. But that's exactly what He doesn't do. Having presented this way and acknowledged the seriousness of it, he writes as follows:

"That is why the real problem of the Christian life comes where people do not usually look for it. It comes the very moment you wake up each morning. All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in. And so on, all day. Standing back from all your natural fission's and fretting; coming in out of the wind." (198)

Isn't it interesting that Lewis doesn't start with selling all your possessions or moving to a foreign mission field. He starts at the place you least expect: at the very moment you wake up each morning. That's where the difference is made. That's where the battle is won or lost. Okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but I think that we often and seriously underestimate the importance of starting your day in just the way that Lewis describes.

When I wake up in the morning, thoughts about what I've got to do today are right there waiting for me. Very often cares and worries that I took to bed with me are still there as well. And if there's something that's especially urgent or stressful, that's going to be right in my face. The temptation is to jump immediately into the routine of washing up, showering, dressing, eating breakfast, gathering my books, going to school, and the sequence of things to do can easily run on continuously and without interruption until the end of the day when I finally lay my head down to sleep. It may take some very deliberate reflection to realize that I have actually surrendered the power to determine how I feel and think about myself to those tasks. Whether those tasks are pleasant or burdensome determines whether I am happy or sad for the day. Whether the people I need to deal with are friendly or bothersome determines how at ease or stressed out I am. Have you found this to be so with you.

What if we were to base our feelings on something different? What if, instead of focusing on our responsibilities, to-do lists, and appointments, we focused on our heavenly Father. What if, instead of thinking about what we've got to accomplish, we remember what Jesus Christ accomplished. What if, instead of working ourselves up or amping up for the tasks ahead, we actually stopped and prayed to the Holy Spirit for help and power. And I'm not just talking about throwing a "Help, God" over your shoulder on the way out the door. I'm talking about actually taking time.

Of course, some people (especially those who have never done it) will be skeptical of my recommendation. Even some who have tried it will say that it's really not that helpful. One question, at least, to consider in response: Have you really, honestly tried it? --have you really thought carefully about what you're doing and trying to accomplish? --or have you just spent the ten minutes because your Sunday school teacher told you to without really understanding why or how you were supposed to get anything out of it. It's funny that in many areas of life, we recognize the importance of discipline and making steady progress. We understand that playing scales is boring but that it is necessary for learning to play an instrument well. We understand that weight training is arduous but that it is necessary for developing professional-quality athletic skill. We understand in so many fields that mastering the basics is the foundation for everything that comes afterward, but for some reason, where spiritual matters are concerned, all that competence seems to evaporate and we actually think that we ought to be able to find gratification instantly. How absurd.

--

I'm going to wrap this blog up by looking at one episode from the ministry of Jesus. I want to invite you to look at it in a slightly different way:

'And a certain ruler questioned [Jesus] saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.'"

And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." And when Jesus heard this, He said to Him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when he had head these things, he became very sad; for he was extremely rich.' (Luke 18:18-22)

Now some people will be puzzled by my selecting this passage. I've been trying to say that what really matters in the Christian way is the little things, not the big things. Yet Jesus confronts this man, whom He's meeting for the first time, with just one of these big things. The man wants to follow Jesus and Jesus immediately asks Him to give up everything. What's the deal?

I think understanding this one episode requires having a much bigger picture of how God works--one that can only come from looking at the character of Jesus' entire ministry. But I'll make a suggestion here about how we should think about this. Part of our problem is that we are tempted to focus on particular actions, whereas Jesus is much more interested in character. So when the rich young ruler says that He's kept all the commandments, we are inclined to take him at his word. Even if we doubt his credibility, we will tend to focus on the question of whether he has actually carried out the commandments or not. But Jesus is more interested in character. And that is what He is testing in this episode.

The rich young ruler asks what is required to inherit eternal life. He claims to have kept all the requirements of the law. What Jesus then does is test his character. "So you claim to have kept all the commandments. Then you must be a person of strong character. You must have a deep love and commitment to your parents. Not only to your parents, but to all people. Your care for them means that you will not treat them in a sexually degrading way. You care about people's property. You value them and so live honestly, openly, and transparently before them. In your business dealings you are always above bar. You are respectful of all people and feel deep compassion for those in need. And above all, you must have learned that keeping God's commandments is the very best thing for you. Since you understand that, since you have such an incredible love for God and for people, a desire to be obedient, a yearning for what is good and right, and an abiding trust in God's faithfulness and goodness, go ahead and sell your possessions, distributing the funds to the poor, and come, follow me.'

