It is very faddish in our day and age to mock Christ's Church, even as Christians.
Those who do not believe in Jesus will talk about why they don't like the Church--usually having to do with hypocrisy and judgmentalism. Of course, a critique of this critique is that when mankind had Jesus Christ in the flesh--the true Judge and was perfect in every way, and thus not hypocritical.
In the same way, Christians tend to bad mouth the Church as well (as if they're not a part of it). They too complain of the hypocrites, though in their vague condemnation of others' sin, they are proving themselves to be hypocrites. They likewise diagnose the "problem" of the church in a hundred different ways, again ignoring the fact that the're part of the problem
We think attending church services is a convenience, though it is God who calls us together and addressses us through His Word (more on that in a moment). We prefer a "personal spirituality," though God calls us to accountability (Heb. 10:24-25). We refuse to become members, ostensibly because it's not biblical (though it's the obvious implication every time Paul writes a letter to a specific local church). We struggle to submit to the elders, though they are the shepherds and overseers of our souls (Heb. 13).
I mention all of this because this self-righteous battering of Christ's Bride carries over into our view of preaching. How many still know that the preaching of God's Word is fundamentally different from the reading of God's Word? How many remember that it is preaching that is considered essential for the salvation of mankind (Rom. 10)? As long as they remain faithful to God's Word, pastors in many ways wield the power of the prophets--able to claim "Thus saith the Lord."
So it is that preaching is by far the most important part of worship on the Lord's Day. The sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) are also essential, and singing, a call to worship and benediction, and prayer are required as well. But all of these things revolve around the proclamation of the Word of God. The sacraments are "signs and seals" of the grace proclaimed from the pulpit. The call to worship is God's invitation into His worship, and the benediction is His blessing to His people for the week. We sing because we have the privilege of being addressed by God. And the outflow of all of these things is deep communal bonds. It is not the most important part of the Church by a long stretch, but if a Church is healthy, it will be reflected in these bonds.
Now, if preaching is indeed the heart of Church worship (Acts 2), then that means a number of things for us:
1) It should be the first priority for you and me when we look for a church. The singing may stink in my opinion, and the communal life might be pretty rough as best I can tell, but those can be accommodated as long as the Word is faithfully preached.
2) We must carefully scrutinize the preaching of a church. If a pastor cannot in good conscience say "Thus saith the Lord" as he preaches, then He is likely not faithfully preaching God's Word. God's Word is not good advice. Preaching should not be filled with illustrations and applications unless these are directly or implicitly drawn from God's Word or brings greater light to its truth. And when a passage is preached, people should come away having learned more about the passage, not about culture or the life of the pastor.
3) If "Christ and Him crucified" was sufficient to be the Apostle Paul's message, then it should and must be sufficient for us. Pastors must still be faithful to the Text and not impose their own views upon a passage, but Christ (Luke 24) and the apostles give us both the warrant and mandate to preach Christ from all of Scripture. That is our fundamental goal--to placard Christ (to use Paul's words) before the eyes of His people and a watching world.
4) It means, as the Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us, that we should prepare ourselves for the preaching of God's Word. I confess that I often get distracted in during God's worship. I think of finances, food, good experiences, goals, sources of anxiety, and how to best try to disarm somebody who busts through the door and opens fire on the congregation. How do I prevent these distractions when God is addressing me? I prepare my heart in prayer, asking for God's blessing upon His ambassador in the pulpit and for His blessing upon my stubborn heart. I pray that I would be attentive to His Word and that I'd be convicted of my sin and comforted by the Gospel (Acts 2). I pray that I would not only hear the Word, but do the Word by His grace (James 1).
And if, in my normal ADHD-induced stupor, I still struggle to focus, I will take notes and/or sit closer to the front. And I'll have my kids do the same. If I'm already teaching them to pay attention to their teachers and to not interrupt their elders, then you better believe I'll teach them to pay attention to their God when He is speaking to them (and hope they do a better job than I did).
23.11.13
22.11.13
PTSD
I believe that virtually all soldiers come back from a war zone with some form of PTSD, even if not engaged in combat. In order to make this point, I would like to offer two corrections to common myths.
1) PTSD is not only caused by traumatic experiences. It has more to do with the person than the experience. Two soldiers can experience something horrible, but only comes away with PTSD. Often times, someone who struggles with PTSD has become locked into crisis mode, where they treat normal life as if it is filled with the same level of trauma, regardless of environment. This crisis mode is not only caused by moments of crisis, but persistent vigilance in response to perceived threats. I'll demonstrate that latter fact in a second.
2) PTSD is not only reflected in dramatic outbursts and explosions. It is often reflected, especially in its milder forms, in distorted emotions and reactions, paranoia, and fear. Again, PTSD is dependent upon the person, not the experience. The way in which one responds to crisis often determines the makeup of their particular struggle with PTSD.
These corrections were brought home to me again today. I was meeting with one of my good buddies here, and he spoke to me of unusual emotional patterns. For example, he has only cried twice around his wife since they got married. Now, he finds himself crying virtually every week. He also mentioned to me that he got incredibly angry yesterday when his armored vehicle drove through town and he noticed Afghans staring at his vehicle and talking on their cell phones.
Both his weekly bouts with crying and this irrational anger are totally out of place with his normal character. But this soldier, like many others, is unlikely to notice such changes. They often happen gradually, and deployment doesn't afford many opportunities for introspection. In fact, changes like these are often ignored as a survival mechanism in an environment that requires soldiers to "drive on," regardless of their experiences.
Now this soldier has not experienced anything directly traumatic. Indirectly, he had to deal with the fact that several Afghan contractors who worked under him in a different part of the country were killed by an IED. But the thing that really wore on him is what I believe the most common cause of PTSD in a theater of war--not combat, but a hyper-vigilant lifestyle.
Every time I go outside the wire, I subconsciously gird myself. We all do this. My stomach instinctively clinches, anticipating a hypothetical IED. I notice every person talking on a cell phone, knowing they might be triggering an IED. Every time we get stuck in traffic, I work harder to scan my surroundings, believing that a VBIED (vehicle-based) could be nearing at any moment. Even inside the wire, I wonder if the Afghan I pass in the night has an undetected weapon and scroll through strategies of fight or flight. Every soldier thinks these things, but most every soldier is also no longer aware that he thinks these things. He just does them. They become his lifestyle.
But then he goes home. He will drive through a suburb, noting pedestrians who talk on their cell phones. He scans the overpass for snipers. He wonders whether a pile of trash or pothole contains an IED. He fears large crowds because of the unpredictability. He gets irrationally angry when circumstances seem outside of his control. His crisis mode has become his permanent mode. He has PTSD.
The soldier I met with is spiritually strong, by God's grace, and more emotionally health than most any soldier out here. But I encouraged him to get counseling upon his return. What most soldiers (and people) don't realize is that this is more than a psychological problem. The constant rush of adrenaline reconfigures the brain to maintain such levels. It is a physiological problem.
Before I left, I told the wifey that I would probably have PTSD upon my return and than I anticipated needing counseling. No shame in that sentiment, just an anticipated reality. She asked me recently whether I still wanted to get counseling. Forgetting what I have learned about PTSD, I told her that I probably wouldn't because I haven't experienced anything particularly traumatic. While I might not seek counseling immediately, if, after a couple of weeks, the wifey detects that something is off, she has full permission to demand that I get treated.
As I have told soldiers for years, not only is there no shame in getting psychological help, but it should be expected for those who have willingly engaged the world in its brokenness for the sake of others' security. Our soldiers not only need counseling, they deserve it.
And just as we fight for our families, we desire to return right for our families. And if we love them (and we all do), we will engage the latter battle as eagerly as we engage the former.
