Missing Out On Life

5 June 2011

Obedience brings blessings, but sometimes we are unable to receive them.

Psalms 149 and 150 both say to praise the Lord with the timbrel and dance. This is not a cheeky suggestion from a Bible college sophomore; it is a Holy Spirit-inspired picture of exuberant worship, and it is a command.  It is a command that we must sing as we sing the Psalms — a thing we are also commanded to do.  Ought we then to dance before the Lord?

Well, yes. If we must sing the command to dance, then surely we ought also to dance.  If there is “a time to mourn and a time to dance,” then there is a time to dance.  Obviously not every day and every occasion, but there will be times when dancing is appropriate, and when it is, we ought to do it.

If we were equipped to obey that command today, then dancing before the Lord would be a blessing to us all.

But in the overwhelming majority of North American churches, we aren’t equipped.  If we all got up and tried to dance in church today, it would most definitely not be a blessing.  Some of us wouldn’t have a clue what to do.  Some of us have done all our dancing in nightclubs, and would bring a form of dance that’s not really well suited for worship.  Some of us would be rightly scandalized by dance moves better suited to the bedroom than the house of God.  Some of us would be wrongly scandalized that there was dance at all.  Some of us who actually have talent would be badly scandalized by the well-meaning antics of those of us who don’t. It would be an utter disaster.  Whatever “praise His name with the dance” means, surely that is not it; “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.”

So to sum up: there’s a biblical command to obey, and we are falling woefully short of it.  We ought to obey, and yet we dare not; making the attempt would produce utter chaos — and there are also commands against that. Our pietistic, individualistic upbringing in the faith tells us that God’s commands, once understood, must be immediately obeyed.  And yet this is clearly impossible in this case.  What are we to do?  How are we to think about such a situation?

What we have before us is the result of a long, long disobedience.  Once upon a time, Our People knew how to dance before the Lord.  By the Red Sea, Miriam and the women went out with timbrels and dances.  David danced before the ark. Today, we’ve lost touch with the ability to praise the Lord with the dance. At some point in our history, we decided that it wasn’t that important, and a generation that knew how didn’t pass it on to the next generation.  It’s not just about dancing, either.  We’ve been worshiping God with our brains alone for so long that we’ve forgotten how to kneel, raise our hands, bow down, and so on — all things that the Psalms also talk about doing. Now we’re so far removed from obedience that the very idea of dancing or other physical action before the Lord  — an obviously biblical idea — seems so strange to us that we don’t know where to start.

But this is exactly what happens with long disobedience.  What you do shapes how you think, until the habit is so ingrained that doing it another way — in this case, an obedient way — is unthinkable.   We have been neglecting our bodies’ role in worship for so long that our disobedience has warped us.  We’re so far gone that we are unable to receive the life-giving blessings of obedience as blessings, which is to say that the wages of sin is death.

The solution?  Simple, but not easy.  We start heading back the right direction.  Maybe we can’t dance in church this week.  Or next.  Or next year.  Maybe the first step is a cautious lesson on Exodus 15.  Maybe that’s too much; maybe a cautious lesson on kneeling, from Psalm 95.  Maybe it’s the worship leader inviting people to lift their hands during one part of one song.  I don’t know what it would be in your church.  But whatever it is, we need to start moving back in the direction of obedience.

As we move wisely, and God blesses our efforts, we will begin to experience the first glimmerings of the blessings of obedience.  With that encouragement, we will need to continue, and just be faithful to do the next thing, as God gives opportunity.  The project may take a year, or a decade.  Maybe a century — but so what?  The goal is to be as faithful as Providence permits in the situation Providence has placed us in.

*****

Meanwhile, we ought not to be surprised that we have unmet needs.

This is not punishment; it’s not God being vindictive.  God made our lives rich and multifaceted, and made us to need His grace and provision in every last facet of our lives.  To that end, He makes us aware of our needs, and He fulfills those needs.  He does this through means — and different means for different needs.  We need to talk with Him, and He has given us prayer as a means of grace in that area.  We need to eat, and “He has caused vegetation to grow for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth.”  But when you need to talk to God, eating a potato doesn’t meet that need; likewise, when you need physical nourishment, praying does little to ease the ache in your stomach.  When we cut ourselves off from God’s grace dispensed through a particular means, we are cutting off an area of our life from His blessing.

