Giles Fraser, an Anglican vicar and professor, wrote a scathing article in The Guardian slamming Oxford University because it continues to support Wycliffe Hall. He suggests Wycliffe is being taken over by anti-intellectual and hateful evangelicals.
I agree with Mr. Fraser’s assertion that church marketing and leadership techniques should never trump theology in seminaries. And, unfortunately, on this point, he is correct. I heard a recent interview with Carl Trueman and he too reflected on the popularity of church growth mantra in British evangelicalism.
Most of his arguments are however rooted in an inaccurate observation of reality. He makes no attempt, for example, to differentiate between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. But the article is a wonderful glimpse into the worldview of a revisionist Anglican acutely aware that his theology is increasingly being shunted to the margins of Anglicanism.
When he laments that anti-intellectualism borne out of 18th century American revivals (Another mistake; such anti-intellectualism is a product of 19th century American revivals and early 20th century fundamentalism. Plus Mark Noll is a historian, not a theologian.) is choking Wycliffe Hall from scholar pursuits, he is actually complaining that his interpretation of Christianity is being misaligned its rightful place in academia.
For he truly believes that liberal Christianity has superseded orthodox theology as the true gospel.
He writes, “Anglicanism is fast becoming the nasty party at prayer, with traditionally inclusive theology being submerged by a bargain-basement prejudice that damns to hell all those who disagree.”
What an audacious claim! There is nothing traditional about “traditionally inclusive theology.” Since when are heresies devised in the late 20th century considered to be more traditional than church dogma developed and accepted as Christian truth for thousands of years?
His heretical beliefs are hardly 100 years old, and his theology related to women and homosexuality barely register three decades of ‘tradition.’
As I read the comments readers posted, it quickly became apparent that Mr. Fraser isn’t the only one with a flawed understanding of history. Many argued that religion had no place in secular universities. (They apparently ignored the column’s paragraph pointing out that Oxford was founded as a Christian institution and that the school’s motto remains Dominus Illuminatio Mea - the Lord is my light).
Others obviously haven’t a clue about Christian theology. “The God of the bible, whom evangelicals follow, is deeply unpleasant, vicious, authoritarian and partial. And his faithful followers ... well, like father like son I guess,” wrote another.
Others misread the article. One person wrote for example, “I quite agree with the author. A university, a place of learning, is no place for religious mumbo jumbo.”
Mr. Fraser wasn’t arguing for a completely secular university – he just wants the theology taught at Oxford to conform to the theology he subscribes to.
Even some of the contributors who commented thoughtfully also wrote illogically. One wrote perceptively, if not bizarrely using the condescending term ‘Xtian’: “Once upon a time we were all, somehow, regarded as part of the C of E, unless we actively followed another Xtian tradition, or were declared atheists, or members of another religion. But not now. Now you opt in, rather than have to opt out, and of course only Xtian religious enthusiasts are likely to do that. That these enthusiasts tend to be fundamentalist is hardly surprising; Xtianity has always required a fairly uncompromising set of beliefs.”
But then this: “Unfortunately this matters to all of us, so long as religion and the state are hand in glove. What this Turnbull (head of Wycliffe) and his cronies want, in the end, is political power.”
That sentiment, popular as it may be among the secularists, is wildly inaccurate. That more than politics motivates some people is apparently an incomprehensible claim to many.
The column is useful insofar as it reminds those of us committed to humble orthodoxy that the wolves in sheep clothing are desperate to defend their heresies – and will grow even more anxious as liberal Protestantism continues to collapse.
Source: Giles Fraser, “Not faith, but fanaticism” The Guardian. 29 May 2007. Accessed 31 May 2007. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2090016,00.html
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Ontario’s Teacher Surplus
Five friends are currently looking for full-time teaching jobs. I empathize with them. This is a terrible time to be searching for teaching positions in Ontario apart from specialized areas such as French, special education and science.
Another three friends who have been offered teaching jobs have will start their careers either overseas or at private schools.
