Pages

Monday, December 27, 2010

God’s Providential Protection

Accident Reconstruction
As Graham, Dustin, and I were headed for an epic day on the slopes of Copper Mountain, our plans were altered by an untimely car accident. (1) We were traveling in Graham’s ‘94 Chrysler LHS and had just passed the Dotsero exit on East bound I-70. We were traveling approximately 70-75 mph on the seemingly good roads. (2) We had just started rounding a gentle curve when the rear end of the car started to drift. (3) Before anyone could say anything, we were sliding at full speed across the lanes of the Interstate. (4) As we crossed the left lane and the front tires went off the road, we hit a reflector post and kept sliding. (5) Entering the median, we continued to spin but as our wheels hit the dirt we began to slow more rapidly. (6 & 7) When we had made approximately three-quarters of a revolution, the front, driver’s side tire caught and sent our car into a roll. (8) As we rolled onto the roof of the car, we finished our revolution and slid to a stop once again pointing East.
Once the car came to a stop on its roof, we were all hanging by our seatbelts. After I made sure that I could still move, I called out to see if Dustin and Graham were okay. Thankfully they confirmed that they felt okay aside from the shock we were all experiencing. At that point, I braced myself against the roof of the car, released the seatbelt, and flipped over to find a way out of the car. The rear passenger door seemed to be undamaged so I started checking to see whether it would open at which point it did. After I crawled out, Graham was able to unbuckle and crawl out as well. Dustin was in the most badly damaged area of the car which was the front passenger side. After Graham was free, Dustin finally had enough room to turn over and crawl out. By the time Dustin was on his way out of the car, I had dialed 911. I, of course, gave the details of the wreck and described our location to the best of my ability. Before I got off of the phone, the dispatcher instructed us to stay in the car. OOPS!   =)   If we had waited in the car we would have hung there for 25 minutes before the first EMS personnel arrived.
Once the emergency vehicles arrived, things were pretty standard. We just had to fill out the usual forms and answer the usual questions. Since we had been out of the vehicle for almost 30 minutes when the ambulance arrived, the paramedics didn’t even bother checking us out. We then had to wait for the tow truck driver to load the car. Once the car was loaded, we all piled into the cab of the truck so the driver could drop us off at a small café to wait for my parents to come pick us up.
Considering the fact that we were going over 70 mph when we started into the slide, it is truly miraculous that none of us were hurt beyond a couple scratches. There were so many things that could have happened ending any one, or all, of our lives. We truly do have an awesome God that provides for us in every moment of every day. Praise God that we can say with full sincerity, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose . . . For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 8:28, 11:36).
Here are a few more pictures of what the car looked like:

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Living in the Moment

Vintage-StopwatchIt seems that God has brought a recurring truth into my life. That truth is that I need to keep my focus in the here and now. It is too easy to get caught up in thoughts about where my life is headed in the coming years, months, weeks, and even days. That is not to say that planning is a bad thing and it is necessary but it must always be kept in check. In some ways it seems that college is an exaggerated portion of life where I am not really at home while at the same time I have not really begun a life either. That being the case, I tend to look forward to when I am no longer required to go to class, write papers, and meet Christian ministry requirements; I look forward to when I will be able to apply myself to the studying of God’s Word as I am led and to minister as I am needed. Though it is fine for me to anticipate those things, it is important for me to not miss what God has for me right here, right now.

Some months ago now, my church had a guest speaker by the name of Conrad Mbewe. If you are not familiar with him, he is a pastor from Lusaka, Zambia. He has partnered with Ken Turnbull and a number of other Godly men to start African Christian University. I have even heard him called the Spurgeon of Africa and after hearing him preaching, I can understand why. Since Pastor Mbewe has been in the ministry for well over 20 years, I took the opportunity to ask him what advice he had for a young man entering ministry. I will never forget what he told me. He told me to focus on my day-by-day walk with Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what God has down the road but what God has right now. It was a truly humbling thing for me to hear partly because it is so simple. I so often tend to complicate it by wondering if/when I will go to seminary, if I will pastor a small rural church, if I will end up being a church planter on the other side of the world, and so many other things. Leaving all of those questions unanswered, I must simply conclude that I will live by faith (Gal. 3:11).