1) PTSD is not only caused by traumatic experiences. It has more to do with the person than the experience. Two soldiers can experience something horrible, but only comes away with PTSD. Often times, someone who struggles with PTSD has become locked into crisis mode, where they treat normal life as if it is filled with the same level of trauma, regardless of environment. This crisis mode is not only caused by moments of crisis, but persistent vigilance in response to perceived threats. I'll demonstrate that latter fact in a second.
2) PTSD is not only reflected in dramatic outbursts and explosions. It is often reflected, especially in its milder forms, in distorted emotions and reactions, paranoia, and fear. Again, PTSD is dependent upon the person, not the experience. The way in which one responds to crisis often determines the makeup of their particular struggle with PTSD.
These corrections were brought home to me again today. I was meeting with one of my good buddies here, and he spoke to me of unusual emotional patterns. For example, he has only cried twice around his wife since they got married. Now, he finds himself crying virtually every week. He also mentioned to me that he got incredibly angry yesterday when his armored vehicle drove through town and he noticed Afghans staring at his vehicle and talking on their cell phones.
Both his weekly bouts with crying and this irrational anger are totally out of place with his normal character. But this soldier, like many others, is unlikely to notice such changes. They often happen gradually, and deployment doesn't afford many opportunities for introspection. In fact, changes like these are often ignored as a survival mechanism in an environment that requires soldiers to "drive on," regardless of their experiences.
Now this soldier has not experienced anything directly traumatic. Indirectly, he had to deal with the fact that several Afghan contractors who worked under him in a different part of the country were killed by an IED. But the thing that really wore on him is what I believe the most common cause of PTSD in a theater of war--not combat, but a hyper-vigilant lifestyle.
Every time I go outside the wire, I subconsciously gird myself. We all do this. My stomach instinctively clinches, anticipating a hypothetical IED. I notice every person talking on a cell phone, knowing they might be triggering an IED. Every time we get stuck in traffic, I work harder to scan my surroundings, believing that a VBIED (vehicle-based) could be nearing at any moment. Even inside the wire, I wonder if the Afghan I pass in the night has an undetected weapon and scroll through strategies of fight or flight. Every soldier thinks these things, but most every soldier is also no longer aware that he thinks these things. He just does them. They become his lifestyle.
But then he goes home. He will drive through a suburb, noting pedestrians who talk on their cell phones. He scans the overpass for snipers. He wonders whether a pile of trash or pothole contains an IED. He fears large crowds because of the unpredictability. He gets irrationally angry when circumstances seem outside of his control. His crisis mode has become his permanent mode. He has PTSD.
The soldier I met with is spiritually strong, by God's grace, and more emotionally health than most any soldier out here. But I encouraged him to get counseling upon his return. What most soldiers (and people) don't realize is that this is more than a psychological problem. The constant rush of adrenaline reconfigures the brain to maintain such levels. It is a physiological problem.
Before I left, I told the wifey that I would probably have PTSD upon my return and than I anticipated needing counseling. No shame in that sentiment, just an anticipated reality. She asked me recently whether I still wanted to get counseling. Forgetting what I have learned about PTSD, I told her that I probably wouldn't because I haven't experienced anything particularly traumatic. While I might not seek counseling immediately, if, after a couple of weeks, the wifey detects that something is off, she has full permission to demand that I get treated.
As I have told soldiers for years, not only is there no shame in getting psychological help, but it should be expected for those who have willingly engaged the world in its brokenness for the sake of others' security. Our soldiers not only need counseling, they deserve it.
And just as we fight for our families, we desire to return right for our families. And if we love them (and we all do), we will engage the latter battle as eagerly as we engage the former.
21.11.13
Con Te Partiro (With You I Will Leave)
I looked at each soldier in the eyes, embraced them, and wished them God's blessings in their return to home and family. One soldier told me that she would really miss me.
I knew that I was looking at a good number off those faces for the last time as folks go their separate ways. We may not have served on the front lines together, but we served in a remote location, apart from our families, together. Together, we trained for two months in Texas, and together, we worked in offices and visited training sites together. I cared for them in their dark nights of the soul and I prayed for their spouses and little ones. I will miss them. Even in the twilight of this fleeting life, I will not forget them.
The reality that we are in a war zone was impressed upon us the last two nights, as twice we had to take cover--once for "incoming" (last night) and once for an "active shooter" (tonight). We heard several dozen rounds fired off in the latter incident. Not sure if anyone was hurt. These are rare incidents in this area of the country, but they are good reminders to always keep vigilant.
Tomorrow, I return to my nearby post by air transport (as the roads are closed due to the loya jirga--the gathering of elders to decide our future involvement here). As my time was delayed here with my departing soldiers, I look forward to returning to the remainder of my unit.
Thanksgiving is near and Christmas is fast approaching. A few weeks later, in God's wise providence, I will return home with the second wave of my soldiers, leaving the last portion for April.
All of this produces a complex array of emotions. I was a bit sad to not be leaving on the plane tonight. My soldiers were so excited to get home to their spouses and children. I shared in their excitement, but must defer the fulfillment of that excitement for myself. At the same time, I will be sad to leave in a couple of months and leave the remnant of my unit. A part of me feels like I should be the last person to step foot on a plane from my unit.
I met for a bit with the second-in-command chaplain in Afghanistan today. Within a year of departing this country, he will retire. After not deploying during the first twenty years of his career, he has deployed three times in the last ten. His family has flourished amidst it all. All seven of his children (some now adults) are disappointed that he will be leaving. The frequent moves and more recent deployments, while hard at times, served only to draw the family closer together. This chaplain, having served his country with distinction over three decades, having cared for his family along the way, having poured himself out for the sake of the Gospel, will now enjoy his own twilight. May these sunset years be filled with joy for this father in the faith!
I knew that I was looking at a good number off those faces for the last time as folks go their separate ways. We may not have served on the front lines together, but we served in a remote location, apart from our families, together. Together, we trained for two months in Texas, and together, we worked in offices and visited training sites together. I cared for them in their dark nights of the soul and I prayed for their spouses and little ones. I will miss them. Even in the twilight of this fleeting life, I will not forget them.
The reality that we are in a war zone was impressed upon us the last two nights, as twice we had to take cover--once for "incoming" (last night) and once for an "active shooter" (tonight). We heard several dozen rounds fired off in the latter incident. Not sure if anyone was hurt. These are rare incidents in this area of the country, but they are good reminders to always keep vigilant.
Tomorrow, I return to my nearby post by air transport (as the roads are closed due to the loya jirga--the gathering of elders to decide our future involvement here). As my time was delayed here with my departing soldiers, I look forward to returning to the remainder of my unit.
Thanksgiving is near and Christmas is fast approaching. A few weeks later, in God's wise providence, I will return home with the second wave of my soldiers, leaving the last portion for April.
All of this produces a complex array of emotions. I was a bit sad to not be leaving on the plane tonight. My soldiers were so excited to get home to their spouses and children. I shared in their excitement, but must defer the fulfillment of that excitement for myself. At the same time, I will be sad to leave in a couple of months and leave the remnant of my unit. A part of me feels like I should be the last person to step foot on a plane from my unit.
I met for a bit with the second-in-command chaplain in Afghanistan today. Within a year of departing this country, he will retire. After not deploying during the first twenty years of his career, he has deployed three times in the last ten. His family has flourished amidst it all. All seven of his children (some now adults) are disappointed that he will be leaving. The frequent moves and more recent deployments, while hard at times, served only to draw the family closer together. This chaplain, having served his country with distinction over three decades, having cared for his family along the way, having poured himself out for the sake of the Gospel, will now enjoy his own twilight. May these sunset years be filled with joy for this father in the faith!