As an article in the Toronto Star earlier this year noted, too many students are graduating from Ontario Teacher’s Colleges and competing with a surge of graduates from Australian and American schools returning to Ontario for work.
My friends love to teach; they want to teach. But they can’t.
I feel sorry for them even more because this very situation was expected to happen – but it appears little was down to curb the supply. (Granted, this would have meant dashing thousands of people’s dreams by reducing enrolment at Faculties of Education across the province).
The writing was on the wall.
Take a report prepared by Statistics Canada for a symposium in Quebec City:
“A shortage of educators is predicted in 1998 and 1999, however starting in 2001, Canada will begin to see a significant surplus of educators, which will steadily increase to nearly 100,000 educators in the year 2010.”
One of scenarios in the report, which projected a surplus of teachers in Ontario, warned that in 2006 surpluses would “rapidly grow to an excess of 17,500 educators in 2010”
These projects were published in the Spring of 2001 – even before my friends had started their undergraduate programs!
I’ve been praying for my friends; that God will grant them patience and endurance. All of them will make excellent teachers and I hope they pursue their calling with zeal. This may translate into seeking work overseas, or patiently honing their skills for a few years as a part-time substitute teacher.
May they be encouraged by Psalm 25:4-6.
“Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.” (ESV)
Source:
Ginette Gerbais & Isabell Thony, “The supply and demand of elementary-school educators in Canada” Centre for Education Statistics, Statistics Canada, 2001. Accessed 28 May 2007. Available: http://www.cesc.ca/pceradocs/2001/papers/01Gervais_Thony_e.pdf, p. 3,5.
Another three friends who have been offered teaching jobs have will start their careers either overseas or at private schools.
As an article in the Toronto Star earlier this year noted, too many students are graduating from Ontario Teacher’s Colleges and competing with a surge of graduates from Australian and American schools returning to Ontario for work.
My friends love to teach; they want to teach. But they can’t.
I feel sorry for them even more because this very situation was expected to happen – but it appears little was down to curb the supply. (Granted, this would have meant dashing thousands of people’s dreams by reducing enrolment at Faculties of Education across the province).
The writing was on the wall.
Take a report prepared by Statistics Canada for a symposium in Quebec City:
“A shortage of educators is predicted in 1998 and 1999, however starting in 2001, Canada will begin to see a significant surplus of educators, which will steadily increase to nearly 100,000 educators in the year 2010.”
One of scenarios in the report, which projected a surplus of teachers in Ontario, warned that in 2006 surpluses would “rapidly grow to an excess of 17,500 educators in 2010”
These projects were published in the Spring of 2001 – even before my friends had started their undergraduate programs!
I’ve been praying for my friends; that God will grant them patience and endurance. All of them will make excellent teachers and I hope they pursue their calling with zeal. This may translate into seeking work overseas, or patiently honing their skills for a few years as a part-time substitute teacher.
May they be encouraged by Psalm 25:4-6.
“Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.” (ESV)
Source:
Ginette Gerbais & Isabell Thony, “The supply and demand of elementary-school educators in Canada” Centre for Education Statistics, Statistics Canada, 2001. Accessed 28 May 2007. Available: http://www.cesc.ca/pceradocs/2001/papers/01Gervais_Thony_e.pdf, p. 3,5.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Knocking
I just watched a documentary I had taped on PBS early Sunday morning. It’s about Jehovah’s Witnesses – and is very good.
I wrote an essay three years ago about the incredible influence Jehovah’s Witnesses had (especially in the 1940s and 1950s) on America’s judicial system and in advancing human rights and I was pleased to see this theme emphasized.
The documentary also told two very compelling storylines; a 23-year-old man undergoing a liver transplant without blood and an elderly Holocaust survivor struggling to reconnect with his Jewish family, who in turn wonder why he became a Jehovah’s Witnesses many decades ago.
I wrote an essay three years ago about the incredible influence Jehovah’s Witnesses had (especially in the 1940s and 1950s) on America’s judicial system and in advancing human rights and I was pleased to see this theme emphasized.