Living by faith is a very simple concept yet it is one of the hardest things to practice. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” (Matt. 6:26-27). Jesus’ point is that dwelling upon the things of tomorrow will not change anything. I can sit and think about tomorrow for as long as I want to but that will not change that tomorrow will bring what God ordained it to bring. That is why just a few verses later Jesus said, “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things [temporal goods] shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). When I look to Christ and what He has for me today, I need not worry about what tomorrow may bring.

It is a tremendous comfort for me to know that I do not have to have it all figured out. I must simply be faithful day by day. It is when I am faithful in the little things of today that God can entrust greater things to me tomorrow (Matt. 25:23).

Saturday, November 13, 2010

A Few Thoughts on Humility

I am finally posting on my blog again after a long period of undue neglect. As I was reading in 1 Corinthians 8 this morning, I was struck by verse 2: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” Of course that verse is in the context of knowledge according to the liberty of a mature conscience, however, the principle there goes much deeper. Even in that context, Paul also says, “knowledge puffs up.”

Paul states that the key to possessing knowledge is doing so with a proper view to loving and edifying other believers for in the previous verse Paul says, “Love edifies.” And then a few chapters later, Paul goes on to say, “Love does not parade itself, is not puffed up” (1 Cor. 13:4b). The theme that Paul is emphasizing is love for other brothers and sisters in Christ.

As I thought about those things in the context of college life, it occurred to me how easy it is to allow the knowledge that I acquire here to puff me up. How is it that I, a junior in college, have attained to so great a knowledge of Scripture and theology while other men have devoted their entire lives to such study only to confess their own shortcomings? It is a sobering thought for me especially as I begin to wade into the deep seas of ministry, wondering where in that sea God will have me to go.

It is my hope that the knowledge I gain will never be simply for the sake a placing myself on a pedestal to impress others, but that I may be able to better love, serve, and care for the people of God. It is with the understanding that our knowledge must be used in perspective that we will be truly useful instruments in the hands of God. 

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Surrogates: Pursuit of Illusion

Surrogates_FacebookI just finished a movie entitled “Surrogates” starring Bruce Willis. Upon finishing the movie some thoughts came to me regarding how the movie relates to modern society. If you are not familiar with the movie, the plot centers around a futuristic world of remote controlled machines called surrogates. The surrogates look, sound, and function in the same way that humans do all while allowing the human “operators” to stay in the safety and comfort of their own homes. The story unfolds to show these surrogates implemented en masse transforming the culture into a practically danger-free environment. Overall, it is an intriguing premise but I do not want to go into the finer details of the story. What I would like to do, however, is point out how such an idea is truly the logical end of the extreme Facebook usage so often seen today.

I would like to preface my observations by saying that I do not think Facebook is evil and I doubt one would conclude such a thing after following a link to this post from Facebook. My only purpose is to point out how we must use Facebook in moderation just like anything else. It is an excellent tool to keep in touch with friends that we might otherwise never be able to. That being said, abusing that tool is still a very real danger.

I think what hit home to me when I saw this movie was that the people operating the surrogates were people trying to create and live that ever illusive “perfect life.” The entire idea is based around physically perceived beauty and what the world thinks is attractive. The film portrays a beautiful society filled with perfect looking people while the imperfect operators veiled their true identities. Living such a life leaves no room for true experience, perceiving emotion, or being able to just “be there” for someone. In reality, it leaves no room to see past a person’s imperfections and see them for who they really are. What kind of life is that? The answer is: It’s not. It is an illusion, a virtual or even alternate reality of sorts.

What’s my point? Well, the same can be said for Facebook when it is improperly used. How often do we try to create an image of ourselves, rubbing out or omitting the imperfections? In the past days and weeks I have been considering that very idea as it applies to my own life. I sometimes hesitate to post certain things because I do not want to create a counterfeit image of myself; I do not want to create an affectation of myself. I want to be just as genuine in real life as I am on Facebook or in any other environment.

Though such genuineness does have its personal benefits, it should be noted that the real motive should not be centered on self. Our real motive should be that we are representing Christ. Ephesians 2:6 tells us that God has “made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” It is that truth that demands a genuineness of life. To misrepresent who we are is to misrepresent Christ because we are in Christ. Furthermore, I Corinthians 6:19 asks the question “know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” Verse 20 then tells us that we “are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” To put it succinctly, our body (and how we portray it) is not our own, it is God’s and to misrepresent that is to misrepresent God.