So when we neglect the commands having to do with using our bodies in worship, we are refusing to receive grace in a particular area of our lives.  That area will suffer, because God is trying to give us something good, and we won’t take it.

But then you’re thinking, “I never kneel in worship, and I certainly never dance!  But I’m doing fine.”

No.  No, you’re not.  You’re willfully falling short of something God explicitly says to do; in what universe is that going to be okay?  This dynamic — thinking you’re okay although disobedient — is what it means to be “hardened through the deceitfulness of sin,” and it’s another consequence of long disobedience.  Let this go for a while, and the Chinese proverb becomes true: “The fake becomes real; the real becomes fake.”  The truncated and distorted spirituality that eventually results from refusing to say “Yes” to God’s good gifts becomes “real” spirituality in your mind.  You grow accustomed to starvation in certain areas of your life, and deeply suspicious of anyone who tells you that those pangs of hunger and thirst for righteousness really could be satisfied.  The real thing becomes “fake” to you; you don’t believe it anymore.  At best, this leads to a needlessly painful and truncated life; at worst, to abandoning the faith because it doesn’t work.

Again, the solution is simple, but not easy: obey.  We obey to the best of our ability, paltry as it may be, incrementally if necessary, as wisely as we can.  We look forward to the blessings of obedience, and to becoming the sort of people who can experience them as blessings.  And in the meanwhile, we cry to God for mercy; it’s a prayer He delights to answer.


Invitation to Life

29 May 2011

God is in the business of growing His children, maturing us both individually and corporately into spiritual adulthood.  This means that when God speaks to us, He is often calling us to change.

But how will you hear a word from God that calls you to change?  That depends on your heart.

God does not prohibit things because He is the enemy of all fun.  God does not say “Don’t play.”  God says “Don’t play in traffic.”  He steers us away from things that will hurt us.  Every good and perfect gift comes from God; if God is steering you away from something, then it’s not a good gift (at least, not for you, now.)

Likewise, when God commands something, it is not so He can watch you jump through hoops for His own private amusement.  No.  When God says “Do xyz,” God is saying “I have a blessing I want to give you.  Hold out your hand.”  Again, every good and perfect gift comes from God.

If your heart is right toward God, then you hear an invitation to life in the command, and deliverance from death in the prohibition.  Alas, this is not always the case….

The temptation, of course, is to think that God is being mean to you, or at least cheap with you — that He’s steering you away from something good, or toward something bad.  Instead, of course, you ought to simply trust God.  If He commands a thing, you should set out to do it, expecting the blessings of obedience.  This is true even when you can’t see what that blessing might be, as is often the case.  Remember, the command is God saying “Hold out your hand; I want to give you something good.”  When you can’t see what the good thing might be, God is saying “Close your eyes and hold out your hand; I want to give you something good.”

When you rebel against the command of God, you are folding your arms firmly, tucking your hands in your armpits and scrunching your shoulders up to your ears, and saying “No!  Show me what it is first.  Then maybe I’ll obey.”

Doesn’t usually work like that, in my experience.  I find that the experience of obedience forms me, causes me to develop eyes to see and ears to hear.  Apart from that experience, I could not have become the sort of person that can enjoy what God is seeking to give me.

And besides, how can we expect God to bless us with anything, even understanding, when we are knowingly rebelling against His expressed will?

***

Of course, there’s a problem.  We can’t keep the commands.  We may delight in them, we may see the life that keeping them would bring–but we simply don’t have the wherewithal to get the job done.  Sin rises up in us, and we rebel.  We may hate the sin that we’re doing, but that doesn’t seem to stop us from doing it.

What can we do to solve the problem?

Nada.  Zip.  Nechevo.

There is no action, no arrangement of mental furniture, nothing you can do to defeat sin.  Until the resurrection, you’re stuck with sin dwelling in you, and it’s stronger than you are.  You can’t think your way to victory.  Until the last day, when you’re delivered from death, you are doomed.

But the last day has come.  In Christ, the last day broke into history, and the resurrection has already begun.  Jesus, son of Adam, is ascended to heaven and sits on the mercy seat at the Father’s right hand, crowned Lord of heaven and earth.  In His absence, He sent us the Spirit, and dwelling in us, the Spirit gives us a glimpse — the firstfruits, as it were — of the resurrection.  This body is dead because of sin, but through the Spirit, God gives life to our dead bodies. It’s absurd, contradictory.  It doesn’t make any sense.  A bit like a man walking on water…

Which is to say, it’s a miracle.