The Economic and Electoral Consequences of Obamacare
Obamacare--the signature achievement of the Obama presidency--never enjoyed popular support. In particular, certain pieces of the complex new policy--the individual mandate, the raiding of Medicare, the promise of rationing that always comes with expanded public healthcare (supply can never meet demand), etc.--kept the majority of the public against the bill. Many folks also didn't like how such a substantial piece of legislation, affecting one-sixth of the American economy, was passed on a strictly party line vote and against the apparent rebuke offered up with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
But the former objections pale with the present ones, now that Americans have to deal with the first round of economic consequences of the new policy (which are far less substantial than later rounds will be). In order for Obamacare to meet the promises made to reduce the burden on those with pre-existing conditions, there had to be a huge influx of healthy people joining the program, paying much higher premiums, in order to cover those who are less-advantaged. How could this vast number of healthy people be convinced to leave their old plans and pay higher premiums under Obamacare?
Apparently, they wouldn't need to be convinced. Obamacare's requirement that businesses provide Cadillac coverage to their employees was impossible for most businesses. In order to cover those news costs, thousands of businesses across the country cut the hours of their employees, thereby disqualifying them from the new requirements, and leaving many of them under-employed. In addition, health providers are also required to offer Cadillac coverage to many of those they cover, which forced them to start cutting people from the rolls due to the overwhelming expense of the new requirements. Subsequently, millions of people across the country have now lost their health care coverage, violating a fundamental pledge tied to Obamacare.
While the failure of the Obamacare website has become a symbol of incompetency to the American public, it is the larger issue of suspected deceit that has sent the poll numbers for both Obamacare and the Obama presidency plummeting further still. It is not just the violating of the pledge that people can keep their old health insurance. It is the suspicion that part of this was the plan all along--that the only way that healthy people would join Obamacare and cover the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions would be if they were kicked off their old plans and forced onto the Obamacare rolls. In which case, not only was the pledge violated, but it was disingenuous from the outset and the intent was always that people would be economically coerced into joining Obamacare (a less direct equivalent to the individual mandate).
It is this broader suspicion that now shows public disapproval of Obamacare at over 60% according to a recent CBS News poll, and President Obama's approval ratings now in the 30's, according to most major polls. But none of the poll numbers change the fact that we are now suffering from an unnecessary, self-inflicted economic blow that will reverberate amongst the American people until this new law is repealed.
In the meantime, an electorate that was looking unfavorably at the GOP after the government shutdown has shifted dramatically in their antipathy, directing their anger primarily at the Obama administration. They still dislike the GOP and that lack of an agenda by the GOP has helped their cause, but it looks like they are coming to dislike the Obama administration more.
As a result, the relatively static state of many of the Senate races are starting to shift. The GOP will need six seats in order to take the Senate. Three already seem to be probably pick-ups (WV, SD, and MT). The weight of Obamacare has now propelled a number of other seats into the pure toss-up category (AR, LA, AK, and NC) and a number of other safer Democratic seats into potential contention (IA, MI, and CO). IN the past, a GOP pick-up of 3-4 seats was probably the most likely scenario. If the Obamacare situation continues to deteriorate, the GOP is at least even money to take the Senate.
As a side note, neither the House majority of majority of governorships are at risk. In the House, there will likely be a net change in the single digits for the one of the parties. The GOP currently holds 29 governorships vs. 21 for the Dems. It looks like the GOP will pick up AR, but lose PA. Three other GOP seats (ME, FL, and MI) are at risk. At this point, I'd speculate that the GOP would lose ME, but hold the other two, losing one seat net.
And for 2016, the beginnings of the field are beginning to shape up. There is no question that Hillary is the front runner in the Democratic primary (by landslide proportions) and in the general election. The rest of the Dem pack will be vying for the VP slot (likely contenders include Sen. Elizabeth Warren of MA and governors Martin O' Malley of MD and Andrew Cuomo of NY). On the Republican side, Gov. Chris Christie of NJ is probably the front runner, though their is also strong support for Sen. Rand Paul of KY, Rep. Paul Ryan of WI, and Sen. Marco Rubio of FL. There is also smaller but significant support for former Gov. Jeb Bush of FL, Gov. Bobby Jindal of LA, and Gov. Scott Walker of WI.
Expect Obamacare to reverberate into 2016, especially if the GOP produces a clear, pragmatic, alternative agenda to governing (no sure thing, to say the least). In such a case, Hillary will lose her status as the front runner (especially due to Hillarycare, back in the '90s). And while she will have a much more substantial war chest than anything the GOP might be able to produce, there is also a good chance that the Dem ticket will be considerably older and whiter than the GOP ticket, which would likely favor the GOP.
But the former objections pale with the present ones, now that Americans have to deal with the first round of economic consequences of the new policy (which are far less substantial than later rounds will be). In order for Obamacare to meet the promises made to reduce the burden on those with pre-existing conditions, there had to be a huge influx of healthy people joining the program, paying much higher premiums, in order to cover those who are less-advantaged. How could this vast number of healthy people be convinced to leave their old plans and pay higher premiums under Obamacare?
Apparently, they wouldn't need to be convinced. Obamacare's requirement that businesses provide Cadillac coverage to their employees was impossible for most businesses. In order to cover those news costs, thousands of businesses across the country cut the hours of their employees, thereby disqualifying them from the new requirements, and leaving many of them under-employed. In addition, health providers are also required to offer Cadillac coverage to many of those they cover, which forced them to start cutting people from the rolls due to the overwhelming expense of the new requirements. Subsequently, millions of people across the country have now lost their health care coverage, violating a fundamental pledge tied to Obamacare.
While the failure of the Obamacare website has become a symbol of incompetency to the American public, it is the larger issue of suspected deceit that has sent the poll numbers for both Obamacare and the Obama presidency plummeting further still. It is not just the violating of the pledge that people can keep their old health insurance. It is the suspicion that part of this was the plan all along--that the only way that healthy people would join Obamacare and cover the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions would be if they were kicked off their old plans and forced onto the Obamacare rolls. In which case, not only was the pledge violated, but it was disingenuous from the outset and the intent was always that people would be economically coerced into joining Obamacare (a less direct equivalent to the individual mandate).
It is this broader suspicion that now shows public disapproval of Obamacare at over 60% according to a recent CBS News poll, and President Obama's approval ratings now in the 30's, according to most major polls. But none of the poll numbers change the fact that we are now suffering from an unnecessary, self-inflicted economic blow that will reverberate amongst the American people until this new law is repealed.
In the meantime, an electorate that was looking unfavorably at the GOP after the government shutdown has shifted dramatically in their antipathy, directing their anger primarily at the Obama administration. They still dislike the GOP and that lack of an agenda by the GOP has helped their cause, but it looks like they are coming to dislike the Obama administration more.
As a result, the relatively static state of many of the Senate races are starting to shift. The GOP will need six seats in order to take the Senate. Three already seem to be probably pick-ups (WV, SD, and MT). The weight of Obamacare has now propelled a number of other seats into the pure toss-up category (AR, LA, AK, and NC) and a number of other safer Democratic seats into potential contention (IA, MI, and CO). IN the past, a GOP pick-up of 3-4 seats was probably the most likely scenario. If the Obamacare situation continues to deteriorate, the GOP is at least even money to take the Senate.
As a side note, neither the House majority of majority of governorships are at risk. In the House, there will likely be a net change in the single digits for the one of the parties. The GOP currently holds 29 governorships vs. 21 for the Dems. It looks like the GOP will pick up AR, but lose PA. Three other GOP seats (ME, FL, and MI) are at risk. At this point, I'd speculate that the GOP would lose ME, but hold the other two, losing one seat net.
And for 2016, the beginnings of the field are beginning to shape up. There is no question that Hillary is the front runner in the Democratic primary (by landslide proportions) and in the general election. The rest of the Dem pack will be vying for the VP slot (likely contenders include Sen. Elizabeth Warren of MA and governors Martin O' Malley of MD and Andrew Cuomo of NY). On the Republican side, Gov. Chris Christie of NJ is probably the front runner, though their is also strong support for Sen. Rand Paul of KY, Rep. Paul Ryan of WI, and Sen. Marco Rubio of FL. There is also smaller but significant support for former Gov. Jeb Bush of FL, Gov. Bobby Jindal of LA, and Gov. Scott Walker of WI.
