The following is an interview of a man whose work (namely what little I have read of his work concerning the church, culture, and theological ramifications thereof) I have come to respect for its insight and candor. The interview is conducted by a pastor that I hold in high esteem as well, through his right division of the word of truth by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit.
Here is the reasoning behind my decision to post this interview:
As artists, writers, speakers, theologians, critics... nay, as HUMANS, we live in the wake of and ride upon the proverbial backs of other individuals, who have gone before us, whether we like it or not. In fact, the notion of and search for the "true" existentialist is, in my mind, quite simply a joke, since even the existentialist relies upon the written works of the likes of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Kierkegaard, and if they do not, they rely upon other individuals that have had a more personal impact upon their outlook. But the fact is that we find ourselves subject to the thoughts and ideas of our predecessors. We cannot escape our reliance upon heritage and those who have shaped our heritage. We sift through their ideals, their imagery, their practicalities, their nuances, and their convictions and find shards and blemishes alike. The shards, we realize, are those tools by which these individuals have taken what is broken, namely human reasoning concerning the divine and the essentially human, to cut hues and patterns into the symmetry of logic or a rejection of logic in order to make sense of reality. The blemishes are patterns we find which do not accord with reality. Through these patterns, we are endowed with the art of philosophy, and it is by this very broad term that we understand both practical and theoretical matters, which are found in the world that we live in, and which are a part of the human experience. The matter, then, is whether or not we realize our association with such "schools of thought," as it were. We follow such logic and weighing of influences with a matter of choice, either conscious or subconscious, concerning our allegiances to certain mindsets, and we count the cost in identifying with such ideals and subsequently build upon these foundations.
These individuals do not have to be big name philosophers or theologians. They can be relatives in our heritage, psychologists and talk-show hosts on TV, or the latest fiction novelist. The common western man with no interest in delving into philosophical or theological roots builds upon the foundations of his family upbringing, or the rejection of such principle; his peers, as well as his enemies for antithesis; his culture, which is force-fed to him through media, politics, economy, and the like; and his own conception of what ought to be god in his own mind. But what he does not realize is that his philosophical mindset is shaped by the filtered application of thinkers such as Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kant; his economic mindset is shaped by Adam Smith and his proteges; and his theological foundation is the classic liberal humanism, which is expounded from the pulpit of the world.
The Christian has a difficult time, then, as he is faced with being a work or (for our consumer mindset) a product of the Spirit as well as the temptation to be a product of the culture. Obviously, there are certain facts we cannot deny: that the Christian man thinks in terms, and grapples with ideas, of this culture. But as theologians, we supersede philosophers in this way. We must think in terms outside of culture as well, acknowledging a God that supersedes culture, and yet is somehow guiding and ordaining culture as he sees fit.
I have discussed some of these ideas in a previous post, and I have also written a painfully brief discourse on this idea of Christ's message within culture for a theology class I took this past semester.
I will discuss more later, for rather than to save this post without publishing and lengthen it at a later date, I should very much like to get the above interview on here post haste, as part of a statement as to which side I take in all of this debate. The postmodern man, as well as my former philosophy teachers, and even a few of those I know, love, and respect very dearly (maybe even you few who read my blog), shall perhaps disrespect me for taking such a side, or even for taking a specific side at all. To those who would prefer that I not take a side, I say this: the only "side" I claim to purport is that which adheres to scripture, that which adheres to the doctrine found in those scriptures, and that which founds itself in the Spirit of truth, through Christ Jesus, his death and resurrection, and the promise of salvation which he has ensured through such sacrifice. So, for those of you who claim to hold to that, I am still on your side. Call it enlightenment (for you open theists and humanists), call it an act of my free will (for you Arminians, whom I do love), or call it as I call it: providence, God's sovereignty, etc. In any case, I have been introduced to the biblical and cultural teachings of the likes of these men, and if you would like to know where I am coming from to spare yourself from yet another wearisome post (as if this was not already becoming one), listen to these men talk very briefly about culture and the state of certain theological debates, and perhaps explore more.