The documentary also told two very compelling storylines; a 23-year-old man undergoing a liver transplant without blood and an elderly Holocaust survivor struggling to reconnect with his Jewish family, who in turn wonder why he became a Jehovah’s Witnesses many decades ago.
Friday, May 25, 2007
No Greater Reason
Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Then all the people said ‘Amen’ and ‘Praise the Lord.’ (1 Chronicles 16:36)
The Lord is good; but good not in the way that the things He has made are good. Indeed, God made all things very good. Heaven and earth and all that is in them – He made them good, and He made them very good.
But if all these things that He made are good, what is He who made them like? It was He who made all things good; but no one made the good which He is. He is good by virtue of His own goodness, not by participation in any other goodness. He needed no one to make Him good, but other things needed Him to make them good. The Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘No one is good – except God alone’ (Mark 10:18). So how good is that good from which all goods are derived!
Whatever you praise, you praise it because it is good. If you praise an unjust man on account of his injustice, will you not also be unjust? If you praise a thief because he is as thief, will not you also be his accomplice? On the other hand, if you praise a just man on account of His justice, will not you also have a share in His justice through praising Him?
So then, whatever we praise, we praise because it is good. And you can have no greater, better, or surer reason for praising God than that He is good. Therefore, praise the Lord, for He is good.
- Augustine
Source: Adapted from Augustine in Documents in Early Christian Thought, ed. Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
The Lord is good; but good not in the way that the things He has made are good. Indeed, God made all things very good. Heaven and earth and all that is in them – He made them good, and He made them very good.
But if all these things that He made are good, what is He who made them like? It was He who made all things good; but no one made the good which He is. He is good by virtue of His own goodness, not by participation in any other goodness. He needed no one to make Him good, but other things needed Him to make them good. The Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘No one is good – except God alone’ (Mark 10:18). So how good is that good from which all goods are derived!
Whatever you praise, you praise it because it is good. If you praise an unjust man on account of his injustice, will you not also be unjust? If you praise a thief because he is as thief, will not you also be his accomplice? On the other hand, if you praise a just man on account of His justice, will not you also have a share in His justice through praising Him?
So then, whatever we praise, we praise because it is good. And you can have no greater, better, or surer reason for praising God than that He is good. Therefore, praise the Lord, for He is good.
- Augustine
Source: Adapted from Augustine in Documents in Early Christian Thought, ed. Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Sin of Smoking
Movies featuring characters who smoke may now risk a more restrictive rating, from PG-13 to R.
Writing in the Weekly Standard Andrew Ferguson says, “Among a very large majority of people, the need to moralize, to be censorious, to alert our neighbors to the failings of others, is undying and ineradicable--as vital as the human need for food or warmth.” (i)
He points out that cursing, sexually explicit material, and violence are rampant in films, and conjure little opposition (at least among the Hollywood-crowd). Yet, the new immorality consisting of what he describes as junk food, smoking and SUVs, captures their attention and outrage.
My first-year history professor – back in 2001 – said that while many people today may look at early 20th century Prohibition with rolling eyes, the contemporary campaign against smoking is fascinatingly similar.
It’s interesting how public attitudes of smoking have shifted. Consider this intriguing tidbit of information in Jeffrey Keshen’s book about the Second World War:
“Massive donations came from hundreds of tobacco funds started by service groups, religious organizations, women’s associations, regimental auxiliaries and various local groups…with more than 25 million provided by the Red Cross over the first three years of war.” (ii)
How times have changed!
(i) Andrew Ferguson, “Puritans in Hollywood.” The Weekly Standard. Vol. 12, Iss.34, 21 May 2007.
(ii) Jeffrey Keshen, Saints, Sinners, and Soldiers. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004, p.25.
Writing in the Weekly Standard Andrew Ferguson says, “Among a very large majority of people, the need to moralize, to be censorious, to alert our neighbors to the failings of others, is undying and ineradicable--as vital as the human need for food or warmth.” (i)
He points out that cursing, sexually explicit material, and violence are rampant in films, and conjure little opposition (at least among the Hollywood-crowd). Yet, the new immorality consisting of what he describes as junk food, smoking and SUVs, captures their attention and outrage.