Expect Obamacare to reverberate into 2016, especially if the GOP produces a clear, pragmatic, alternative agenda to governing (no sure thing, to say the least). In such a case, Hillary will lose her status as the front runner (especially due to Hillarycare, back in the '90s). And while she will have a much more substantial war chest than anything the GOP might be able to produce, there is also a good chance that the Dem ticket will be considerably older and whiter than the GOP ticket, which would likely favor the GOP.
20.11.13
Christianity and Culture
When the waves of heretical theological Liberalism crashed upon Protestant denominations in the early twentieth century, members of said denominations tended to respond in one of three ways: Compromise, Capitulation, or Consecration.
Compromise. Many Christians made peace with heretical views, often in the name of relevance and a superficial unity. Many thought they could preserve the core of Christianity by ceding certain doctrines to their "scientific" opponents (i.e. miracles, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, and the authority of Scripture). This approach had two key flaws: One, the doctrines most objectionable to the modern mind are the doctrines most crucial to the Christian faith. After ceding such doctrines, there is no more Christianity. Two, opposing worldviews will leave no intellectual rock un-turned. There will be no relenting until every truth claim of Christianity is wiped away, leaving only experience, which is really nothing.
Capitulation. Many Christians not only fled from heretical views, but they fled from everything that might allow for their propagation, including the academy, science laboratory, public school system, and culture at large. Like the monasticism of prior centuries, these Christians thought that the surrounding culture was intrinsically evil and could only be escaped through an isolated counter-culture. As Luther rightfully noted about monastics of his age, however, every person who goes into a monastery brings the devil with them. We will always be linked and heavily influence by our culture, and always bound to the whole of man with our common depravity. These folks also lost confidence in God's Word as God's truth in their practice, even if they still held to it in their doctrine. Ultimately, Christianity can adequately confront and overcome all other worldviews. These critiques aside, these folks were preferable to those who compromised because they still held to the Christian faith.
Consecration. Some Christians continued to graciously and valiantly slug it out in the academy. They worked to vindicate the Christian faith in the face of hostile worldviews and expose their faulty foundations. They were stubborn in their defense of the truth and winsome in their propagation of it.
(For more on these approaches and the theological battles of the time, see J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, and his article "Christianity and Culture," which can be found online.)
With these categories in mind, what are the prevailing worldviews and obstacles with which Christians must entangle themselves today?
Naturalism. This worldview has a fundamental faith commitment to the supremacy of the natural realm and the impossibility of the supernatural. Such an a priori commitment (philosophical term for a belief that precedes any argumentation and is a foundational belief without any other foundation) will immediately put their worldview in contention with the claims of Christianity, which accepts God's rule and involvement in history as revealed in Scripture as its own a priori commitment. The first goal of the Christian in engaging naturalism is to reveal that such a worldview is not a result of following the evidence, but that the evidence follows from the worldview and is inherently skewed.
Scientism. The modern scientific enterprise makes two audacious claims: One, all truth can be measured through "scientific" means, i.e. through the empirical (truth through senses) scientific method. This view, of course, presupposes naturalism as it asserts that the natural order is the beginning and end of the scientific method. Two, the physical sciences is exalted over all other disciplines in the pursuit of truth. When we talk "facts" nowadays, we are not speaking of theological presuppositions (theology used to be considered the "queen of the sciences"), nor are we speaking of logical conclusions of philosophical syllogism (if a is true, and b is true, than c must be true). That the small sliver of the intellectual universe occupied by the physical sciences could run roughshod over the rest of the academy is startling. The first goal of the Christian in engaging scientism is to reveal its naturalism presuppositions and question the audacious claims of the physical sciences to dominate the field of knowledge and truth.
Historicism. Infused within the cultural DNA of America is a tendency to exalt the pragmatic (what's presently useful) over the rich resources of history. It is presumed that history is always progressing and that the new is always better than the old. C.S. Lewis correctly labeled this mentality as "chronological snobbery." The problem with this mentality is that history is an equal opportunity employer as it pertains to truth, thus, as Chesterton would argue, there should be a "democracy of the dead" that gets a vote on matters of truth. In addition, the whole of Christian truth is rooted on the plane of history, including the historical life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The first goal of the Christian in engaging historicism is to show the value of history in providing and illuminating truth.
Experientialism. As the idolatrous truth claims of twentieth century modernism continue to be washed away by the absolute skepticism of postmodernism, a great chasm of rootless experientialism has been left in its wake. Logic takes no ground on a terrain that is governed by irrational, inward experiences that are prided as ultimate. The problem for Christians is that this experientialism largely started within the Christian camp. As Enlightenment philosophers (namely, Kant) divorced religious truth claims from the field of facts and history, and Liberalism subsequently ravaged the Church, many Christian retreated into Kant's refuge of experientialism. The problem with experientialism, inside or outside of the Church, is that it contains to truth. Experience might derive from truth, but it can never be the basis of truth. Christians must fundamentally rely upon the objective truth claims of Scripture, not their experience, as their testimony to the Gospel of God's grace. They should also question the ultimate nature experience and point out that the logical conclusions of this worldview (complete anarchy) reveal its illogical roots.
Monopolization of education. While parents are nominally entrusted with the responsibility of raising children, the reality is that the State raises our children. They spend at least six hours a day (not including homework) imbibing naturalism, scientism, historicism, and experientialism at school, and usually considerably less time imbibing the values and worldview of their parents, who often know better. The intellect must be sharpened by competing ideas and worldviews. An educational monopoly does not allow for such competition, and it also inevitably reaches toward the lowest common denominator and stunts creativity and brilliance. In other words, the public school system, which is entrusted with the responsibility of nurturing intellectual infancy into maturity, instead becomes the graveyard where the intellect comes to die.
This is not an argument against public education, per se. In fact, if the intellect requires competition in order to grow, then Christian students would likely gain benefit from attending public schools and enjoy charitable sparring with those who think very differently from them. But public education should not be used as an intellectual daycare. Christian parents must help form their child's worldview, by God's grace, and teach them how to engage the worldview of others. This could take the form of catechesis in the Church, early homeschooling, or teaching children to critically analyze what they are learning in other places, preferably through the daily use of the Aristotelian teaching style (which constantly questions responses and requires critical thinking). In any case, Christian parents must work to counter the educational monopoly.
Those are some of my thoughts, and though they might not encompass the many hostile worldviews, philosophies, or movements with regard to the Christian faith, they hopefully provide a starting point for helpful thinking on how to consecrate the culture around us. We are told in Scripture to "take every thought captive," and to "give a reason for the hope we have." Let us joyfully go forth to do so, in the power of the Spirit who opens hearts and minds and firmly rooted in grace of Jesus Christ in which we now stand.
Compromise. Many Christians made peace with heretical views, often in the name of relevance and a superficial unity. Many thought they could preserve the core of Christianity by ceding certain doctrines to their "scientific" opponents (i.e. miracles, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, and the authority of Scripture). This approach had two key flaws: One, the doctrines most objectionable to the modern mind are the doctrines most crucial to the Christian faith. After ceding such doctrines, there is no more Christianity. Two, opposing worldviews will leave no intellectual rock un-turned. There will be no relenting until every truth claim of Christianity is wiped away, leaving only experience, which is really nothing.