We still wait eagerly for the resurrection, but right here, right now, we live resurrected lives by the daily miracle of the Spirit operating in our lives.  In one way, this is not something we do so much as something we get out of the way of.  And then again, by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the body, and thereby, we live.  Synergism is a curse word in some theological circles, but that’s exactly what this is.  The Spirit takes your hand and says, “There’s a part of you that needs to die.  Come with Me; we’ll kill it together.”  The power is God’s, as is the glory, but He would like to incarnate them in us.

This is an invitation to life. Can your ears hear it?

Ho! Everyone thirsty,
Come to the waters;
And if you have no money,
Come, buy and eat.
Yes, come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without price.
Why spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages on what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And let your soul delight itself in abundance.
Incline your ear, and come to Me.
Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you —
The sure mercies of David.


Preparing for the Kingdom

15 May 2011

Thanks to the controversy-mongering of a certain fellow up in Michigan, heaven and hell are in the news of late.  I don’t intend to spend much time on that here; suffice it to say I take a C. S. Lewis-esque view, myself.  Hell is real, eternal, and utterly horrifying, and nobody is going to enjoy being there.  But I believe they will find it infinitely preferable to being in the presence of the God whom they have hated and avoided their whole lives, in whose presence their cherished illusions must die.

What I’m interested in, in this post, are similar implications of judgment for believers.  1 John presents a picture in which this life is an opportunity to learn to walk in the light.  If we avail ourselves of the opportunity to face God and have our sins exposed by Him now, then when He appears, we will not be ashamed before Him at His coming.  This will not be because we will have arrived at some sort of sinless state — “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” — but because we will have parts of our lives for which there is no reason for shame, and even more important, because we will have acquired the habit of standing in the light and being exposed for who we are.  When Christ is finally revealed and the last illusion is dispelled, the last self-deception uncovered, we will not be ashamed, but relieved.  It is a process we will embrace, because we have been embracing it all along.

By contrast, a believer who spends this life skulking in the shadows is doomed.  The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already dawning; the time will come when it is full day and there are no shadows left to hide in.  When day fully comes, the believer who has spent all his time in the shadows will be caught unprepared, and will shrink away in shame before Christ at His coming.  The Sun of Righteousness will be risen with healing in His wings — but this man cherishes his sickness and will have to be healed against his will.

Now consider how this will matter when it comes to eternal rewards.  The doctrine of rewards is often presented as motivation, as a heavenly profit-sharing program.  Good boys get a city; bad boys get a push broom.

Roughly speaking, that would appear to be true as far as it goes, but it’s a long way from the whole story.  If you have kids, or you’ve ever worked with kids, then you’ve seen them do astonishingly stupid things with the best of intentions.  In the resurrection, we will all be morally perfect, which is to say that our intentions will be good.  But it takes more than good intentions — even perfect intentions — to govern a city.  Results matter, and to achieve good results, you need wisdom.  To whom can Jesus hand the administration of a city?  To whom can He say, “Here, run this city the way I would,” and be confident that it will get done?

To someone who has spent this life growing in the wisdom of the Kingdom.  To a person who has walked in the light, and grown mature through a lifetime of dwelling in Christ, and Christ in him. This is the ethical dimension of the doctrine of rewards.  If the prize is to rule by Christ’s side, then the task today is to make the choices that will cause you to become someone who rules as Christ would rule.

Here, by the way, is how we dodge the classic dispensational foolishness vis-a-vis the Sermon on the Mount.  Now the old folly about how the Sermon is ‘Kingdom law’ and therefore not for today ought not even be considered seriously; the Great Commission is sufficient to refute it completely.  But just to be talking about it, let’s suppose that the Sermon is Kingdom Law, and can’t be applied fully in this present sin-filled age.  Nonetheless, this age is our training ground for the next, which means that we can’t afford to defer all application of the Sermon to later.  If we would be ready to apply Kingdom Law in the Kingdom, we have to begin by doing the best we can to apply it now.

