Sometimes
I don’t feel the weight
Of my wickedness
When I just count my people
… misplace my security
… and collapse
My wisdom
Is the law
Of this world
When I just count my people
...not your scars
...not your love
Don’t let
My foot slip
Overcome me
When I crucify you in pride
… I need your scars
… I need your love
Friday, July 29, 2011
Go to Church and Take Communion
The righteousness of Christ was not merely following the rules of the mosaic law; it was most fundamentally faith in God.
Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.
We want to be like God (Gen 3).
We want to take things into our own hands.
He trusted in God.
Christ is the righteous one who obeyed in perfect faith.
We do not have perfect faith. Every time we sin we display our lack of faith in God. We don't believe that what he has is best for us. We do this every week, every day.
Community and communion are important because we come back weekly to say that we are a part of the body of the one who has not fallen short; he is our only hope. We are sustained by the bread and wine. We are in the one who does not lack in faith as we do. We look away from ourselves to him.
Come back to the table weekly and grow up in the faith of Christ in humility.
Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.
We want to be like God (Gen 3).
We want to take things into our own hands.
He trusted in God.
Christ is the righteous one who obeyed in perfect faith.
We do not have perfect faith. Every time we sin we display our lack of faith in God. We don't believe that what he has is best for us. We do this every week, every day.
Community and communion are important because we come back weekly to say that we are a part of the body of the one who has not fallen short; he is our only hope. We are sustained by the bread and wine. We are in the one who does not lack in faith as we do. We look away from ourselves to him.
Come back to the table weekly and grow up in the faith of Christ in humility.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sulk
I can’t look up at you
So I sulk
And after time builds a gap
Between me and this sin
I’ll look up again
Something of my own to show
I just need to feel clean
In control
Like I ought to be
So I sulk
And after time builds a gap
Between me and this sin
I’ll look up again
Something of my own to show
I just need to feel clean
In control
Like I ought to be
The Scene Under the Sun
Everything here, everything good,
Resolved yet misunderstood.
Gripped with fear
Gripped with pain
Yet the resolutions remain
The scene under the sun
Has become everyone
Nowhere to stop
Nowhere to think
But pretend with a drink
All of us captured. All of us kids.
No escape from what we did
The story
Not the writer
Not the ring - the fighter
And yet a glimpse, yet in part
Transcendence and a new start
The way with which
We are pulled away
Born again; forever made
Resolved yet misunderstood.
Gripped with fear
Gripped with pain
Yet the resolutions remain
The scene under the sun
Has become everyone
Nowhere to stop
Nowhere to think
But pretend with a drink
All of us captured. All of us kids.
No escape from what we did
The story
Not the writer
Not the ring - the fighter
And yet a glimpse, yet in part
Transcendence and a new start
The way with which
We are pulled away
Born again; forever made
Speech Act Theory and Postmodernism
Speech act theory says that we do things when we talk. In other words, we warn, we command, we apologize, we greet, we question, etc. When I say, "Look out!" I am acting. The action is me warning my friend that there is a car coming. This is a historical event; it is an action that has occured. Every speech act has more than words (locution, as it is called). Speech acts also have context (illocution - the energy and force of the speech act). The words "look out!" are the locution (i.e. the words), the context of my friend standing in the road while there is an oncoming car that he does not see is the illocution (i.e. context - or my intention). My friend jumping out of the road is the desired effect, or perlocution. Locution, illocution, and perlocution are the three parts of a speech act and of verbal communication.
The criticism of postmodernism towards traditional literary knowledge is that words only can point to other words and never connect with fixed reality and knowledge. When you look up a definition of a word in a dictionary, you will only find other words. These other words point to other words. The argument is that there is an infinite chain of signs (words) pointing to other signs (words) that never connect with reality. Therefore fixed literary knowledge is impossible.
Of course, this is obviously utterly hypocritical, as moderns enjoy pointing out. The irony is that postmoderns are standing on fixed literary principles to say there are no fixed literary principles. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. This is ironic and hypocritical.
But besides pointing out postmodern hypocrisy, how do we respond to their criticism?
I think speech act theory is key. If we understand that authors do things when they write, then writing is not some free interplay of signs, but it is a historical event. For instance, when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their Gospels they were testifying that Jesus is the Christ, that he is Lord, that salvation is by him, etc. It was an action.
To deny this is to deny a historical event. Postmoderns may feel the liberty to create meaning with a text, but they wouldl not say that I read a book when, in fact, I ate a sandwich. But according to speech act theory, denying history is the same as denying authorial intention. There is more to communication than words; there is context. What is the context of the Bible and literature? Genres. Genres have fixed rules. They are time-capsules for the speech-acts of the biblical authors.
What are biblical authors doing? Ultimately, they are testifying that Jesus is the Messiah and that salvation is through faith in him alone. Denying that the Bible means this is denying the historical event and action of the writing of the canon.