Also note certain websites that grace the top of my browser in my bookmark list: www.reformed.org, www.monergism.com, www.challies.com, www.thegospelcoalition.com, www.theresurgence.com. The last of these is the website from which I acquired this interview.
These are the things that I have been studying lately, and along with developing a kind of aesthetic foundation from which to draw an artistic means of communicating the truth that I see, I have been in prayer about how these thoughts and ideas translate into practical application into my personal life. Perhaps, I will bring in some poetry later, perhaps some prose. Hopefully, if I can find the time and endurance to complete them, a few plays. For now, though, I am studying. I am learning. I am the work of art that God is shaping. Bear with me please, and I shall with you. "Just because I'm losing, doesn't mean that I'm lost," and Tolkien said it beautifully: "Not all who wander are lost." But let us wander, shall we, within the parameters of those things we know to be true: Christ's death, resurrection, and promise of salvation to all who believe in Him.
A thought: Should they have been given wills of their own, rain drops could choose where and when they would like to fall to nourish the earth and seas below.
The logical thought pattern could go as follows: "Better to go where I can be of most use." But only the deserts would receive the rain, in this way.
Rather, they might think: "Better fall where I am most comfortable." Only the quietest and most untouched glacial lakes should receive replenishing.
Or they could choose: "I shall only fall where there are those who are most worthy of my benefit and life-giving provision."
Matthew 5:45b He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
It is fitting that our Lord sends rain to those places where He sees fit, since it is he that sustains creation as He sees fit.
A confession: If I seem angry, put off, or frustrated in any of my previous posts, I apologize. Sincerely, I do. Luther was said to have been a very angry man as well. Justified zeal in defense of truth is called for, I believe, but I do not wish to lash out in anger. Tonight, I was once again convicted of my tendency toward rash criticism, which stems ultimately from pride and not from rightful regression to a biblical defense of truth. I confess, and I repent. I am yet a work in progress as well.
Mere man am I, and I must not forget it. None of us should.
Mere men are we, Sovereign God is He. He will judge and bless that which he pleases, and before Him I stand, not even the least of these. Least of all, that I should judge with pride, my thesis.
God go with each of you.
Dead, once. Alive as He Pleases. Dead, All of us. Alive once more. Ded - al - us Dedalus
~ Ξ. Δαίδαλος
P.S. In the words of Eric D.: ^^^^ "See what I did there?"
What, shall we persist in these children's games? Are we forever boys? May it ne'er be so. The perpetual youth is a fantasy, given its prominence through stories like Peter Pan: a story which I am inclined to admire because of its creativity and ingenuity, but which I must weigh carefully in light of its pursuits. Finding Neverland cannot be a legitimate pursuit here in this life. It seems obvious to note this, but the implication is quite profound when I consider my tendency toward nostalgia. Not only do I genuinely enjoy things of archaic value and classical aura, but at times I genuinely long for the days gone by. What do we say here? "Oh Alex, certainly your appreciation for the cultures and times of olde must be justified in light of our culture's obvious turn towards iniquity," says the intellectual sympathizer. This comforts me, because I am assured that there are those of similar brainwave, as it were, that affirm my naivety and cynicism toward a decadent age, but shall I remain content in this? By no means. In Ecclesiastes, it is plainly given, "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." And wisdom's preferable sweetness is highlighted immediately thereafter.