My first-year history professor – back in 2001 – said that while many people today may look at early 20th century Prohibition with rolling eyes, the contemporary campaign against smoking is fascinatingly similar.
It’s interesting how public attitudes of smoking have shifted. Consider this intriguing tidbit of information in Jeffrey Keshen’s book about the Second World War:
“Massive donations came from hundreds of tobacco funds started by service groups, religious organizations, women’s associations, regimental auxiliaries and various local groups…with more than 25 million provided by the Red Cross over the first three years of war.” (ii)
How times have changed!
(i) Andrew Ferguson, “Puritans in Hollywood.” The Weekly Standard. Vol. 12, Iss.34, 21 May 2007.
(ii) Jeffrey Keshen, Saints, Sinners, and Soldiers. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004, p.25.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Happy Victoria Day!
“The white colonies were not short of enthusiasm for the idea of Greater Britain. Indeed, they were quicker than the British at home to adopt the Earl of Meath’s suggestion of an annual ‘Empire Day’ on the Queen’s birthday (24 May), which became an official public holiday in Canada in 1901, in Australia in 1905, in New Zealand and South Africa in 1910 but only belatedly, in 1916 in the mother country.”
Source:
Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, New York: Basic Books, 2003, p. 249.
Source:
Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, New York: Basic Books, 2003, p. 249.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
George Grant
I was recently introduced to George Grant (1919-1988). As a Canadian political commentator and social critic Grant sought reconciliation between faith and freedom – a philosophical understanding that could maintain both an ethnic of community and recognition of spirituality.
George, who was a Christian, presented a lecture at Mount Allison University called English-Speaking Justice in 1974.
He spoke about the tendency of public discourse to assume a secular nature – as if this is the only appropriate worldview to frame political discussions.
He wrote,
“The reason why modern liberalism is the only language that can seem respectable in the public realm is because the dominant people in our society still take for granted that they find in it the best expression of moral truth. This must be stated unequivocally because some of us often find ourselves on the opposite side of particular issues from that espoused by the liberal majority, and do not accept the deepest premises, which undergird liberalism, concerning what human beings are. It is disturbing to find that a belief that does not appear to one rationally convincing is nevertheless the dominating belief in the world one inhabits.”
Source: George Grant, “English-Speaking Justice” in Katherine Fieflbeck, The Development of Political Thought in Canada: An Anthology. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005, p 182.
George, who was a Christian, presented a lecture at Mount Allison University called English-Speaking Justice in 1974.
He spoke about the tendency of public discourse to assume a secular nature – as if this is the only appropriate worldview to frame political discussions.
He wrote,
“The reason why modern liberalism is the only language that can seem respectable in the public realm is because the dominant people in our society still take for granted that they find in it the best expression of moral truth. This must be stated unequivocally because some of us often find ourselves on the opposite side of particular issues from that espoused by the liberal majority, and do not accept the deepest premises, which undergird liberalism, concerning what human beings are. It is disturbing to find that a belief that does not appear to one rationally convincing is nevertheless the dominating belief in the world one inhabits.”
Source: George Grant, “English-Speaking Justice” in Katherine Fieflbeck, The Development of Political Thought in Canada: An Anthology. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005, p 182.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Anglican Missionary
There was a fascinating article published in the Washington Post earlier this week regarding the recently installed Anglican bishop in Virginia.
The American presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, suggested this act was a violation of the ‘ancient customs of the church.’
The articles notes, “To which the archbishop replied, in essence: Since when have you American liberals given a fig about the ancient customs of the church?”
I’m reading a book about the rise and decline of the British Empire and was struck by his observation that there are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in Scotland!
My favourite statement in Michael Gerson’s article though is, “The intense, irrepressible Christianity of the global south is becoming -- along with Coca-Cola, radical Islam and Shakira -- one of the most potent forms of globalization.”