Capitulation. Many Christians not only fled from heretical views, but they fled from everything that might allow for their propagation, including the academy, science laboratory, public school system, and culture at large. Like the monasticism of prior centuries, these Christians thought that the surrounding culture was intrinsically evil and could only be escaped through an isolated counter-culture. As Luther rightfully noted about monastics of his age, however, every person who goes into a monastery brings the devil with them. We will always be linked and heavily influence by our culture, and always bound to the whole of man with our common depravity. These folks also lost confidence in God's Word as God's truth in their practice, even if they still held to it in their doctrine. Ultimately, Christianity can adequately confront and overcome all other worldviews. These critiques aside, these folks were preferable to those who compromised because they still held to the Christian faith.
Consecration. Some Christians continued to graciously and valiantly slug it out in the academy. They worked to vindicate the Christian faith in the face of hostile worldviews and expose their faulty foundations. They were stubborn in their defense of the truth and winsome in their propagation of it.
(For more on these approaches and the theological battles of the time, see J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, and his article "Christianity and Culture," which can be found online.)
With these categories in mind, what are the prevailing worldviews and obstacles with which Christians must entangle themselves today?
Naturalism. This worldview has a fundamental faith commitment to the supremacy of the natural realm and the impossibility of the supernatural. Such an a priori commitment (philosophical term for a belief that precedes any argumentation and is a foundational belief without any other foundation) will immediately put their worldview in contention with the claims of Christianity, which accepts God's rule and involvement in history as revealed in Scripture as its own a priori commitment. The first goal of the Christian in engaging naturalism is to reveal that such a worldview is not a result of following the evidence, but that the evidence follows from the worldview and is inherently skewed.
Scientism. The modern scientific enterprise makes two audacious claims: One, all truth can be measured through "scientific" means, i.e. through the empirical (truth through senses) scientific method. This view, of course, presupposes naturalism as it asserts that the natural order is the beginning and end of the scientific method. Two, the physical sciences is exalted over all other disciplines in the pursuit of truth. When we talk "facts" nowadays, we are not speaking of theological presuppositions (theology used to be considered the "queen of the sciences"), nor are we speaking of logical conclusions of philosophical syllogism (if a is true, and b is true, than c must be true). That the small sliver of the intellectual universe occupied by the physical sciences could run roughshod over the rest of the academy is startling. The first goal of the Christian in engaging scientism is to reveal its naturalism presuppositions and question the audacious claims of the physical sciences to dominate the field of knowledge and truth.
Historicism. Infused within the cultural DNA of America is a tendency to exalt the pragmatic (what's presently useful) over the rich resources of history. It is presumed that history is always progressing and that the new is always better than the old. C.S. Lewis correctly labeled this mentality as "chronological snobbery." The problem with this mentality is that history is an equal opportunity employer as it pertains to truth, thus, as Chesterton would argue, there should be a "democracy of the dead" that gets a vote on matters of truth. In addition, the whole of Christian truth is rooted on the plane of history, including the historical life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The first goal of the Christian in engaging historicism is to show the value of history in providing and illuminating truth.
Experientialism. As the idolatrous truth claims of twentieth century modernism continue to be washed away by the absolute skepticism of postmodernism, a great chasm of rootless experientialism has been left in its wake. Logic takes no ground on a terrain that is governed by irrational, inward experiences that are prided as ultimate. The problem for Christians is that this experientialism largely started within the Christian camp. As Enlightenment philosophers (namely, Kant) divorced religious truth claims from the field of facts and history, and Liberalism subsequently ravaged the Church, many Christian retreated into Kant's refuge of experientialism. The problem with experientialism, inside or outside of the Church, is that it contains to truth. Experience might derive from truth, but it can never be the basis of truth. Christians must fundamentally rely upon the objective truth claims of Scripture, not their experience, as their testimony to the Gospel of God's grace. They should also question the ultimate nature experience and point out that the logical conclusions of this worldview (complete anarchy) reveal its illogical roots.
Monopolization of education. While parents are nominally entrusted with the responsibility of raising children, the reality is that the State raises our children. They spend at least six hours a day (not including homework) imbibing naturalism, scientism, historicism, and experientialism at school, and usually considerably less time imbibing the values and worldview of their parents, who often know better. The intellect must be sharpened by competing ideas and worldviews. An educational monopoly does not allow for such competition, and it also inevitably reaches toward the lowest common denominator and stunts creativity and brilliance. In other words, the public school system, which is entrusted with the responsibility of nurturing intellectual infancy into maturity, instead becomes the graveyard where the intellect comes to die.
This is not an argument against public education, per se. In fact, if the intellect requires competition in order to grow, then Christian students would likely gain benefit from attending public schools and enjoy charitable sparring with those who think very differently from them. But public education should not be used as an intellectual daycare. Christian parents must help form their child's worldview, by God's grace, and teach them how to engage the worldview of others. This could take the form of catechesis in the Church, early homeschooling, or teaching children to critically analyze what they are learning in other places, preferably through the daily use of the Aristotelian teaching style (which constantly questions responses and requires critical thinking). In any case, Christian parents must work to counter the educational monopoly.
Those are some of my thoughts, and though they might not encompass the many hostile worldviews, philosophies, or movements with regard to the Christian faith, they hopefully provide a starting point for helpful thinking on how to consecrate the culture around us. We are told in Scripture to "take every thought captive," and to "give a reason for the hope we have." Let us joyfully go forth to do so, in the power of the Spirit who opens hearts and minds and firmly rooted in grace of Jesus Christ in which we now stand.
19.11.13
Ordinary Heroes
I just finished watching Kick A$$ 2 with a bunch of my deploying soldiers. Despite the vulgarity and gore, I found the movie just as enjoyable and inspiring as its predecessor.
The most inspiring feature of this superhero-genre movie is its ordinariness. There are no super powers to be found. In the first movie, the main character suffers nerve damage that greatly blunts his ability to feel pain. Watching the brokenness and crime around him, he decides to take his new found "power" and use it to help others. In both movies, he gets beat up quite a lot and deals with an array of moral dilemmas. Ultimately, he uses what little ability he has to drive to advance the cause of good just a bit more.
For all we know, there is no such thing as an extra-terrestrial. Nor is there a secret class of people out there equipped with superhuman powers. Rather, the incredible phenomena which sometimes appear in the world bear witness to an extraordinary God with supernatural power.
And this makes being ordinary a lot more acceptable--even enjoyable. I live in the powerful grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though I am ordinary, I can delight in serving Him and doing substantial things in His strength without desiring to be a superhero. At the essence of the character of the soldier is the willingness to use ordinary gifts and abilities in service of a much greater cause. At the essence of the character of the Christian, it is the God-given ability to live for another world while still living in this one.
I was talking with a number of soldiers late into the night last night. At one point, we stumbled upon that familiar cliche offered to many of us before we go: "Don't try to be a hero." Well, of course, nobody should recklessly throw their life away. But it is also immoral to be stingy with one's life. We agreed that if any of us saw a little child caught within a crossfire, we each would do what we could to save that child's life. It's not a matter of heroism; it is a measure of humanity. As Calvin rightly noted, it is a shame when one's obsession with life becomes greater than one's purpose in life.
I am a great sinner in service of a great God. My privilege and my pleasure is to live by God's grace in Christ Jesus for purposes greater than myself. I will never be animated with superhuman powers, but I serve a supernatural God. And that is enough. That will always be enough.
The most inspiring feature of this superhero-genre movie is its ordinariness. There are no super powers to be found. In the first movie, the main character suffers nerve damage that greatly blunts his ability to feel pain. Watching the brokenness and crime around him, he decides to take his new found "power" and use it to help others. In both movies, he gets beat up quite a lot and deals with an array of moral dilemmas. Ultimately, he uses what little ability he has to drive to advance the cause of good just a bit more.
For all we know, there is no such thing as an extra-terrestrial. Nor is there a secret class of people out there equipped with superhuman powers. Rather, the incredible phenomena which sometimes appear in the world bear witness to an extraordinary God with supernatural power.