What then are we playing at? Are we not here in this culture for such a time as this? In God's sovereignty, surely he could have placed me in another setting, a different culture, a separate background, yet I am here. I tout God's providence and I wish my own rescue from this cultural nightmare known as the postmodern age, all in the same breath. With reason so convoluted, and modern reason failing to provide sufficient reason in in all of its empirical glory, I turn to the idealist and cynic within, in full hopes that I might escape. Art, history, literature, and even theology fuel these ideals of escape. But this is not to be our goal. To request of the Lord a form of escape from these times and these circumstances is to deny His providence and purpose and your ability and responsibility to speak into the culture at hand. Certainly we distance ourselves from the culture's influence enough that we might train our children and establish the family in a proper and biblical manner, but to seek a lifestyle merely as a Christian escapist neglects a responsibility to respond to culture properly and engage its current understanding. We can do this through art, history, language, and personal investment, but above all, we trust God to use us in the culture.
All that being said, I still tussle with these thoughts.
Here's one for you: is there merit to a man's good name? The good Christian says that a man's name and reputation are subsidiary to his true identity. I understand the good intentions here: we dislike being discouraged by the sins of the past, and it is true that, regarding salvation, we are secured in Christ's sovereign grace (Please, let's not start. You know what I mean). But let us talk practically here and perhaps we shall see that there is much merit to preserving a good name.
In Ruth, chapter 3, the truly honorable man is glimpsed in a remarkable turn of events. We receive a picture of a very brave young women seeking her kinsmen redeemer. Treading lightly in the wake of the night air, Ruth found herself at the foot of a man she had grown to respect. Now she stood to risk her own reputation before him through her presence that night. Let it be understood, that what she was doing was NOT in and of itself uncalled for or even inappropriate. It was her right, and in some senses duty, by Jewish law, to be redeemed in marriage to her closest male relative. No, It was clearly her good name that was at stake here. And it was for her sake, in order to guard against any whisperings within his own house and elsewhere in the community, that Boaz said to her, "Don't let it be known that a woman came to the threshing floor." He cared for her good name in a way that has been unduly neglected in our cultue. This has bled over in many ways to our mentalities in the church, where whisperings and rumors are flaunted about in the name of "exposing sin" and "shedding the light of truth" upon a situation. Let it not be forgotten, confession and conviction must be fought for in the church, and discipline held to the utmost standard of Biblical truth. But let us guard the good name of our brothers, not as a means of phony self-image, but for the purpose of trust and accountability within the church.
Likewise, let us remember our sinful depravity and boast only in that perfection which has raised us and sanctified us not of our own choosing or to merit our own purposes, but by His own great pleasure. Thus, we keep in accord with the conviction that we are to humble ourselves and confess to one another our sins. But may we take care the lengths to which we make our sin known, that we might not boast even in our own testimonies or flaunt the past faults of others at the expense of our good name or the good name of a brother.
Again though, it is not for the sake of our name that we seek to guard the good names of one another. The power of the gospel and our proclamation of uncompromised truth alone shall forever taint the name of Christians to the ears of the lost, but let us not add to this by flaunting our superiority over reputation and right standing, if for no other reason then for conscience' sake.
It is out of such conscience and conviction for the good of a brother's name that I confess my own failure to adhere to my own profession. My good name has been soiled and I have been forthright in admitting, unaware that while I appease my own need to feel wanted and understood (and the needs of others to feel trustworthy), I have exposed wounds which have been guarded and claimed by the Holy Spirit in me, only to find them opened and salted once more beneath the great white light called community. As healing and perceiving as this dynamic seems at the time, this light opens up a lot of thoughts that lead me into an introspection and withdrawn mentality, where lurk many of the old demons, which I claim to have victory over by the Spirit in me. Even still these demons seek a grasp, though they have lost the battle already.
Here I draw the line between my theology and my sinful humanity. My belief that Satan and his demons have lost already does not impede my tendency to allow them the smallest foothold to form in my fallen mind. It is a balance beam that I have not the training to walk alone. I fall, and Christ by His good grace has netted my fall for my ultimate benefit. Shall I then rob Him of His glory in my own mind by claiming that it is unjust for Him to put me through such refining fire. It isn't that he has watched me fall for lack of control only to bounce me back up for my second chance to be more faithful. It is by His grace that I do not fall beyond saving, it is His grace which preserves me through the fall, and it is His grace which brings me once again into right relationship with Him that I might once again pursue obedience and faithfulness. This is the salvation that I trust. It is one that renews daily my calling by His grace, and not of my own merit. It is a gift of God and not by works, lest anyone should boast. And for that, I'm thankful.
