Milking a Metaphor

I wrapped up Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections the day before yesterday, and I should probably comment on its final few chapters while they are still fresh in my mind.

This book has been a stimulating read from many different angles. The posts it has generated vary as wildly in subject matter — eschatology, authenticity, assurance, the witness of the Holy Spirit and the distinction between natural and moral perfections — as they vary in my level of agreement with Edwards’ observations and assertions.

I’m fine with that. A good, solid, biblical disagreement concentrates the mind better than indifferent assent.

Natural and Moral

I usually blow through books like the west wind. Not so with Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections, which I began back in February of this year, and which I continue to labor with. Four months later, I’m not even halfway through it. For me, that’s an appalling performance.

That confessed, I simply can’t go any faster. I keep running into ideas I have to stop, meditate on, and (often) write about. Here’s another I think is worthwhile.

A Sharp Distinction

Edwards draws a sharp distinction between what he calls God’s “natural perfections” and his “moral perfections”. In the former category, he includes power, knowledge, eternity and immutability, among others; in the latter, justice, righteousness, truth, goodness, grace, and the like, which he sums up in the word “holiness”. He then observes that unregenerate men and women may be able to appreciate the former divine perfections but not the latter. He concludes that a love for the divine due to its moral beauty and sweetness is the starting point and source of all holy emotions.

The Witness of the Spirit

When certain Christians speak of the Spirit’s witness (usually citing Romans 8), this sort of understanding of the expression is fairly common:

“God’s primary method of leading us in matters the Bible does not specifically address (such as which job to take or which person to marry), is the inner witness, which is a knowing communicated by the Holy Spirit to our spirit. It is not a voice, but an inner knowing.”

I am left with the obvious question: how is an “inner knowing” any more reliable or less subjective than hearing voices in my head? Is this really what the New Testament writers mean by the Spirit “witnessing”?

More by Running Than by Considering

When I worked in print years ago, every shift started the same way. The lead would put a job into production by stacking all the marked-up hard copy on a central table, where typesetters would queue up to grab themselves a handful of pages and go to work coding or correcting the content to produce the desired output.

One of my fellow employees became notorious for loitering at the table, picking through the hard copy looking for what we referred to as the ‘cake’: pages of straight text with no complex tables to code and no graphics to insert, or corrections that amounted to nothing more than adding a few periods to the end of existing paragraphs.

You couldn’t miss what he was doing; he was always holding up the line. The only time ‘Norm’ ever attempted anything more challenging was if you put it right in his hand and assured him he had no other option.

Emotions and Emoting

The verb “to emote” derives from “emotion”, but with a slight change in emphasis. Merriam-Webster says it means “to express emotion,” then adds “in a very dramatic or obvious way”.

That gets to the root of it. Emotions are spontaneous. Emoting is calculated. Emotions are genuine. Displaying them for others may easily become just a pose.

We’ve all seen actors or singers apparently in the grip of deep feelings of angst, joy or sorrow. A moment’s consideration reminds us they are only doing a job. The singer has probably performed this tune hundreds of times. It is impossible she’s feeling the lyrics the way she appears to be, as she might have the first time she sang them. She’s selling the song for the benefit of her audience, and may feel nothing at all.

On Millennial Lifespans

Back in November of last year, our own Immanuel Can recommended a relatively short study guide from Regular Baptist Press entitled Why Dispensationalism Matters. The guide is based on a commentary by George Gunn and edited by Alex Bauman, and I’ve been working my own way through it during the last week in between trips outside to shovel the most recent 3-4 inches of snow piling up around my car.

Having just finished it, let me add my recommendation to IC’s.

A Monumental Self-Own

On the recommendation of David de Bruyn — with whom I have a lengthy history of compatible tastes in things spiritual — I am in the process of attempting to read Jonathan Edwards. Hailed as “one of the great classics of theological literature”, the subject of A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections intrigues me and provoked me to order the book. Distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic religious emotions (and therefore true and false conversions) is a critical faculty for all mature Christians.

Though I have little hope of success in this area, it seems to me it might be especially helpful to be able to distinguish real from unreal within the confines of one’s own heart.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ahem

Folks:

I’ve been reading this little book from Regular Baptist Press lately, and have been rather impressed, I have to say. Not since Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today have I seen a good treatment of dispensationalism at a very readable and contemporary level. This one’s even simpler than Ryrie, but so far, it has all its ducks in a row.

It’s not long, it’s in big print, and at a level that somebody in their mid teens could handle. But it hits all the right notes. It ties things to issues like supersessionism and the priesthood of believers, yet without using any sort of confrontational tone. It’s steady but gracious in its approach. Whoever the guy is who wrote it, he’s clearly got a deep and happy relationship with dispensational exegesis, but also a knack for speaking in a way that people can easily absorb.

Bleak, But Necessary

Billy Graham founded Christianity Today in 1956. For years, the monthly magazine was a living room staple in my parents’ home, pretty much the gold standard of popular evangelical credibility.

Andy Stanley heads a 23,000 person megachurch in Atlanta and is credited with making Christianity relevant and comprehensible to a new generation. I have friends who watch him … er … religiously.

Rick Warren wrote a bestseller that led many to the Lord.

Beth Moore has sold millions of books and is quoted more often than any other Christian woman these days.

Russell Moore? Well, Russell seemed to ooze grift since I first heard his name, so I can’t speak to his purported accomplishments in the evangelical world. Maybe he’s the outlier.

To Die a Virgin

Ed Shaw is attracted to men. Out of love for Jesus Christ, he never acts on those impulses. He hopes and expects to die a virgin.