And this makes being ordinary a lot more acceptable--even enjoyable. I live in the powerful grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though I am ordinary, I can delight in serving Him and doing substantial things in His strength without desiring to be a superhero. At the essence of the character of the soldier is the willingness to use ordinary gifts and abilities in service of a much greater cause. At the essence of the character of the Christian, it is the God-given ability to live for another world while still living in this one.
I was talking with a number of soldiers late into the night last night. At one point, we stumbled upon that familiar cliche offered to many of us before we go: "Don't try to be a hero." Well, of course, nobody should recklessly throw their life away. But it is also immoral to be stingy with one's life. We agreed that if any of us saw a little child caught within a crossfire, we each would do what we could to save that child's life. It's not a matter of heroism; it is a measure of humanity. As Calvin rightly noted, it is a shame when one's obsession with life becomes greater than one's purpose in life.
I am a great sinner in service of a great God. My privilege and my pleasure is to live by God's grace in Christ Jesus for purposes greater than myself. I will never be animated with superhuman powers, but I serve a supernatural God. And that is enough. That will always be enough.
18.11.13
A Weekend of Weakness and Wonder
Over a year ago (I can't believe it has been that long), I was transported from a barren wasteland of a post in central California to a posh hotel in San Francisco, and learned something of humility in the process.
The wifey and I had just returned from a wonderfully difficult trip to Malawi and I recuperated for about a day at home before I took off again to join the rest of my unit in California for three weeks of training. The conditions at this post were meant to simulate our newly announced destination of Afghanistan, though in many ways they were quite a bit more modest than even this poorest of countries.
I had seen God work powerfully through my weakness and through my wife in Malawi, and now, barely recovered from my mysterious illness in Malawi, I was thrust into incredibly long, hot, dust-choked days that concluded with my favorite part--an hour or two of late-night discussions in the sleeping tents.
The wifey was suddenly hit with a family crisis of sorts, and in my rare moments of freedom from activity, I tried to console her over the phone as best I could. I reminded her of God's grace to us in Malawi and spoke from a sense of His grace in sustaining me in the long, exhausting hours in the wasteland.
But then my own cage was rattled by something much more superficial than the ordeal that my wifey was working through. One of our officers was experiencing profound pain in his head, and after a preliminary x-ray revealed what looked like a giant mass on his brain, he was rushed to a hospital in San Francisco. I followed behind in a van, along with two other soldiers.
This would seem to most like a wonderful opportunity to care for a soldier, get some needed rest, and see a great city on the Army's dime. I'm not like most. The truth, and I'm ashamed to admit it, is that I tend to hate myself when I'm left with myself and my thoughts. I hate the ravages of sin on my thoughts, words, and deeds, and can quickly grow depressed when I consider how far short I fall of the glory of God.
When I'm ragged from service, I forget myself and get caught up in the work of God in the lives of others. When I'm comfortable and secluded, I remember myself and forget the work of God in me.
I had my own hotel room in San Francisco (at the discounted Army rate), overlooking the bay, courtesy of Army funds. I cared for the threatened soldier each day, but did so out of an increasingly angry and callous heart. I was missing out on my evening talk times with soldiers and found no joy in the nauseating drive down Lombard Street or eating overpriced seafood on the wharf.
We ended up staying for several days as we awaited results, and when the results finally came in, my entourage decided on a scenic jaunt on the way back through San Jose. Again, I was miserable (though I was good at masking it). When we got back to the wasteland post, my desk was gone and the tents were all being taken down. Annual training was over. And I was mad at the situation, and indirectly, at God.
Yet, when I look back on that unwelcome detour to San Francisco, the enduring memory is not of my sin or selfishness. Rather, the memory that will never leave my mind came with the arrival of this threatened soldier's wife. They had been married for well over a decade and had a number of kids. I was not sure what to expect when she arrived. As soon as she shadowed the door of the hospital room, she dropped everything she was holding, ran over to bed, climbed in next to her husband, and put her head on his chest and closed her eyes. Neither of them spoke. It was one of the sweetest things I had ever seen.
And whenever my mind is transported back to that day, in that room, on that hospital bed, it is then shuttled through dozens of later memories--tender moments between married couples, the glassy eyes of a widow at a military funeral, the references of an elderly man to his wife as "his bride." I marvel that God would plant such a gift as marriage within this world--to show in that precious husband-wife bond an imperfect image of His love for His Church and to leave us with the precious knowledge that "love is strong as death" (SoS 8:7-7).
At the close of that trip to San Francisco, we received the happy diagnosis of a harmless fluid sac alongside this man's brain that was not in the slightest sense dangerous. His brain was healthier than my heart, which struggles to grasp the extent of God's love and grace for me in Jesus Christ. His marriage was stronger than my hope, which often attaches itself to escape from the realities of my sin, rather than refuge in Christ.
I did not know then that despite absolute denials, there would be clever ways of getting me on that roster to Afghanistan, and those ways would be pursued by gracious leaders who wanted me with my unit. Within ten months, I would be gone. Thank God that these memories of His grace have not also fled.
The wifey and I had just returned from a wonderfully difficult trip to Malawi and I recuperated for about a day at home before I took off again to join the rest of my unit in California for three weeks of training. The conditions at this post were meant to simulate our newly announced destination of Afghanistan, though in many ways they were quite a bit more modest than even this poorest of countries.
I had seen God work powerfully through my weakness and through my wife in Malawi, and now, barely recovered from my mysterious illness in Malawi, I was thrust into incredibly long, hot, dust-choked days that concluded with my favorite part--an hour or two of late-night discussions in the sleeping tents.
The wifey was suddenly hit with a family crisis of sorts, and in my rare moments of freedom from activity, I tried to console her over the phone as best I could. I reminded her of God's grace to us in Malawi and spoke from a sense of His grace in sustaining me in the long, exhausting hours in the wasteland.
But then my own cage was rattled by something much more superficial than the ordeal that my wifey was working through. One of our officers was experiencing profound pain in his head, and after a preliminary x-ray revealed what looked like a giant mass on his brain, he was rushed to a hospital in San Francisco. I followed behind in a van, along with two other soldiers.
This would seem to most like a wonderful opportunity to care for a soldier, get some needed rest, and see a great city on the Army's dime. I'm not like most. The truth, and I'm ashamed to admit it, is that I tend to hate myself when I'm left with myself and my thoughts. I hate the ravages of sin on my thoughts, words, and deeds, and can quickly grow depressed when I consider how far short I fall of the glory of God.
When I'm ragged from service, I forget myself and get caught up in the work of God in the lives of others. When I'm comfortable and secluded, I remember myself and forget the work of God in me.
I had my own hotel room in San Francisco (at the discounted Army rate), overlooking the bay, courtesy of Army funds. I cared for the threatened soldier each day, but did so out of an increasingly angry and callous heart. I was missing out on my evening talk times with soldiers and found no joy in the nauseating drive down Lombard Street or eating overpriced seafood on the wharf.
We ended up staying for several days as we awaited results, and when the results finally came in, my entourage decided on a scenic jaunt on the way back through San Jose. Again, I was miserable (though I was good at masking it). When we got back to the wasteland post, my desk was gone and the tents were all being taken down. Annual training was over. And I was mad at the situation, and indirectly, at God.
Yet, when I look back on that unwelcome detour to San Francisco, the enduring memory is not of my sin or selfishness. Rather, the memory that will never leave my mind came with the arrival of this threatened soldier's wife. They had been married for well over a decade and had a number of kids. I was not sure what to expect when she arrived. As soon as she shadowed the door of the hospital room, she dropped everything she was holding, ran over to bed, climbed in next to her husband, and put her head on his chest and closed her eyes. Neither of them spoke. It was one of the sweetest things I had ever seen.