Happily, it turns out that when we do that skillfully, the result is compelling evidence in this world for the reality of the world to come, along the lines of the witness chronicled in Hebrews 11, or the witness Jesus prayed for in John 17.  We are already the citizens of a Kingdom that has not yet come.  But all authority is committed to Jesus, sitting at the right hand of the Father, and we are already His subjects.  By living as His subjects in a world at war with Him, we walk in the light and carry that light out into the dark places of the world, that the kings of the earth may be rebuked and kiss the Son before it is too late.

By words and water, bread and wine, by the sacrifices of praise, by remembering to do good and to share — by New Covenant sacraments and sacrifices — we make war on the powers of this world.  The weapons of our warfare, although not carnal, are weapons, and they are weapons for which God’s enemies have no defense.  Let’s use them, that we might be priests in this life, and joint heirs with Christ as priest-kings in the life to come.


Love One Another

24 April 2011

This day, of all days, is a time to consider how we might love one another.  A time to step aside from petty disagreements and quarrels, a time to abandon the works of the flesh that make themselves all too evident among us.

The Lord of glory died on a cross, and we want to insist on justice.

Christ has died.

Christ is risen.

Christ is coming again.

Like Him, we are called to take up our respective crosses and follow Him.  This is not simply an exercise of unworthiness, of suffering for the sake of suffering.  Baptized into Him, we die to rise and walk in newness of life.

Hallelujah!  Christ is Risen!


“Descriptive, not Prescriptive” part 5: Beware the “Transitional Period”

17 April 2011

I am about to tell a true story, and I want to make it clear that I am not trying to pick on the speaker in the story.  He clearly has the problem I’m seeking to point out, but he is very far from being alone in this.  The vast majority of conservative evangelicals in the circles I run in have the exact same problem, and they’ve got it just as bad.  A few years ago, this same story could have happened to me, too.  This poor fellow just happened to be the guy with the microphone when someone asked an awkward question…

So I was at a conference, listening to a lecture on decision-making in Acts — essentially a brief and competent sketch of Friesen’s approach from Decision-Making and the Will of God, as worked out in Acts in particular.  The speaker, following the typical conservative anti-charismatic line, said that you can’t really develop doctrine for today from Acts, because it’s a transitional period.  To his (partial) credit, he immediately backed off that and qualified it a little by adding that he supposed you could develop doctrine from Acts, but you wouldn’t want Acts to be your main support; you’d want to corroborate anything you got from Acts in the Epistles, because, again, Acts is transitional.

Now this is the old descriptive vs. prescriptive canard I’ve already discussed here, but another angle on it came up during the Q&A time that I’m embarrassed to say I’d never considered.  Someone asked, “If Acts is transitional and therefore at best a secondary support for doctrine today, then how can we rely on epistles written during that same transitional period?”

The speaker didn’t really know what to say (and here I might add, nobody else was jumping in to help him, either).  After hemming and hawing a bit, he fell back on stating that the book of Acts is a historical narrative — which was apparently supposed to answer the question.

***

It doesn’t, though, does it?  If Acts is a transitional period and what they said and did during that time in Acts can’t be trusted for application today, then the letters written during that time are as suspect as the words spoken and deeds done.  That dumps most of the church epistles at the very least — if not the whole New Testament.  I mean, wasn’t the whole first century something of a transitional era?

Now, certain people will immediately notice an upside:

With the NT as a mere description of what was done in the first century, we are free to decide that things have changed.  Perhaps we need no longer pay any attention to the biblical patterns of observing baptism, or the Lord’s Table.  Perhaps we can reinvent church without regard to what our first-century fathers did.  Perhaps ordaining women and homosexuals isn’t so bad; a lot of time has passed, and those old Jewish prejudices just don’t really have a place in the contemporary world any more.  And what’s this obsession with a single sexual partner, anyhow?  Doesn’t the Bible teach us to love everybody?  Sounds like a contradiction to me…

Which is to say, once you get started, how do you stop that thing?  In our zeal to prevent abuse of the biblical narrative, my fellow conservatives have gotten on the sailboat of undermining biblical authority, and now the wind is blowing so loudly that I can barely hear them assuring me that they know where to find the brake pedal.

Hard to believe, for some reason.

Learn how to read a story or die, guys.  Your personal prejudices will stop you from going all the way, but do you think for a moment that your grandchildren won’t notice that for what it is?  Your (lack of) narrative hermeneutics will devour your grandchildren, just as the Reformers’ theology devoured their grandchildren, in their turn.  Fix it; the discomfort is momentary, and the benefits will last generations.