All that is to say, in keeping with boasting only in Christ, let us not wear our testimonies on our sleeves so that our individual stories may not diminished of the work of Christ who is author and pefecter of the faith which defines our stories, fully aware that it is not about our story, but it is about atonement and how our Lord's story is so centered around that reality. It is to this atonement that we our called as men and women of His own choosing, and through this calling that we are given purposes within the church and within culture.
What then is my calling? What is our calling as men? As men of God, redeemed for His purpose, by His good pleasure, we are called to be leaders within our homes and churches, and to preach the gospel. Many movements have arisen to reclaim the masculine mentality and even others seek to train men biblically as a man. But we cannot learn to be men of the Church or leaders of the Body until we learn to lead and guide her (the Church) as servants to Christ and to the Church. A servant of this stature must train Biblical men to be teachers of the word and of sound biblical doctrine, raise up a reformed understanding of the family and the necessary leadership and service that such an institution demands of men, and in turn instill a proper conviction in younger men of their duty to adhere to such discipline.
One word is recalled here, I am sure, and for some it is a nasty word: "Tradition." The postmodern man scorns this word in his own mind and seeks enlightenment just as Romans 1 predicted. Can the idea behind such a word be reclaimed and redefined outside of the negative connotations implied? Brothers and Sisters, not only can it, but it is in desperate need of such reform. My reasoning here, is that the postmodern thought cannot get its mind around the fact that we need to look to the Bible in all of its trans-cultural nonconformity. Yes we become all things to all people, as Paul rightfully asserts, but the gospel does not. It does not bend to the whims of cultural thought and passing fads in philosophy. Even the reformers' thought process would have been affected by the culture to some degree, but the gospel does not shape shift and the reformers, in their limited ways, understood this and proclaimed it.
Tradition, then, can be understood in a couple of ways; and furthermore, the concepts here can have strong implications a man's decision on how and where to raise his family. Much of this difference has to do with different understandings of scriptural messages
I will address three general applications of traditional mindsets that can be assigned through observation of culture and scripture. Tradition can be played out through rigidity, upon which is heaped all of the ideals and sins of our fathers. The Church is seeing a lot of men, even today, rise up in this mindset and tradition. The culture is evil and so are the people in it, and thus I must separate myself from the culture, as well as from the people in it. The arguments within this whole emerging church are too dangerous, and I don't want my family to be raised amid such confusion. I wash my hands of this world ridden filth, and I plan to live a life apart from the this culture from now on. This mentality develops the kind of sub-cultural elitism found in such sects of Christianity (and here I use sects in the proper sense of the word, in that it is a step beyond mere denominational difference) as the Amish and many of their Mennonite offspring. But this approach is also found in various congregations of fundamental, "evangelical" circles as well, which I find to be utterly perplexing.
I find this approach to be the wrong application of Christian principles. Such a mindset takes Romans 1 and the idea of the wickedness of worldly things and misapplies it along with the idea in John 17:16 (And if you read verse 15 before it, Jesus prays that God would not remove us, His bride, from the world, but that we would be protected from the evil one). Tradition in this sense, has been used to justify men lording over women in scripturally unprecedented ways, and it has also been used to mask evil which we all know permeates even into the most remote and sheltered lifestyles. When we remove ourselves so much from the culture that we remove ourselves from people of perspectives outside of our own, as well as people of different beliefs, we claim to be acting for our families own interest by sheltering them from evil, but evil is a part of our very natures, and cannot be escaped.