Again, I'm building a lot into the passage that comes from a picture of Jesus' way of operating that extends beyond just this passage. But do you see what Jesus might have been getting at. Do you understand what that rich young ruler was saying in claiming to have followed all the commandments? Maybe he didn't understand what he was saying. But Jesus understood that he was claiming to be radically devoted to God. And Jesus pointed out that He really wasn't. And the sad end to the story reveals, not so much that this ruler was unwilling to be wholly devoted to Jesus, but that he actually was not wholly devoted in the little things. If he had truly worked out the little things all the way, then he would have been ready to eagerly lay down everything at the feet of Jesus. (In fact we have stories about people who did just that in the early chapters of the book of Acts.)

Now if you're not at that place in life where you're ready to hand everything over to Jesus, don't sweat it. Above all don't pretend that you're ready to hand everything over. That will just make you a liar and a hypocrite. Instead, start attending once more to the little things. Make sure that you've got the basics down. Those are the foundation on which it is possible to build a really stable life.

[There's always more details and qualifications and clarifications that need to be put in than I can put in. But I'll have to leave that at that.]

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 237: The nature of sin

Intermediate Theological Speculations (ITS): The Nature of Sin

The 24th chapter of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology has to do with "sin."

He opens with the following remarks:

"The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God's plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature f the sin that separates man from God.

"We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us." (490)

Then, in assessing the implications of Adam and Eve's decision to eat of the rut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he notes, "First, their sin struck at the basis for knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, 'What is true?' … Second, their sin struck at the basis for moral standards, for it gave a different answer to the question, 'What is right?' … Third, their sin gave a different answer to the question, 'Who am I?'" (493) In eating the fruit, Adam and Eve called into question the veracity of God's claims, what He claimed to be good and right, and their status before God. They wanted to be "like God."

Now it's interesting to note that, already, this analysis builds a lot more into the significance of sin than the mere failure to conform to the moral law. Failing to conform to the moral law is conceptually distinct from questioning God's veracity, challenging His moral standards, and wanting to be like Him. I expect most people would grant that there is a deep connection between these four things, but that just prompts the further question: How are these related? And which, if any, is most fundamental?

Now Grudem resists defining sin in terms not directly related to conformity to the moral law. He gives four reasons for thinking that sin should not be defined in terms of selfishness. And then he writes:

"It is far better to define sin in the way Scripture does, in relationship to God's law and his moral character. John tells us that "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). When Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of mankind, he appeals to the law of God, whether the written law given to the Jew (Rom. 2:17-29) or the unwritten law that operates in the consciences of Gentiles who, by their behavior, "show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (Rom. 2:15). In each case their sinfulness is demonstrated by their lack of conformity to the moral law of God." (491)

Now I'm already suspicious that the idea of anomia (trans. "lawlessness") involves more than just failure to conform to the moral law. Following some suggestive remarks by John Mark Reynolds (Biola University), I think it may include the idea of the absence of culture, of coherent worldview, or of an internally consistent and stable outlook (narrative) on life in terms of which everything is rendered intelligible. (Obviously these remarks are suggestive. I just want to push wider the envelope of our thinking about anomia.)

Regarding the Romans references, I want to take seriously, of course, Paul's reference to "what the law requires [being] written on their hearts." Moreover, vv.17-29 have a great deal to say about the problem with transgressing the law. However, I'm beginning to wonder whether all that means the same thing as saying that sin is to be defined and understood primarily in terms of failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. The law is pretty clearly a big part of what we've got to consider in trying to understand sin, but have we quite figured out just what that big part is.

--

Here's my suggestion: sin consists fundamentally in rejecting the grace of God. Such rejection, I'll grant, manifests itself primarily in failure to conform to the moral law of God, but that failure of conformity, I propose, is not what is fundamental.

To test this claim, we turn first to the story of Adam and Eve. Here is where some will become immediately puzzled. How did Adam and Eve reject the grace of God? Most of us are used to thinking of the grace of God as something that entered history in the person of Jesus Christ. Most of us are used to thinking of the grace of God as a New Testament thing. But that's not right. The story of the entire Bible is the story of the outpouring of God's grace on humankind. The law that He gave to Moses, the ram that he substituted for Isaac, and the animals whose skins were used to cover Adam and Eve are all pictures of and expressions of God's grace. (The mosaic law offers an interesting case-study, since its history shows us how sinful human beings can take the graciously-given gifts of God and turn them into heavy burdens and obstacles to relationship with Him. Many Christians do the same thing with the cross. We need to be reminded that the law was intended to serve as an instrument of grace.)