Some people will feel that I’m just griping about a problem without offering any solutions, and be justly annoyed by that. But although I haven’t made this post any longer, I’ve been hard at work on the solution to this one for some time: some of it I’ve discussed in my past Descriptive/Prescriptive posts.  Other bits I intend to discuss in future posts.  And there’s always my course in hermeneutics.


Telos of the Gift: The Christmas Pocketknife

3 April 2011

Once upon a time there was a man named Dan.  God was kind to Dan, and in due time gave him a wife, and then a son — a red-headed, freckled bundle of mischief named Russell.  Russell could barely sit still.  They had to hold him back a year in school because he wasn’t learning to read — not because he couldn’t, or from any lack of intelligence, but because he just had such a hard time focusing.  He didn’t start to like reading even a little bit until Dan introduced him to Tom Sawyer and Br’er Rabbit.  He was that kind of boy.

When Russell was 8 years old, Dan got him a pocketknife for Christmas.  Russell thought it was the most wonderful thing he’d ever seen: a bright red Swiss Army Tinker.  Large blade, small blade, bottle and can openers, screwdrivers — flat and phillips heads! — a leather punch…the list just went on and on.

Dan set Russell up with a chunk of balsa wood, a cardboard box, and an old leather belt so he could cut things, and Russell had the most wonderful afternoon of his young life reducing all three items to tiny, tiny pieces.  As far as Russell was concerned, heaven had come to earth.  Sitting at the kitchen table with an old cutting board, surrounded by bits of leather, wood and cardboard, Russell wondered what he could do next with his knife.  He looked down at the scarred surface of the cutting board in front of him, a hash of intersecting lines, and the idea struck him.  He went to work, and soon the cutting board sported a crudely carved “Russell” in one corner.

Flushed with success, Russell looked around the room, and his eyes lit on the china cabinet.  It towered to the ceiling, easily twice as tall as he was, a solid rosewood and glass giant looming over him, a tiny David with a Swiss Army knife.  Russell giggled.  Wonder how Goliath would feel about having “Russell” carved into his foot?

Still giggling, Russel lay down on the floor in front of one of the massive claw-feet and went to work….

*****

Now: was the pocketknife a gift?  Was it free?

Of course.

Does ‘gift’ imply that Russell was free to do whatever he wanted with it?

Of course not.

Russell’s father had some general purposes in mind for the gift, and vandalism was a sin against the intentions of his father, the giver.  Russell failed to honor his father.

Of course, had Russell been better educated, he might have thought to argue: “Hey, Dad, wait just a minute!  I thought this was a gift!  You can’t back-load a gift with a whole bunch of rules.  Was it really free, or wasn’t it?”

Happily, Russell’s foolishness was just the ordinary kind, and hadn’t been raised to a fever pitch by a theological education.


Mystical Union: The Person Who Promises

27 March 2011

Richard has a vaguely Christian background — Jesus died on a cross, like that.  He never really thought about it much, but he lost his job three months ago, and this week he’s not going to make his mortgage payment.  Not knowing what to do, he took a long walk to try to clear his head, and happened to pass by the church on a Sunday evening.  People were going in, and he thought, “What the heck?  Nothing else is working.”

So he sat through the service.  Didn’t know any of the songs, but it sounded sort of nice.  A little weird, to be honest — something about Jesus shining, and a fountain filled with blood.  But they seemed like nice folks.  Then, somewhere in the course of the sermon, the pastor said this:

We were dead, separated from God.  But Jesus came to give us life!  People talk about Jesus dying on the cross, and that’s important, but many miss what it was all for.  He died our death so that He could give us His life — and He gives it as a gift!  We couldn’t earn it, and we don’t have to.  When we believe on Him, He gives it to us.  The barrier between us and God is lifted, and we begin a new life with God that lasts forever.  Even after we die, we go to live with Him.

Richard never heard this before, but for some reason he couldn’t really explain, it felt like someone had hit a gong inside his chest.  It was true; he knew it was true.  Right there, sitting in the back, he believed.

***

What’s wrong with that scenario?

Absolutely nothing.  Not a thing.  God saved Richard by grace, through faith, apart from works, so that Richard would have nothing about which he could boast.  All the credit and glory belong to God.  That’s Ephesians 2:8-9.