And whenever my mind is transported back to that day, in that room, on that hospital bed, it is then shuttled through dozens of later memories--tender moments between married couples, the glassy eyes of a widow at a military funeral, the references of an elderly man to his wife as "his bride." I marvel that God would plant such a gift as marriage within this world--to show in that precious husband-wife bond an imperfect image of His love for His Church and to leave us with the precious knowledge that "love is strong as death" (SoS 8:7-7).
At the close of that trip to San Francisco, we received the happy diagnosis of a harmless fluid sac alongside this man's brain that was not in the slightest sense dangerous. His brain was healthier than my heart, which struggles to grasp the extent of God's love and grace for me in Jesus Christ. His marriage was stronger than my hope, which often attaches itself to escape from the realities of my sin, rather than refuge in Christ.
I did not know then that despite absolute denials, there would be clever ways of getting me on that roster to Afghanistan, and those ways would be pursued by gracious leaders who wanted me with my unit. Within ten months, I would be gone. Thank God that these memories of His grace have not also fled.
Back to the Real World?
Several dozen soldiers gathered in a circle this afternoon, all obviously fatigued. They are experiencing what soldiers always experience as their time on deployment comes to a close--utter exhaustion. Constant vigilance and paranoia and adapting to flux--all these things mean that real rest is virtually impossible. When these soldiers return home, there will be lots of sleep, mindless activity, and alone time.
Thankfully, four of our six soldiers with autumn/winter babies are heading home. What a wonderful gift to their families that they will be there to care for their little ones! The other two will miss the birth of their firstborn, but accept that grim reality as part and parcel of doing their duty.
I will likely never see many of these soldiers again. Many of them are cross-leveled from other units in distant states. Many others that I have known for several years will now transition to other units as part of the normal process as a Reservist. I may see them in civilian garb if we occasion to get together in NoVa, but will likely not see the wearing the uniform again.
There is a good chance that I will be moving on from my unit after this deployment as well. Chaplains usually don't stay with a unit for more than a couple years. In the next year, I will probably transition to another unit in the DC area--hopefully one that can get me a slot in jump school, air assault school, and perhaps one day, Ranger school.
I talk with soldiers about their military ambitions quite often. I can envision that one or two of my junior officer friends will eventually get their star (become a low-level general). I don't think I'll ever attain that rank, nor do I necessarily want to. I want to do all the schools, however, and acquire all the skills necessary to join and move with any type of unit. By God's grace, I want to be the type of chaplain who can fill needs that arise, no matter the level of difficulty. We shall see.
These soldiers will travel back to the real world, or will they? Is the real world one of picket fences, forty hour work weeks, and summer vacations? Or is it one of civil strife, mass corruption, and uncertainty? I wonder if part of the adjustment gap for soldiers returning home comes with the realization that the stability and security of home is largely illusory.
They will not worry about IEDs on the highway, nor look around nervously for VBIEDs (vehicle-based) every time they are forced to stop for traffic. Whether working on a car in the bay of a repair shop and clicking away on a computer on a cubicle, they will not keep alert for the "big voice" to announce that there is an active shooter or that there is incoming mortar rounds. But is this home life really comforting?
Is the monotony of "normal life" truly a thing to be desired? A soldier need not see combat to know that his world will never be the same after a deployment. On random days, he will smell the pungent stench of the fire pit. When he is alert or anxious, he will recognize that failing in the pit of his stomach from his days riding along the pothole-marked roads of a distant land, awaiting the worst.
He will tuck his little boy or girl into bed at night, knowing that by God's grace, he might have played a part in keeping a life of terror at bay--just far enough away from home to give his family peace. But the memories will never leave him. The reality will never escape him--brokenness is a more fundamental feature of this world than peace and freedom.
Perhaps the day will come when the home front becomes the war front. Political debates will be but historical novelties. Social gatherings will be a luxury, not a convenience. If those days were to come, the soldier, with his deep familiarity with the world in its brokenness, will stand ready.
The more fundamental question that extends beyond history and geography: Wherever you stand in this world, what is it that you are standing for? Can it be shaken by war or terror? Can it be taken away?
Can you stare into the abyss of death and feel confidence, hope, peace, even joy? Like the Israelites and Egyptians of old, we will all tread upon the ground amidst the Red Sea, gazing at the walls of water on either side. For some, those walls of water will represent the supernatural security afforded by a God who allowed His Son to be submerged for their sake. For others, they, like the Egyptians, will awaken to their plight before God just in time to notice that they stand between the towering prospect of their doom. Time will have run out.
My friends, we stand betwixt the waves. With Christ at the helm, we will pass safely through into eternal glory. If you live with the illusion that your currently life of security will carry over into eternity, please wake up and heed what lies on either side of you. Wake up now and embrace the Savior of sinners. Do not tarry, for the day may come when you awake to a terror much greater than any offered by this world, as a sinner in the hands of an angry God, caught between the waves.
Thankfully, four of our six soldiers with autumn/winter babies are heading home. What a wonderful gift to their families that they will be there to care for their little ones! The other two will miss the birth of their firstborn, but accept that grim reality as part and parcel of doing their duty.
I will likely never see many of these soldiers again. Many of them are cross-leveled from other units in distant states. Many others that I have known for several years will now transition to other units as part of the normal process as a Reservist. I may see them in civilian garb if we occasion to get together in NoVa, but will likely not see the wearing the uniform again.
There is a good chance that I will be moving on from my unit after this deployment as well. Chaplains usually don't stay with a unit for more than a couple years. In the next year, I will probably transition to another unit in the DC area--hopefully one that can get me a slot in jump school, air assault school, and perhaps one day, Ranger school.
I talk with soldiers about their military ambitions quite often. I can envision that one or two of my junior officer friends will eventually get their star (become a low-level general). I don't think I'll ever attain that rank, nor do I necessarily want to. I want to do all the schools, however, and acquire all the skills necessary to join and move with any type of unit. By God's grace, I want to be the type of chaplain who can fill needs that arise, no matter the level of difficulty. We shall see.
These soldiers will travel back to the real world, or will they? Is the real world one of picket fences, forty hour work weeks, and summer vacations? Or is it one of civil strife, mass corruption, and uncertainty? I wonder if part of the adjustment gap for soldiers returning home comes with the realization that the stability and security of home is largely illusory.
They will not worry about IEDs on the highway, nor look around nervously for VBIEDs (vehicle-based) every time they are forced to stop for traffic. Whether working on a car in the bay of a repair shop and clicking away on a computer on a cubicle, they will not keep alert for the "big voice" to announce that there is an active shooter or that there is incoming mortar rounds. But is this home life really comforting?
Is the monotony of "normal life" truly a thing to be desired? A soldier need not see combat to know that his world will never be the same after a deployment. On random days, he will smell the pungent stench of the fire pit. When he is alert or anxious, he will recognize that failing in the pit of his stomach from his days riding along the pothole-marked roads of a distant land, awaiting the worst.
He will tuck his little boy or girl into bed at night, knowing that by God's grace, he might have played a part in keeping a life of terror at bay--just far enough away from home to give his family peace. But the memories will never leave him. The reality will never escape him--brokenness is a more fundamental feature of this world than peace and freedom.
Perhaps the day will come when the home front becomes the war front. Political debates will be but historical novelties. Social gatherings will be a luxury, not a convenience. If those days were to come, the soldier, with his deep familiarity with the world in its brokenness, will stand ready.
The more fundamental question that extends beyond history and geography: Wherever you stand in this world, what is it that you are standing for? Can it be shaken by war or terror? Can it be taken away?
Can you stare into the abyss of death and feel confidence, hope, peace, even joy? Like the Israelites and Egyptians of old, we will all tread upon the ground amidst the Red Sea, gazing at the walls of water on either side. For some, those walls of water will represent the supernatural security afforded by a God who allowed His Son to be submerged for their sake. For others, they, like the Egyptians, will awaken to their plight before God just in time to notice that they stand between the towering prospect of their doom. Time will have run out.