God did not save us because we are perfect. If we were perfect we would not need to be saved. In fact, it is our imperfection and our need for a Savior is something that gives God glory. That being true, we do not need to cover our imperfections but glory in the fact that God can use us in spite of those imperfections. We do not need to put on false airs to impress our friends, we need to put on the genuine lifestyle of who we are in Christ to reach a dying world. May we never get sucked into Satan’s trap of “perceived beauty.”

Please feel free to contribute if you have any further thoughts.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Some Perspective on Losing the Ones We Love

arlingtonWhile I was in Hot Springs for the Cornerstone graduation we had a very good time of fellowship which at one point included a time of singing. One of the songs we sang was “It is Well.” The words of that hymn have come to mean a great deal to me as I have learned of the circumstances under which they were written. For those unfamiliar with the story, “It is Well” was written by Horatio Spafford as he dealt with the loss of his 4 daughters. Some sources cite that Spafford had actually lost his son just a few short years earlier. Even so, this man could still say “Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,It is well, it is well, with my soul.”

As we were singing this song, I was thinking about the loss that was felt by Horatio and his wife. From the depths of his grief, Horatio turned to Christ and the truth of His accomplishment on the cross. What a humbling thought. As I just meditated upon these things I began to think about God and specifically how He relates to loss. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are.” This is often related to the fact that Christ was tempted and yet without sin as the verse obviously states, but I believe that it goes further than that. The high priesthood of Christ has to do with compassion for our weakness; it has to do with the sympathy of understanding that can come only by experience. It is a comfort to know that when we struggle with sin and temptation, Christ has struggled in the same way and knows the difficulty of residing in a weak flesh. But what about the times when we are dealing with loss? Does He really know what we are going through? Has He been there? The answer is without question: YES!

To understand the parallels between God and man in feeling loss, we must first articulate the perception of loss. In short, what makes loss so emotionally traumatic is the reality of separation. We cannot bear to lose someone because of the fact that we are separated from them. In our grief it might be easy for us to turn away from God saying “He may understand suffering but He doesn’t know what it’s like to lose someone.” On the contrary, throughout the Bible we see that God has experienced loss and He has experienced it to an extent that we will never know. The greatest example of this is the sacrifice of Christ. Matthew 27:46 says that “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” As Jesus hung on the cross, He was separated from the intimate fellowship of the Father because of the sins that He bore. Just as no human is corporeally changed in death, neither was Jesus any less God as He died on the cross. Just as we do not cease to love those whom we lose, neither did God cease to love Christ as He took upon Himself the penalty of our sin. But, just as we are separated from the fellowship of those we love by physical death, so was Christ separated from the Father as the sins of men were laid upon His shoulders. Isaiah 53:5 tells us that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” It was because Jesus bore our sins that He was separated from God the Father; His fellowship with the Father had been severed by the weight of sin.

Have you ever considered what Christ’s sacrifice truly encompasses? The physical aspect of Christ’s suffering is enough to make us quiver but what about His loss of fellowship with God? The intimacy of the relationship between God the Father and Christ goes so much deeper than anything a human has ever known, yet God still allowed it to be broken. Severance from the presence of God was part of the punishment that Christ had to bear for our sin; it is a part of what makes sin so horrible. So, just as we experience the severance of a relationship as a result of death, so God’s relationship with His Son was broken by the weight of our sin upon Him. He experienced that loss so that our losses can be restored. When we lose someone dear to us, we can have a confidence in knowing that our Lord knows what we are going through because He has experienced a loss far greater: being severed from the presence of God. It is because Christ was forsaken that we never will be.

As we see our own losses in light of the cross, they pale in comparison. As believers, we will never have to know what severance from the presence of God is like; we will never have to know more than temporal separation; we will always have that intimate relationship with Christ. Jesus Christ knew the ultimate loss so that we would never have to. To me, that puts it into perspective.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

A Heart’s Desire

Bible and Bread2 Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the desires of my heart. There is a continual battle raging within me. My flesh pulls toward the things of the world while who I am in Christ desires a deeper knowledge of Him. As I have been reading my Bible, I have been especially struck by how the men of Scripture yearned for nothing more than that deeper knowledge of God.