The criticism of postmodernism towards traditional literary knowledge is that words only can point to other words and never connect with fixed reality and knowledge. When you look up a definition of a word in a dictionary, you will only find other words. These other words point to other words. The argument is that there is an infinite chain of signs (words) pointing to other signs (words) that never connect with reality. Therefore fixed literary knowledge is impossible.
Of course, this is obviously utterly hypocritical, as moderns enjoy pointing out. The irony is that postmoderns are standing on fixed literary principles to say there are no fixed literary principles. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. This is ironic and hypocritical.
But besides pointing out postmodern hypocrisy, how do we respond to their criticism?
I think speech act theory is key. If we understand that authors do things when they write, then writing is not some free interplay of signs, but it is a historical event. For instance, when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their Gospels they were testifying that Jesus is the Christ, that he is Lord, that salvation is by him, etc. It was an action.
To deny this is to deny a historical event. Postmoderns may feel the liberty to create meaning with a text, but they wouldl not say that I read a book when, in fact, I ate a sandwich. But according to speech act theory, denying history is the same as denying authorial intention. There is more to communication than words; there is context. What is the context of the Bible and literature? Genres. Genres have fixed rules. They are time-capsules for the speech-acts of the biblical authors.
What are biblical authors doing? Ultimately, they are testifying that Jesus is the Messiah and that salvation is through faith in him alone. Denying that the Bible means this is denying the historical event and action of the writing of the canon.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Infant baptism
Most American evangelicals have the naivety to dismiss infant baptism as obviously wrong.
First and foremost, I want to point out the utter foolishness of dismissing this practice in the face of greater church history and theologians like John Calvin and John Owen. This is a plea for American evangelicals to AT LEAST commit to pursuing an understanding of infant baptism.
At least for the reformers, water baptism does NOT save. It a sign of what saves, namely, spiritual baptism which is new birth. It is very important to understand that reformers are not saying that babies who are baptized in water are saved; they are saying that babies who are spiritually baptized are saved.
"Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom." (John 3:3)
This means that unless a baby is born again (spiritually baptized) he will not see the kingdom.
The notion of the "age of accountability" says that God saves children up until an age where they are responsible for deciding to follow Christ themselves; babies therefore get a free ticket to heaven.
But, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom."
Putting this verse together with the notion of the age of accountability would mean that all children would have to be born-again, and then become unborn-again at the age of accountability, which destroys the very truth of the grace of new birth.
The notion of "age of accountability" is foreign to the Bible. It is a modern American evangelical notion. It is the epitome of man's pragmatic reason making assumptions (at least in my humble opinion).
I think that the problem that many evangelicals have with infant baptism is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what saving faith is.
Saving faith is childlike faith, NOT an ability to articulate the doctrine of justification alone.
That is key for understanding this subject.
Children are not saved when they are 5 and have gained an ability to articulate a doctrine. Children are saved through true faith (as we are all saved through childlike faith). Children within a Christian home grow up deeply rooted in the faith of their parents.
If one of these children dies when they are 5 days old, they will be with the Lord until they are resurrected. And "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
This is the logic of many of the reformers: because these babies are saved through their parents faith and true spiritual baptism, there is no reason to deny them the sign of this truth, namely, water baptism.
Water baptism represents spiritual baptism and ought to be applied to all who are spiritually baptized, including those infants of Christian families.
This is precisely Calvin's strongest argument for paedo(infant)-baptism:
He says,
"Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word?"
And read also John Owen's similar argument:
"But the children of believers are all of them capable of the grace signified in baptism, and some of them are certainly partakers of it, namely, such as die in their infancy (which is all that can be said of professors): therefore they may and ought to be baptized. For, –
1. Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever.
2. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse.
3. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace whereof baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered."
The final uppercut - it might be said - to their argument would be the continuous parallel between circumcision and baptism.
Look at how closely Paul links circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:
11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Circumcision and baptism, according to Paul, are the same thing.
And the argument follows that because God commanded Israel to circumcise their children, there is no reason that we now should not baptize our children, since baptism is the continuation of the old sign of the eternal covenant.
All this said, I would suggest an alternative: that water baptism is according to sanctification and the outworking of the faith of the believer through their own cognitive volition.
The reformers rightly argue that one is not saved at an "age of accountability" but rather by true new birth and childlike faith. Likewise, one is not saved by an ability to articulate a doctrine.
BUT we expect - because of sanctification - that one who has been born again will grow into an ability to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of innerrency, the doctrine of Christ being fully God and fully man, etc. When someone is born again and embraces Christ, we do not hold them accountable to embrace every orthodox doctrine immediately, but we expect them to grow into it; it is according to the process of sanctification that believers embrace orthodox doctrine.
Similarly, water baptism is something for believers to grow up in - it is the outworking of justification. It is the outworking of true faith. It is the evidence of saving faith.