That gives him enormous credibility as the author of 2015’s The Plausibility Problem: The Church and Same-Sex Attraction, in which Shaw affirms the scriptural basis for the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.

In doing so, Shaw has a challenge for the church.

Failing at the Broad Strokes

As a consistent method of interpreting the prophetic scriptures, amillennialism fails at the most basic levels.

That’s not a new thought. I first expressed it back in 2019 when reviewing Kim Riddlebarger’s 2013 update of A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. I wrote, “The devil may be in the details, but far-reaching doctrinal errors are all in the broad strokes and almost never in the minutia. I’m becoming convinced of it.”

I’m even more convinced of it after reading Matt Waymeyer’s response to Riddlebarger, 2016’s Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model.

The Beautiful and the Not-So-Good

All over the Christianity Today website are logos for something called “Beautiful Orthodoxy”. It’s their new flagship cause, and their main web page features a major link to a series of sparkling-toothed testimonials from people on how wonderful this is. And they’ve got a conference, organizational partners, and even churches on board.

Some well-known Christian leaders have signed on, it seems: Harold Smith, Katelyn Beaty, Sam Rodriguez, Joni Eareckson Tada … a whole list. Below the testimonials are articles declaring “The world is yearning for Beautiful Orthodoxy”, “Why we need a Beautiful Orthodoxy”, “Why We Champion Beautiful Orthodoxy” and that it’s “A Beautiful Calling”. The page ends with a wide click-on banner proclaiming “Join the Cause”.

The Problem with Progress

The thesis of Glen Scrivener’s most recent book The Air We Breathe is that Western societies have absorbed Christian values by osmosis. He suggests that even if we haven’t noticed it yet, our collective convictions about the importance of equality, compassion, consent, enlightenment, science, freedom and progress all come originally from the Bible and are a radical departure from both pre-first century views and those of most non-Westerners today.

Few of us Westerners are Christians, yet the faith of our fathers has subversively Christianized society in some respects at least. Even those who object fervently to the Christian faith often object for reasons only the Christian faith itself could ever supply.

Glen Scrivener on Equality

A Church of England minister and evangelist, author, speaker and filmmaker, Glen Scrivener has an unusual knack for making the things of heaven relatable in today’s culture. I picked up his most recent book The Air We Breathe: How We All Came to Believe in Freedom, Kindness, Progress and Equality after watching a YouTube interview with John Anderson about its thesis. Scrivener contends that a number of core Western values have their basis in the Christian faith of our forefathers. Our societies, he argues, have absorbed these values by osmosis. Most of us don’t know why we believe these things, but we believe them all the same.

In general, I think he has a valid point to make. When you get down to specifics, however, it’s another story.

Turnabout is Fair Play

Having given Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible three posts of reviews that some will probably say border on hagiography, I promised to take a few lines to consider the other side of the story, as comparatively trivial in spiritual seriousness as Heiser’s “errors” may be — if indeed such they are.

Turnabout is fair play. Your mileage may vary. Here goes …

More About the Divine Council

I dislike systematic theology as a way of learning about the Bible: Dispensationalism, Calvinism, Replacement Theology, Covenant Theology, Amillennialism — you name it. “Isms cause schisms,” it is said. This testimony is true.

“Isms” also build weak Bible students who accept other men’s assumptions uncritically.

Implications of the Divine Council Worldview

The “divine council worldview” is a way of looking at scripture that recognizes the supernatural elements that shaped the devout Israelite mindset well into the first century. The late Michael Heiser, writer of The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, used the phrase extensively. I’ve had occasion recently to re-read Heiser’s magnum opus, and have been particularly interested in the implications the divine council worldview has for the rest of scripture.

It answers more than a few questions, major and minor, and reinforces a boatload of important truths and principles we find in our Bibles.

Back in the Unseen Realm

I’m back in the unseen realm this week.

It wasn’t my idea really. One of the men who attends our weekly Bible study proposed we have a look at Genesis 6:1-4, the much-disputed “sons of God” passage. That was fine by me, but studying it together opens up a can of worms best addressed in the late Michael S. Heiser’s The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, a book I last read through a few years ago but never got around to reviewing here.

Heiser was probably the most recognizable modern proponent of something he calls the “divine council worldview”.

What Does Love Look Like?

When I go shopping with somebody I love, I pay careful attention to all the purchases they don’t make, especially when they look at an item with great interest, then put it back on the shelf with a sigh because they can’t afford it right now or have other financial priorities. Why? So I can come back later, pick it up and stick it in the closet for the next Christmas, Valentine’s Day or birthday celebration.

Mostly this is a favor to myself: I hate the pressure of having to run out at look for a gift at last minute. But it also means I don’t waste much money on presents people don’t really want or won’t use.

Let me suggest we treat the Law of Moses that way.

If You Can’t Say Something Nice…

In the process of writing last week’s review of Stephen G. Fowler’s Probing the Mind to Free the Soul: Toward a Psychoanalytic Protest Theology, I thought often of the sage advice of the rabbit Thumper in Disney’s Bambi movie: “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.” (Apparently the saying originated with Aesop, but I find the bunny-fied version way cuter and more memorable.) A friend I was texting at the time proposed a Thumperiffic way of dealing with the book. She asked, “What is good about his writing? Anything positive?”

I thought, “That’s a really good way to approach it.” Then I went with my original piece, which was admittedly a little on the savage side. I’m not apologizing for that, but today, I’m going to try to be Thumper.