Job 23:12 says, “I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.” As I was pondering that verse, I was incredibly humbled. The man who spoke those words had lost his possessions, his family, and almost everything that defined him in the earthly sense yet he still desired God above all else. God allowed everything that Job held dear to be taken away but that did not change his commitment to God. Through all that happened, Job did not harbor bitterness and anger toward God but actually desired to know God more as is demonstrated by his unfaltering faithfulness. In contrast, I have been blessed with more than I could ever ask for yet it seems that spending time with God is the easiest thing to bump from my schedule.

To Job, the words of God gave a more life sustaining power than did the very food that nourished his body. What a picture. It gives a true illustration of the words “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). No truer words have every been spoken. Physical sustenance is merely a result of the power of God’s Word. My dad has been teaching on Hebrews 1 in our weekly prayer meeting and I have noticed an important parallel. Hebrews 1:1-3 states, “God . . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” It is the very words of Christ, God’s son, that upholds all that is. The ground that we stand on, the air we breathe, and the very food we eat is a result of Christ’s sustaining power. Job understood that idea and as a result he desired to know and serve God. Spending time in God’s word should be the last thing to be bumped from my schedule.

To me, that is so humbling. I know and often even ponder the fact that I have my life in Christ but I often forsake that life of Christ. I have such a desire to serve him though I am conflicted because my life so often does not reflect that. I pray that I may become as those saints of old; that I may desire God’s sustaining word above the very food that I eat. May our hearts’ desire be for that “bread of life” that we may truly know our God and Savior; that we may “never hunger” (John 6:35).

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Symphonic Theology: A Student’s Critique

I have recently been doing a great deal of study in the area of hermeneutics and general Biblical interpretation. Often times in my studies, it seems as though I arrive at a fairly moderate position simply because that seems to be the most biblical. It was for that reason that this book by Vern Poythress really piqued my interest. The full title of the book is Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology. As indicated by the title, there is a strong emphasis on examining every angle of a discussion before reaching a conclusion. To allow a balanced view of the book I will first just outline some of Poythress’ main emphases and then make some observations about his approach and execution.

Very generally speaking, the book can be broken down into three sections. The first section emphasizes how many different perspectives exist in the world. Poythress illustrates the effect of perspectives in a broad number of ways beginning with practical everyday experiences and progressing through several Biblical instances. The point is that because every person is different, every person will automatically pay more attention to certain details while others notice different and even opposite details. Those differences can often be due to different backgrounds or simply different personalities. As Poythress develops this idea of different perspectives, he also emphasizes that these different perspectives are not actually a bad thing. In fact, when viewed properly, a proper assessment of the various perspectives can become a great asset to the student. Poythress also makes an important note of the fact that his thinking has been strongly affected by several known presuppositional thinkers the greatest of which would probably be Cornelius Van Til. That fact is important in light of how Van Til emphasized the idea that all human beings believe what they believe based upon certain presuppositions. That emphasis on presuppositions ties very closely to the Poythress’ examination of perspectives.

The second section deals with words and the precision or, in certain cases, the imprecision of language. In this section, Poythress does a brief survey of some basic linguistic principles and observes the fact that language is not quite as concrete as some might wish. He illustrates by showing that there are words with multiple meanings. In some cases, the only way to determine the meaning of a word is its contextual usage. Poythress also presents the idea of expandable perspectives. The idea basically boils down to the broadening of a word definitions via the method of principalization. In other words, Poythress shows how a very broad application can be made from a very narrowly defined term. Because of his premise regarding words, he is careful to define his terms to ensure that he is not teaching relativism.

In the final section, Poythress applies the principles of Symphonic Theology to a specific theological issue to demonstrate the practical use of the proposed system. Poythress presents miracles as the subject of discussion. In doing so, he tries to analyze the extremes of both the liberal position of no miracles to the charismatic position of continuationism. Whether Poythress was correct in his conclusions is beyond the scope of this article, nevertheless he well illustrated his point. Though both extremes may be completely off track, Poythress demonstrates that the student should be willing to examine both positions to analyze what aspect of truth the views hold central. From that point, Poythress shows his method of analysis and conclusion based upon the gathered details. We will now examine how the ideas that Poythress presented play out in practice.

First, Poythress’ dealing with the fact that all human beings are affected by perspective is quite insightful. There have been many theologians who almost totally agreed doctrinally while still criticizing each other’s positions. Their disagreement was not actually based upon a doctrinal difference, but rather a lack of understanding with regard to the position of the other. Unfortunately, that is a situation that is all too common especially in the world of Scripture. Christians often generalize a position before they have actually heard out the position. Without a proper understanding of presuppositions, the student of Scripture will never be able to even understand how he has reached his own conclusions. Poythress does an excellent job of addressing that problem and presents a good model to guard against such unfounded generalizations.