Now if we focus on the skins that covered Adam and Eve or the mosaic laws about atoning sacrifices, we may get the impression that grace has to do primarily with covering sin, but that is not right either. If grace were primarily for covering sin then the perversion that Paul denounces would be perfectly sensible: let us continue in sin that grace might increase. (Romans 3:8, 6:1) Dallas Willard puts the point nicely in one of his lectures when he says, "Grace isn't for sin. It's for life." Grace is the abiding presence and action of God in our lives. It is not something we deserve or can earn but it is a gift that He freely offers to everyone. Once we have this larger conception of grace in our minds, we can see, not only how life as the redeemed followers of Christ is supposed to work, but also something of what it must have been like for Adam and Eve before the fall. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were living lives upheld and sustained by the grace of God. They enjoyed the abiding presence and action of God in their lives. They didn't deserve it and couldn't earn it, but He gave Himself to them nonetheless.

Once we have this picture in our minds, we can begin to understand how the different dimensions of their sin fit together. Defining sin just as failure to conform to the moral law leaves a gap between sin and doubting God, between sin and challenging God's standards, between sin and wanting to be like God. If Adam had inadvertently, accidentally, or in ignorance eaten of the fruit, then he would have failed to conform to the moral law of God, but He would not have thereby challenged God's veracity, His moral law, or His unique status. This suggests that mere failure to conform to the moral law is not really the issue when it comes to sin. Rather, what is at issue is these other things and, ultimately, to my mind, the refusal to continue living by and within God's gracious provision.

The sin of Adam and Eve consisted in or involved the attempt to live and stand autonomously, apart from and independently of God. Adam and Eve committed themselves to truth claims incompatible with God's revelation, they erected standards of moral conduct that did not have God as their foundation, and they wanted to stand independently, in the way that God stands independently--to be "like God." And their attempt to stand and live independently of God involved them in actions that were clearly contrary to God's will.

Why does acting apart from God's grace lead to acting contrary to His will? God intended for us to live in relationship with Him and He made us in such a way that we would be dependent on Him. (It's not clear that God could create any being who was wholly independent of Him.) He made us so that our lives would work in concert with His abiding presence and activity. Now if we choose to live independently from God, we will not be able to live in that dependent way. That's the very meaning of in-dependence. We will have to act on the assumption that we, alone, can and must secure what is necessary and good for us. That is what leads (so often) to selfish action.

The problem, of course, is that since we were designed to live in relationship with and dependence on God, to embark on the project of living independently from him is to embark on a losing project. That is why God warned Adam and Eve in the garden, "in the day that you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall surely die." Basically he was saying, "If you try to make a life for yourself apart from Me, it's not going to work. All you're going to find is death." And that's what happened.

As we approach the end of this post, we still have to consider whether I can fit this widely held point about failing to conform to the moral law into my account of what sin consists in. I think I can. I've already indicated that rejecting a life built on the grace of God will lead us to act in ways contrary to God's moral law; but I think there is also a deeper connection between these two things. Once we choose to live apart from the grace of God, then we have committed ourselves to the project of meeting some standard for what counts as living independently, being my own person, being obligated to no one. One of the standards that we set up for ourselves is that of moral uprightness. If I can be morally righteous, the thought goes (approximately), then I won't have to rely on God's charity. Rather, the good things that come to me for my good moral conduct will just be what I have earned and deserve. (Whenever we find ourselves thinking in terms of such transactions, in family, amongst friends, or with God, that is a pretty clear sign that we are not operating on the basis of grace.) The problem, again, is that we are not able to keep the moral law perfectly. We can never attain to that level of perfection whereat we can look at God and say, here's what you owe me. We are still in this dependent position though, perhaps, refusing to admit that.

This leads to, perhaps, the most radical thought connected with these speculations that I'll pose: "Is God the one who holds us to the standard of moral perfection, or is that a standard that we impose on ourselves." When we define sin as failure to conform to the moral law, often implied in that is the idea that conformity to the moral law is what God requires of us, and our failure to meet that standard is what estranges us from Him. Adam and Eve were punished, on this picture, for failing to meet the standard of the moral law. I'm suspicious that that view is missing something big.