I deeply desire that the American church is freed from the notion of the age of accountability and to embrace a more childlike concept of faith. People who describe being saved at age 4 or 5 is to me a somewhat shallow understanding of what saving faith is.
BUT, I am suggesting (not necessarily fully believing, as I am still wrestling with this idea) that water baptism ought to be according to the cognitive volition that is the working out of salvation by sanctification.
Possible objections and problems:
1) That Israel circumcised their children (i don't think this is an easily dismissed fact)
2) Handicapped people who are NEVER old enough to articulate the Gospel or a desire for water-baptism (should they be denied baptism?)
I do not have answers to either of these. Please post any thoughts/comments.
The sacraments are SO quickly dismissed and not thoughfully cared for in American evangelicalism. Let us care for them as they are divine orders.
First and foremost, I want to point out the utter foolishness of dismissing this practice in the face of greater church history and theologians like John Calvin and John Owen. This is a plea for American evangelicals to AT LEAST commit to pursuing an understanding of infant baptism.
At least for the reformers, water baptism does NOT save. It a sign of what saves, namely, spiritual baptism which is new birth. It is very important to understand that reformers are not saying that babies who are baptized in water are saved; they are saying that babies who are spiritually baptized are saved.
"Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom." (John 3:3)
This means that unless a baby is born again (spiritually baptized) he will not see the kingdom.
The notion of the "age of accountability" says that God saves children up until an age where they are responsible for deciding to follow Christ themselves; babies therefore get a free ticket to heaven.
But, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom."
Putting this verse together with the notion of the age of accountability would mean that all children would have to be born-again, and then become unborn-again at the age of accountability, which destroys the very truth of the grace of new birth.
The notion of "age of accountability" is foreign to the Bible. It is a modern American evangelical notion. It is the epitome of man's pragmatic reason making assumptions (at least in my humble opinion).
I think that the problem that many evangelicals have with infant baptism is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what saving faith is.
Saving faith is childlike faith, NOT an ability to articulate the doctrine of justification alone.
That is key for understanding this subject.
Children are not saved when they are 5 and have gained an ability to articulate a doctrine. Children are saved through true faith (as we are all saved through childlike faith). Children within a Christian home grow up deeply rooted in the faith of their parents.
If one of these children dies when they are 5 days old, they will be with the Lord until they are resurrected. And "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
This is the logic of many of the reformers: because these babies are saved through their parents faith and true spiritual baptism, there is no reason to deny them the sign of this truth, namely, water baptism.
Water baptism represents spiritual baptism and ought to be applied to all who are spiritually baptized, including those infants of Christian families.
This is precisely Calvin's strongest argument for paedo(infant)-baptism:
He says,
"Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word?"
And read also John Owen's similar argument:
"But the children of believers are all of them capable of the grace signified in baptism, and some of them are certainly partakers of it, namely, such as die in their infancy (which is all that can be said of professors): therefore they may and ought to be baptized. For, –
1. Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever.
2. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse.
3. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace whereof baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered."
The final uppercut - it might be said - to their argument would be the continuous parallel between circumcision and baptism.
Look at how closely Paul links circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:
11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Circumcision and baptism, according to Paul, are the same thing.
And the argument follows that because God commanded Israel to circumcise their children, there is no reason that we now should not baptize our children, since baptism is the continuation of the old sign of the eternal covenant.
All this said, I would suggest an alternative: that water baptism is according to sanctification and the outworking of the faith of the believer through their own cognitive volition.
The reformers rightly argue that one is not saved at an "age of accountability" but rather by true new birth and childlike faith. Likewise, one is not saved by an ability to articulate a doctrine.
BUT we expect - because of sanctification - that one who has been born again will grow into an ability to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of innerrency, the doctrine of Christ being fully God and fully man, etc. When someone is born again and embraces Christ, we do not hold them accountable to embrace every orthodox doctrine immediately, but we expect them to grow into it; it is according to the process of sanctification that believers embrace orthodox doctrine.
Similarly, water baptism is something for believers to grow up in - it is the outworking of justification. It is the outworking of true faith. It is the evidence of saving faith.
I deeply desire that the American church is freed from the notion of the age of accountability and to embrace a more childlike concept of faith. People who describe being saved at age 4 or 5 is to me a somewhat shallow understanding of what saving faith is.
BUT, I am suggesting (not necessarily fully believing, as I am still wrestling with this idea) that water baptism ought to be according to the cognitive volition that is the working out of salvation by sanctification.
Possible objections and problems:
1) That Israel circumcised their children (i don't think this is an easily dismissed fact)
2) Handicapped people who are NEVER old enough to articulate the Gospel or a desire for water-baptism (should they be denied baptism?)
I do not have answers to either of these. Please post any thoughts/comments.
The sacraments are SO quickly dismissed and not thoughfully cared for in American evangelicalism. Let us care for them as they are divine orders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)