As previously mentioned, the second section of Poythress’ book deals with word meanings and their precision with regard to specific application. This is where the book tends to become a little dangerous with regard to Biblical interpretation. He does make some good points as far as how terms may not always be quite as precise as the systematic theologian might desire. His premise does, however, become dangerous when he proposes the idea of elasticity in word meanings. In principle, he has a valid point. For instance, he brings out how the word “Sabbath” is specific in meaning and its use in the Ten Commandments is very precise. He then points out that the much broader idea of consecration lies behind the word “Sabbath,” which is what I alluded to with my reference to principalization. Again, his application is good and it can be verified by the context of Scripture. That being said, a person with no context in Biblical hermeneutics could easily accept those principles carte blanche and in turn embrace an allegorical approach to Scripture. In fact, there are numerous subtle hints that betray Poythress’ Covenant biases. That it is not say that the book should be avoided, but I do not believe that it is a book that should be read without a previous context in Biblical Interpretation.

The third part of the book is good simply because it gives a basic model for how Symphonic Theology actually applies. Though there is certainly a time for theological works that are primarily conceptual and thus practical only in a secondary way, it is refreshing to read a book that has so much everyday application. Poythress demonstrates how fair comparison can not only lead a student to have a balanced theology but help the student to respect those with differing views. In the Christian circle, respect for others is so very important to true Christ-like behavior. As Christians, we may not always agree but we still love and care for one another as a result of our position of unity in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).

Overall, this book can definitely be a valuable tool in helping a person to become willing to analyze issues from a reasonable perspective and break the mold of one’s presupposed or inherited doctrine. May we never tire of challenging our understanding of Scripture so that we may become more acquainted with our God. May we be as the Bereans who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Greek Humanism: Continued in the Teachings of Thomas Aquinas


This article is actually a sequel to my first article entitled, “A Brief History of Greek Humanism.” Its subject matter was suggested by a close friend of mine and has proven to be a very interesting study. I hope those of you who are able to read this agree.

In the past months I have become increasingly aware of the fact that philosophy is an inescapable reality. Though many of us might tend to shy away from philosophy as being only for the academic “eggheads,” it affects every one of us equally. That being true, we might ask the question, “What exactly is philosophy?” Dr. Michael Vlach, on his website, offers this definition of philosophy: “Philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” (Vlach). Also, despite his innumerable problems, Immanuel Kant well summarizes philosophy as the attempt to answer three questions: “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) By those two definitions of philosophy, it is without question that every single human being, regardless of academic or intellectual background, has contemplated philosophy. To maintain relevance, it is that backdrop we must keep in mind as we begin to examine Thomas Aquinas and his relation to Christian philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas has often been lauded as one of the greatest contributors to modern philosophy and theology, and that fact is undeniable. There is, however, room for debate when it comes to the value of such contributions.

Aquinas was brought up in a quite well-to-do family and was sent to school in preparation for service in the Roman Catholic Church. While at school, Aquinas decided to join the Dominican Order and despite several hurtles he eventually graduated with his master’s degree. During his education he became increasingly intrigued by Aristotle and ultimately became Aristotelian in his philosophy. It was Aquinas’ adherence to Aristotelian thought that changed his theology forever (Atkinson; McKinery).

As Aquinas developed his own positions on philosophy and theology he came to believe that the two could be viewed separately. Aquinas did, however, clarify his claim by observing that a study of theology was necessary at a certain point. Even at that, Aquinas’ idea was revolutionary for his day because most viewed philosophy and theology as contradictory, not complimentary. Edward Younkins, a professor at the Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, stated,  “For Aquinas, the whole of human knowledge forms one all-encompassing, orderly, hierarchical system with sciences at the base, philosophy above them, and theology at the top . . . [and] that divine revelation in no way contradicts that which men discover by the use of natural reason” (Younkins).