I agree that Adam and Eve were punished for their disobedience, but I don't think they were punished for failing to conform to the moral law. How is that not an incoherent claim? To say that they were punished for failing to conform to the moral law suggests that their relationship with God was predicated on their keeping that perfect standard. What I'm suggesting is that their relationship with God was actually predicated on their willingness to continue living in the grace of God. What their disobedience revealed was not just a failure to keep the moral law but a refusal to continue living in God's grace. The latter is what they suffered for.

Now there is one way that I have been tempted to articulate the upshot of these reflections, that I'm pretty sure is unacceptable and not wholly sound. That way is this: "Many people think that what God requires of us is moral perfection. Acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice is then understood as what makes us count as morally perfect in God's sight. But I wonder if God isn't sitting up in heaven asking us to forget about being morally perfect. I wonder if He's not asking us to just come back to living dependent on His grace. Maybe God cares more about our living in grace than our being morally perfect. Perhaps accepting Christ's atoning sacrifice is crucial, not because it renders us (ostensibly or actually) morally perfect, but because that is how we come back to that place of resting in God's gracious provision."

As I said, I'm pretty sure that this way of framing things is unacceptable, ultimately because it places moral perfection and life with God in opposition to one another. The whole point of this reflection has actually been to move in a direction that makes these things more clearly connected and mutually illuminating. I worry that a gospel articulated just in terms our need for atonement for violations of the moral law misses something big. But one that neglects the real problem of sin and the biblical language of atonement misses something just as big. That's why this is just an intermediate speculation.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 236: Ann & Voskamp, Part 2

Here's the update on my latest art project. My last post will include the three final phases of the coloration and the story of how this bizarre idea came about. Here, though, are a few introductory paragraphs from the story, as I envision it, of Ann and Voskamp. I hope you enjoy them.

--

In Spring, ____, Artemis Industries appointed Dr. _____ Voskamp to the position of project director of its lunar biosphere and terraforming project. His installment was not uncontroversial. His reclusive and misanthropic tendencies were widely known and promised to pose significant public relations, as well as internal human resources, problems. But his credentials in bio-engineering and xeno-ecology were unmatched, and it was hoped that his expertise would place the project, already suffering from three significant set-backs, back on track. Unfortunately, the exact opposite occurred.

Three months after his appointment, during his first visit to the biosphere project site, a code three disaster alert was issued: mandatory evacuation. Two scientists from that project site, three researchers from two other science stations, and seven guests and staff from the Astral Hotel and Landing Station (the only commercial lunar project) blasted into space within eleven minutes. Dr. Voskamp, alone, remained unaccounted for.

The two scientists from the biosphere reported that one of the containment units in laboratory number two, where Dr. Voskamp was working, had ruptured, releasing spores from bio-engineered plants into the ventilation system. A satisfactory account of the containment failure has never been given. Because of the nature of the disaster, the twelve evacuees were denied permission to reenter terran air-space until any biological threats could be assessed. Within 36 hours, the two scientists from the biosphere site showed signs of massive infection and mutagenesis. Both died within the week. The remaining ten never showed symptoms but were quarantined on an orbital space platform for six months before finally being allowed to return to earth.

The International Space Cooperative established a containment zone around the biosphere--forbidding all persons, under any circumstances, from moving within two hundred miles of the site. Five robotic probes were released in succession to study the biosphere and its environs, but each mission was aborted due to mechanical failure. No adequate explanation of these failures has been found, and further investigation has been discouraged by worries about contamination. Satellite photography showed signs of explosive vegetative growth within the biosphere in the months following the disaster, but the Cooperative determined that the biosphere was intact and that there was no immediate danger of outside contamination.

In the weeks immediately following the disaster, there was widespread speculation about the fate of Dr. Voskamp and any connection that he might have had to the biosphere disaster. But after a year, only those on the fringe continued to seriously consider the possibility that he was alive and was responsible for frustrating the Cooperative's efforts to gather more data about the biosphere.

Moon-based research and commercial ventures dropped off for about a decade after the disaster, but now, fifteen years later, there are seven active research stations and two commercial projects being developed on the moon.


Our story opens on a view of a small ship reentering earth's atmosphere--a converted two-person military space plane. This model was retired from official service twenty years ago. And this particular plane shows marked signs of wear. At the controls sits a white-haired, white-mustached, balding, middle-aged man, wearing a space suit that looks like it ought to have been retired forty years ago. Behind him sits a young woman, his only daughter, Ann. …

--

























































--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.