Tradition can also be seen in the sense of proper "evangelical" political affiliation. In other words, because we are Christians and conservative, we vote straight down the ticket republican without even glancing at the moral or political stances of the candidate. Now, unlike some of my "more progressive" contemporaries, I am not arguing against Christian affiliation, or even Christian conservative belief. I myself am conservative in most, if not all, of my political beliefs. The problem is that there are many ideals held within the republican party, and by those within the republican party today especially, that do not represent the name of Christ in policy. But the point is missed when we assume that "Christ today" would back a certain party as the lesser of two evils. First of all, who are you, in your fallen mind, to take Christ out of the context of history into which God, in His good pleasure, placed His only Son. Second of all, Christ Himself said that His kingdom was not of this world, and if it were, his disciples would have literally fought for his release (John 18:36). Now, from here we can derive much concerning the Augustinian idea of the two cities, to which I tend to hold, but for now, let's consider the third application of this idea of tradition.
Tradition can also be seen as a return to right belief and right doctrine, or orthodoxy, and the implications that follow. This brings up my conundrum this past semester in Greece, one of the staple nations of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy there is seen as a bad influence upon the heart of the gospel, but in America, a return to orthodoxy, or a reformed tradition, is long overdue within the church, not for the sake of politics, nor even for the sake of the family in and of itself, but for the sake of the realization of the gospel, that it might reclaim its rightful place in the hearts and lives of our Lord's Bride, that we might rely upon him to rectify the leadership both within the family and within the nation. Apart from Him, we can do nothing. In Him, we are more than conquerors and we are free to raise our families, sheltered from certain evil influence of this world (which is necessary to a point), and we are free to engage culture with missional mindsets that speak to the culture we are in.
But I believe we lose our opportunity to join Christ in speaking into the culture when we reject a life within culture, AS WELL AS when we embrace a cultural relativity which compromises scripture in any shape or form. We hold to doctrine, and we affirm biblical inerrancy to its utmost, AND we approach the culture with an agenda (for if the gospel has no agenda, it is not the gospel), but not a political agenda.
Men, we are called to be leaders in the church, and as such we must take the initiative within our churches to bring right belief and proper doctrine into our churches once more. Ladies, this does include the books of Titus, 1 Timothy, and Ephesians, as well as Genesis, in which we are given the foundation of the creation order and the proper establishment of man as head of the family and as the leading servant of Christ within the church. But serving Christ in the church, means serving Christ first and foremost in the family, as the spiritual head and breadwinner of the household (1 Tim 2:12; 5:8). Husbands, then, have the responsibility to their wives as servants to uplift the home through his leadership, guidance and provision, and wives have the responsibility to their husbands as servants to uplift the home through supporting their husbands, tending to the home, and raising and nurturing children. The man's responsibility to Christ and the woman's responsibility to her husband are not to be thought of in terms of superior and inferior, but in terms of equality, for we will all be judged according to an equal standard ultimately regarding salvation before our Lord; however, the responsibilities that we fulfill are laid before us as callings which flow from our salvation and sanctification. Thus, our roles are not to be neglected, nor are they to be called into question simply because of cultural questioning which ultimately stems from this world.
In conclusion, for this post is far too long as it is, over this past semester, one of things that has been impressed on my heart, rather than to remind women of their submission to men within the church, is the need to call men to their places of spiritual and even cultural leadership within the church. Remember, in the time of the Judges, that our Lord used women to make men look like the fools that they are. This was not the fault of the women, but rather it was a failure on the part of the men in Israel to step up in leadership. Thus, I close with the proclamation that our Lord is sovereign, and He can use even those times in history when the men are weak and the women take leadership initiative. BUT THAT IS NOT HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Men, let us stand up in Christ, and accept the responsibility that our Lord has given to us through His good and perfect providence, knowing full well that our ultimate calling and command, before reaching the culture, is to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. May His word and His law be our delight as we give Him, solely, the praise and honor for the great gift of salvation, in order that the gospel might be proclaimed to one another within the Body, as well as proclaimed to the world by the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