It seems the core of the issue boils down to Aquinas’ basic view of general and special revelation. In his work, Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives us a view of what he believed about the human knowledge of God. In answer to the question of whether God is self-evident, Aquinas answered “that God exists is not self-evident” based upon the philosophical supposition that “no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident” (Aquinas). In other words, man should not have the ability to claim the opposite of what is obviously true. Aquinas then went on to answer the question of whether it can be demonstrated that God exists. He stated “‘The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists” (Aquinas). Therefore, Aquinas was making the point that nature is the key to demonstrating the existence of God. From that point, he then proceeded to propose five specific proofs for the existence of God, which have since become exceedingly well-known.

To summarize, Aquinas denied that the existence of God is self-evident while holding to the belief that the existence of God could be proven through the observation of nature. It is that philosophy that survives today in the form of classical apologetics and, to some degree, evidentialism. The fact is that the philosophy of Aquinas, the classical apologist, and the evidentialist have in common a basic reliance upon the rationality of the human being.

Now that we have established a very basic sketch of Aquinas’ perspective and driving principles, we can take a discerning look at how we should view those principles. Going back to Aquinas’ belief of being able to separate philosophy and theology, we must ask the question: Can this be so? According to the definitions of philosophy as stated by Dr. Vlach and Immanuel Kant, I submit that the two disciplines cannot be separated. Aquinas’ belief regarding the hierarchal structure of knowledge may well be correct; however, placing philosophy in an entirely different plane than theology is quite dangerous. This is true because, as we have already examined, “philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” and answer the questions “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) As one begins to answer those questions, he must deal with such things as the purpose of the universe, the reason for the existence of man, and even the determination of why things function the way they do. To answer such important questions rationally and critically, the possibility and place of God must be considered by the true philosopher. When the philosopher considers the possibility of God he has just crossed into the theological.

At this point it is important to clarify what is meant by the term “theological.” Aquinas viewed the term “theological” only in the context of divine revelation, which he deemed to be Scripture or what we term as special revelation (McKinery). Because of Thomas’ narrow definition of theological truth, he did not properly recognize the natural world as being God’s revelation or what we call general revelation. In his mind, the natural world only indicated God but was not actually a form of God’s revelation. According to Romans 1:19, such an assumption would be incorrect. The verse states, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.” The idea behind the word “manifest” clearly carries the idea of making something known or to show openly or plainly. We see then that God reveals Himself to all men aside from any special revelation. In other words, all men have an innate knowledge or general revelation of God apart from any particular observational studies. As Paul moves to verse 20, he joins the verses with a word that shows an assigned reason. In this case, that reason is nature; God has revealed Himself through nature and the complexities of what He has created. Paul’s intention goes much deeper than what Aquinas observed. God’s creation does not simply point to Him but it truly manifests Him and His power. In short, even nature itself is a revelation of God.

In conclusion, we must not make the mistake of separating our philosophy and our theology. Philosophy, even in its attempts to find common ground between the religious and irreligious will fail. That is due to the fact that God’s revelation is clearly seen even outside the bounds of Scripture. Even before the most cautious philosopher begins his study, he is accountable to the revelation of God in nature and as a result he is biased for or against belief in God. As Romans 1 demonstrates, the claim to be able to form a neutral philosophy is a sadly naïve attempt to escape the reality of the absolutely supreme and Holy God. If we do not make this separation we will open the door to allowing humanistic paradigms into our philosophical and theological framework.

Sources:
Atkinson, Melissa S. “Aristotle and Aquinas: Intrinsic Morality versus God’s Morality.” http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/atkinson/Aristotle_and_Aquinas_Intrinsic_Morality_versus_Gods_Morality.shtml

McKinery, Ralph. “Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 Jul. 1999. Rev. 30 Sept. 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Younkins, Edward W. “Thomas Aquinas’ Christian Aristotelianism.” http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060122-5.htm
 

Sunday, January 3, 2010

The Breakdown of the Family: A Parallel of Rome and America

The breakdown of the Roman Empire has some striking similarities to what is happening in America today. Today we are seeing a breakdown in every aspect of our culture from morals, to work ethic, to even basic social structure. For those who are interested in politics and other mainstream social issues, there is often a tendency to ask the question, “what is causing such a breakdown?” Often times, that can even be a puzzling question for the believer. To see an example and illustrate the answer to this question, we will again take a moment to look back in history.