***

Christ saved Richard so that Richard could be united to His Body, the Church, and join in its labors: doing the good works that God commissioned us to do from the beginning.

***

What’s wrong with that way of describing it?

Nothing.

It’s Ephesians 2:10.

***

Jesus has an agenda, and He is carrying it out.  When He saves you, He unites you to Himself, and He is moving His Body with purpose, a purpose that will be accomplished: revealing the manifold wisdom of God to heavenly principalities and powers and growing itself up to match the full stature of Christ, the Head.

It is this Jesus, and no other, that promises you everlasting life as a gift, unto His glory alone.  He can make that promise because His purposes for you will be accomplished, and in the accomplishing He will be glorified.  The promise can’t be separated from the Person, and when you try, you dishonor your high calling, shame the name of Christ, and become a walking contradiction.

Which is to say that it’s bad to try to chop Ephesians 2:10 off of Ephesians 2:8-9.  What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.  So let’s not — not even in theory.


Mystical Union: Assurance or Documentation?

20 March 2011

As I’ve written about mystical union with Christ over the past two months or so, various points of resistance have appeared.  This week I’d like to address one of the big ones.  Some folks feel that this way of understanding relationship with God removes any real ground for assurance of salvation.

Let me be the first to say that if the accusation is in fact true, then it is absolutely damning.  Nobody should be ready to sign off on a theology that destroys all grounds for assurance.  I would be the first one to dump it.

In this case, however, it’s just not true.  People who meet God don’t generally question the reality of the experience.  They do sometimes later doubt it — but the doubt generally grows up after they have drifted far from God, in the same way that a man who has been estranged for years from his wife begins to doubt whether he ever really loved her (or she him) at all.  No, at the time that a person meets God, he is generally pretty clear on what is happening to him.  You can see this certainty in Saul of Tarsus, the man born blind in John 9, Moses at the burning bush, and so on.  You can see it dawning slowly in Nicodemus, or bursting all at once into the consciousness of the woman at the well, or Nathaniel, or John the Baptist.  They know.  There’s no ground for doubt.

So what’s going on here?  Why do people feel like being at a meeting where God shows up would leave someone in a morass of uncertainty?

I’m kinda puzzled too.  Some of these people, by their own testimony, had assurance long before they got their theology of assurance sorted out.  They know this; they give testimony to it.  And yet, they don’t seem to connect it to their theology.  When they talk theology, they talk as if assurance is impossible unless you get your theology of assurance straight.  This is just not true, and it was not true of many of them, for years. (Conversely, you can have your theology very nicely sorted out and still struggle with assurance. Lots of kids growing up in our circles struggle with this; if you don’t already know that, it’s not because it isn’t happening; it’s because they’ve decided you’re not a safe person to talk to.)

As far as I can see, here’s the problem: these people don’t really want assurance.  They won’t be satisfied with being certain, themselves, that they have been saved by Jesus, nor with you being certain, yourself, that Jesus has saved you.  That is, they won’t be satisfied with the fact of assurance; they want to see an accredited process that leads to assurance.  They want documentability, something they can check from the outside, any time they want.  Something “objective” rather than just something they know.

That means that people have to get their propositions exactly right.

I toured the Osceola County Jail once, many years ago.  A guard explained how they let the inmates out for exercise, and had to log the time, date and duration of the exercise period for each inmate.  “If you can’t document it,” he said, “then it didn’t happen.”  I wondered then whether it was the inmates or the guards who were really imprisoned.

I’m still wondering.


Mystical Union: Alternate Anthropologies

13 March 2011

We’re having productive discussions about how relationship with God works, and I don’t want to disrupt that.  However, we do have a little unfinished business with the moribund corpse of Platonic anthropology, and I’d like to plant a stake in its heart.  I’ve already argued that having the intellect hermetically sealed off from emotion and will is bankrupt — and that intellect-emotion-will isn’t a sound ‘anatomy of the soul’ anyhow.  I’d like to extend that argument a bit further.

To that end, let’s consider another ‘anatomy of the soul’ that might compete with the intellect-emotion-will model.