My friends, we stand betwixt the waves. With Christ at the helm, we will pass safely through into eternal glory. If you live with the illusion that your currently life of security will carry over into eternity, please wake up and heed what lies on either side of you. Wake up now and embrace the Savior of sinners. Do not tarry, for the day may come when you awake to a terror much greater than any offered by this world, as a sinner in the hands of an angry God, caught between the waves.
17.11.13
Chaplain's Library
After preaching "The Gospel According to Moses" from Exodus 14 this morning, I jumped on a convoy to the nearby post from which my departing soldiers will be taking off. I am grateful to have seen many of our dispersed soldiers the past couple days, as most of our dozen or so soldiers spread around the country are part of this first departing group. I will be at the post for the next couple of days to care for these couple of dozen soldiers as they congregate and then see them off with blessings and prayers.
I continue to read, though without the preoccupation garnered by other recent books. I read a short biography on Luther as well as Calvin. With both men, there is plenty to inspire the weary Christian heart. They were not superheroes. In their latter days, Luther became increasingly bitter and anti-semitic and Calvin became increasingly irritable. But both knew the value of the Gospel and the value of suffering for the sake of the Gospel. Luther's three primary aids to truly comprehending God's Word: prayer, meditation, and suffering. Calvin's brilliant Institutes of the Christian Religion was continually revised against the backdrop of his students going to France to suffer and die for the faith.
I also read Carl Truman's short but significant The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. This title is clearly an allusion to historian Mark Noll's decade-old work, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Noll's contention was that evangelicalism had embraced anti-intellectualism to its own detriment, as evidenced by a retreat from the academy and uncritical embrace of certain fundamentalist doctrines. Truman's surprising contention (with its own enjoyable British flavor) is that the real scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no such thing as an evangelical.
While the term is semantically derived from the evangel--the good news--it is worthless as an historical term because it is rooted in subjective experiences rather than objective doctrines. When heretical doctrines like open-theism (belief that God changes and can be surprised by history) are tolerated within evangelical camps, or movements like the Emergent Church (postmodern liberalism that denies central truths of the Christian faith) are given the label "evangelical," than the term has become worthless. At this point, orthodox Protestants may have more in common with Roman Catholics than with many evangelicals.
While Trueman's point is well-made, it might be useful to distinguish between semantic and historical understandings of the term "evangelical" here. For historical purposes, the term "Christian" has become relatively worthless as most use it as a superlative to describe the quality of one's character or works rather than its objective and historical meaning, which pertains to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean that the term is not still valuable when rooted in its objective, semantic context. I think it's fair to say that there's no longer such a thing as "evangelicalism," but there are still "evangelicals"--those who believe that Jesus Christ is their savior from sin as He is revealed in His inerrant Word.
I also just read Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts, which chronicles the life of the American ambassador to Germany and his family during the rise of Hitler. It is fascinating to watch an ordinary and advanced Western society descend into sheer madness through the eyes of an old fashioned, freedom loving public servant from America. The story is laced with tragedy as European appeasement and American isolationist monasticism prevent the greatest international agents for good from nipping the evils of Hitler's socialist-fascism in the bud.
It brings to mind that line about evil prevailing when good men do nothing. People were still irrationally swept up in the progressive notion that modern man was inherently good and rational and society was tending toward utopia. It took a Holocaust, where women were gassed with poisons made by experts and babies were dashed against walls by university graduates, for a delusional West to realize that no amount of education or technology can alter a depraved human nature.
I am now dividing time between Paul Tripp's Dangerous Calling, warning pastors of the pitfalls of the ministry, Albert Einstein's Out of My Later Years, a collection of articles on various topics--all of which thus far lack the sophistication of his scientific work, a brief history on the Vietnam War, and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, a Christian classic that bored me to tears the first time I tried to read it, but was instrumental in my wife's salvation and thus deserving of another try.
One of the surprises of this deployment has been the number of books I have devoured. I work long days, but with time with my wife typically relegated to an hour a night and no TV in my room, I am left with several hours to read. (By the way, I also love reading my magazines--National Review, The Economist, and Runner's Word--with a sprinkling of Modern Reformation and Table Talk.) Deployment life also delays sleep as the pace is often so frantic and the need for vigilance so pronounced that it takes a much longer time to wind down, even with fatigue setting in. Even amid trials and hardships, God provides unexpected blessings in His gracious providence.
I continue to read, though without the preoccupation garnered by other recent books. I read a short biography on Luther as well as Calvin. With both men, there is plenty to inspire the weary Christian heart. They were not superheroes. In their latter days, Luther became increasingly bitter and anti-semitic and Calvin became increasingly irritable. But both knew the value of the Gospel and the value of suffering for the sake of the Gospel. Luther's three primary aids to truly comprehending God's Word: prayer, meditation, and suffering. Calvin's brilliant Institutes of the Christian Religion was continually revised against the backdrop of his students going to France to suffer and die for the faith.
I also read Carl Truman's short but significant The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. This title is clearly an allusion to historian Mark Noll's decade-old work, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Noll's contention was that evangelicalism had embraced anti-intellectualism to its own detriment, as evidenced by a retreat from the academy and uncritical embrace of certain fundamentalist doctrines. Truman's surprising contention (with its own enjoyable British flavor) is that the real scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no such thing as an evangelical.
While the term is semantically derived from the evangel--the good news--it is worthless as an historical term because it is rooted in subjective experiences rather than objective doctrines. When heretical doctrines like open-theism (belief that God changes and can be surprised by history) are tolerated within evangelical camps, or movements like the Emergent Church (postmodern liberalism that denies central truths of the Christian faith) are given the label "evangelical," than the term has become worthless. At this point, orthodox Protestants may have more in common with Roman Catholics than with many evangelicals.
While Trueman's point is well-made, it might be useful to distinguish between semantic and historical understandings of the term "evangelical" here. For historical purposes, the term "Christian" has become relatively worthless as most use it as a superlative to describe the quality of one's character or works rather than its objective and historical meaning, which pertains to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean that the term is not still valuable when rooted in its objective, semantic context. I think it's fair to say that there's no longer such a thing as "evangelicalism," but there are still "evangelicals"--those who believe that Jesus Christ is their savior from sin as He is revealed in His inerrant Word.
I also just read Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts, which chronicles the life of the American ambassador to Germany and his family during the rise of Hitler. It is fascinating to watch an ordinary and advanced Western society descend into sheer madness through the eyes of an old fashioned, freedom loving public servant from America. The story is laced with tragedy as European appeasement and American isolationist monasticism prevent the greatest international agents for good from nipping the evils of Hitler's socialist-fascism in the bud.
It brings to mind that line about evil prevailing when good men do nothing. People were still irrationally swept up in the progressive notion that modern man was inherently good and rational and society was tending toward utopia. It took a Holocaust, where women were gassed with poisons made by experts and babies were dashed against walls by university graduates, for a delusional West to realize that no amount of education or technology can alter a depraved human nature.
I am now dividing time between Paul Tripp's Dangerous Calling, warning pastors of the pitfalls of the ministry, Albert Einstein's Out of My Later Years, a collection of articles on various topics--all of which thus far lack the sophistication of his scientific work, a brief history on the Vietnam War, and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, a Christian classic that bored me to tears the first time I tried to read it, but was instrumental in my wife's salvation and thus deserving of another try.
One of the surprises of this deployment has been the number of books I have devoured. I work long days, but with time with my wife typically relegated to an hour a night and no TV in my room, I am left with several hours to read. (By the way, I also love reading my magazines--National Review, The Economist, and Runner's Word--with a sprinkling of Modern Reformation and Table Talk.) Deployment life also delays sleep as the pace is often so frantic and the need for vigilance so pronounced that it takes a much longer time to wind down, even with fatigue setting in. Even amid trials and hardships, God provides unexpected blessings in His gracious providence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)