Originally, Rome was a nation that was based upon hard work, simplicity, discipline, and character. Even those who were considered to be “nobles” plowed their own land and were ready to fight for their country at a moments notice. As the nation began to develop, they began to expand their borders through military campaigns known historically as the Punic Wars. The increased focus upon conquest, new land, and greed began to adversely affect the entire Roman culture. The focus upon external conquests led to a loss on family focus. The shift led to a breakdown in morals, family values, and often even the dissolution of marriages. That is a result that may well have been due to the fact that the male head of the home was so often gone to war, leaving the family without the proper leadership.

In sync with the breakdown of the family was the breakdown of the national economy. As Rome encompassed other nations, national trade increased and the price of imported goods dropped greatly. As the market was inundated by new trade, Roman farmers often could not compete and would be forced into the cities in search of work. Even then, the farmers were often hard pressed to find work due to the prolific slave market. That progression led to cities being inundated with jobless, hungry mobs of impoverished citizens.

On the other end of the spectrum was the upper class that leveraged the national shift to their own personal benefit. As the smaller farmers were forced into selling their farms to move to the city, the wealthier men of the empire were able to buy up huge estates that were managed and cared for by slaves. In fact, at one point, all of the land in Italy was owned by less than 2,000 men. Other members of the upper class were able to secure similar monopolies in the area of business. The one thing that most of the upper class had in common was that most of them were somehow involved in government. The resulting system was one of extreme debauchery and corruption.

As the upper class began to develop, they realized a definite need for controlling the mobs. Instead of trying to better the impoverished, the rich upper class did only what they found personally expedient. Often times, the upper class did such things as buying the votes of the people by handing out bread and entertaining the people with the gladiatorial games. As the people began to embrace this demeaning new way of life, they lost every ounce of dignity that they had left. The Roman civilization became a culture that was focused on handouts and entertainment, not family and the cultivation of values. In short, Rome had become an entirely entertainment driven society. From that point the corruption only grew worse and though there were periods of reformation, the breakdown eventually led to the collapse of the Roman society.

The most important thing to take from this tragedy is the fact that it all began with the breakdown of the family. Regardless of cultural background, the proper management of a household and the rearing of children is an extremely difficult task. That being true, there must be solid, consistent principles taught and applied within the home. When they are not, the results are catastrophic.

Sadly, the same thing is happening in America. The difference is that the downfall began through a simple shift in the educational field. That shift was the institutionalizing of education. Through the implementation of a public school system, the schools were entrusted with the responsibility that actually belongs to the parents. Instead of the parents teaching their own children, the responsibility of education fell to a person totally disconnected from the home. Over the years, the public school system progressed by adding new subjects, new programs, and more educators. With those developments, the emphasis on family and the amount of time available for family diminished. The death blow was dealt in 1963 with the ruling on the case of the Abington School District v. Schempp. It was in that case that the public reading of Scripture by teachers was banned. The result was a turning away from Godly life principles and the basis from which to teach moral absolutes; its effects are still being felt today.

Today, parents are not generally concerned about training or preparing their children for the arena of life. For many parents public school is just “free” daycare and the after school activities are little more than an extension of the same. That gives the parents more of an opportunity to advance their own careers or even their own hobbies. The remaining time that the family has together is often filled with movies or video games so that the parents are able to simply get the kids out of their hair. Even the church has embraced this idea of separation by having a Sunday school class for every age while frowning upon the idea of family worship. So often this is done to keep everyone happy and appeal to the entertainment philosophy that we have embraced. Just like Rome, America has become an entirely entertainment driven society that is beginning to reap what it has sown.

Though there certainly are differences, the similarities are striking. First, just as Rome moved away from family and toward what seemed to be national advancement, America began to move away from parental education to advance what seemed to be the good cause of secular education. In both cases, education suffered in order to embrace ideas that were seemingly good. The problem in both instances, however, was the fact that neither move was Biblical. The second, and most obvious, parallel is that as both societies moved away from a family emphasis, they became enthralled with entertainment and personal gratification. The whole issue boils down to the fact that having a family and doing it properly takes a great deal of work. When we desire our own personal gratification over that work, our families will suffer and eventually our society will suffer.

May the example of Rome be a constant reminder of the importance of family. Proverbs 22:6 is probably the best summation of the parental responsibility as it commands parents to “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” That verse makes no mention of personal comfort. It is not about the parent, it is about the training of the child. This is most certainly not to say that it is not a joyful experience but simply that the focus must not be on self. When the focus is on self, the family suffers and ultimately the society will suffer.