Being a deep anatomist of the soul, St. Gregory [Palamas] teaches that man’s soul is divided into the nous, fantasy, opinion and intellect.  The nous is the center of the soul, the eye of the soul.  The sense is the non-rational power of the soul, which knows and feels the physical things.  Fantasy is the offspring of the sense; it originates from the sense.  Fantasy receives its images from the sense and keeps them even when the actual things are not present,  Opinion — the idea we have about various things, including people and objects — is begotten from fantasy.  Intellect is the rational power of the soul, which formulated the opinion we have about every issue.  It is evident, therefore, that the nous is the core of man’s spiritual world — the eye of the soul — whereas all the rest of the powers, that is, fantasy, opinion and intellect, depend on the sense.  Thus when one wishes to reach God and acquire the knowledge of God, he must do it only through his nous, and not through his fantasy, opinion and intellect.  They all originate from the sense, which is associated with the external bodily senses.*

My point here is not to advocate for this anthropology; in fact, I think it’s unbiblical in a couple of key respects.

But here’s the challenge: how would you refute it?

Go on, think it over for a second.  I’ll wait.

Got a few ideas?  Good.

How many of your arguments apply equally well to the intellect-emotion-will model?

____

*Hierotheos Vlachos, The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition.  Translated by Effie Mavromichali. 119.


Mystical Union: When the Blind See

6 March 2011

Once upon a time, Jesus met a guy who had lived his whole life in darkness–literally.  The man had been born blind.  The disciples speculated that it was some kind of curse on his sin, or maybe his parents sin, but no.  Not at all.  He was put there, Jesus said, so that the works of God could be revealed in him.  Jesus went on to say, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”  Then Jesus did the craziest thing — He spat on the ground and made mud, and put it on the guy’s eyes.  He told the guy to go away–go wash in the pool of Siloam.

So the guy met Jesus, and Jesus didn’t tell him anything about eternal life or Messiah or dying for his sins or anything even remotely evangelistic, and then He just lets him walk away, just like that.

Jesus didn’t get His evangelism training the same places I did, that’s for sure….

But wait, it gets better.  The guy goes and washes, and suddenly he can see, for the first time in his whole life.  This was a miracle, and once the facts of the case were established for sure, everybody knew it.

They didn’t know how much of a miracle until recently.  Just within the last couple of decades, our doctors have developed the ability to heal certain maladies so that a person born blind might have a chance of recovering sight.  But they’ve run into a problem.  Seeing, it turns out, isn’t just about having functional eyes.  It’s also about your brain learning to perceive the input correctly.  The case I read about was an adult man who had functional eyes for the first time in his life.  Thing is, he couldn’t tell a dark stripe on the ground from the shadow of a curb — and that’s a big deal when you’re crossing the street.  All kinds of little details like that.  There wasn’t anything wrong with his eyes anymore, but apparently it takes the human brain years to learn to see well.

No such problems for this guy who met Jesus.  He washed the mud off his eyes, and it was suddenly like he’d been seeing all his life.  So naturally, they asked him who it was that healed him, and he told them.  Then they asked him to give God the glory and say what a sinner Jesus was, but he just wouldn’t play along.  “Since the world began,” he said to them, “it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind.  If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”  They couldn’t discredit him, and they couldn’t shut him up, so of course, they cast him out.  What else could they do (other than repent)?

Later, Jesus goes and finds him.  Now, if ever a man was ripe for the gospel message….

All Jesus says to him is this: “Do you believe in the Son of God?”

“Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”

“You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking to you.”

Talk about seeing the Light….

***

Another man had the opposite experience.  He was able to see from birth.  But on his way to Damascus,  light shines from heaven and knocks him clean off the donkey he’s riding.

“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” he said.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.  It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

“Lord, what do you want me to do?”

“Get up and go into the city, and you’ll be told what to do.”

So he gets up, but meeting the Light of the World has made him blind, and they lead him by the hand into the city, where he waits three days.  Meanwhile, God calls Ananias to go and heal him, which he does.  When Ananias lays hands on him, scales fall from Saul’s eyes, and he receives the Holy Spirit.

On second thought, was he really blind for those three days?  Or was that the first time in his whole life that he could really see?

***

Consider these two men.  How did they come to be believers?  What happened?

If you’re on any side of the COSF debate: how much of your favored content is missing from these evangelistic encounters? Why do you think that is?

But also think about this: Is there any fuzziness here?  Any ground for a lack of assurance, in either man?