Source: Michael Gerson, “Missionaries in Northern Virginia” Washington Post. 16 May 2007. Accessed 16 May 2007. A15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501872_pf.html
The American presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, suggested this act was a violation of the ‘ancient customs of the church.’
The articles notes, “To which the archbishop replied, in essence: Since when have you American liberals given a fig about the ancient customs of the church?”
I’m reading a book about the rise and decline of the British Empire and was struck by his observation that there are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in Scotland!
My favourite statement in Michael Gerson’s article though is, “The intense, irrepressible Christianity of the global south is becoming -- along with Coca-Cola, radical Islam and Shakira -- one of the most potent forms of globalization.”
Source: Michael Gerson, “Missionaries in Northern Virginia” Washington Post. 16 May 2007. Accessed 16 May 2007. A15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501872_pf.html
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The New Eugenics
Today is Mother’s Day. I can think of no better day to highlight an emerging discussion within the thriving abortion debate.
There have been other issues raised of late: Should pro-abortion Catholic politicians be ex-communicated? What is happening in developing countries like India and China where prenatal testing leads to gender-specific abortions? What about the massive gender imbalance emerging in those countries where tens of millions of young bachelors are unable to find wives.
The most moving story, for me, has been the discussion about Down syndrome.
A horrifying stat has recently been garnering much attention. Upwards of 90 % of women who learn she is carrying a fetus with the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down syndrome choose an abortion.
The New York Times published a fascinating article about the moral quandary abortion advocates are now grappling with.
“You’ve got these two basic liberal values on a kind of collision course,” said Rayna Rapp, referring to abortion and disability rights.
As the article points out,
“Traditional anti-abortion advocates, from conservative politicians to Pope Benedict, have in recent months criticized the growing use of prenatal testing as a subtle form of eugenics. But the specter of fetuses being selectively targeted for elimination also has the potential to disturb solid supporters of abortion rights.”
It’s a fascinating glimpse into the minds of the morally bankrupt.
"Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. 'You can never make that decision for someone else.'"
It’s a heart-breaking article that reveals the depth of human depravity and how sin dulls moral and ethical judgment.
Source: Army Harmon, “Genetic Testing = Abortion = ???” The New York Times. 13 May 2007. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13harm.html?pagewanted=print
There have been other issues raised of late: Should pro-abortion Catholic politicians be ex-communicated? What is happening in developing countries like India and China where prenatal testing leads to gender-specific abortions? What about the massive gender imbalance emerging in those countries where tens of millions of young bachelors are unable to find wives.
The most moving story, for me, has been the discussion about Down syndrome.
A horrifying stat has recently been garnering much attention. Upwards of 90 % of women who learn she is carrying a fetus with the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down syndrome choose an abortion.
The New York Times published a fascinating article about the moral quandary abortion advocates are now grappling with.
“You’ve got these two basic liberal values on a kind of collision course,” said Rayna Rapp, referring to abortion and disability rights.
As the article points out,
“Traditional anti-abortion advocates, from conservative politicians to Pope Benedict, have in recent months criticized the growing use of prenatal testing as a subtle form of eugenics. But the specter of fetuses being selectively targeted for elimination also has the potential to disturb solid supporters of abortion rights.”
It’s a fascinating glimpse into the minds of the morally bankrupt.
"Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. 'You can never make that decision for someone else.'"
It’s a heart-breaking article that reveals the depth of human depravity and how sin dulls moral and ethical judgment.
Source: Army Harmon, “Genetic Testing = Abortion = ???” The New York Times. 13 May 2007. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13harm.html?pagewanted=print
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Playing with Stats
Oh statistics.
I love this statement from New York Times article about Little Rock public schools.
“So polarized are the two sides that after Mr. Brooks summoned a statistician to demonstrate improvements in the schools at a recent board meeting, his opponents summoned another statistician to demonstrate precisely the opposite. Black and white board members took turns rolling their eyes and looking skeptical.”
Source: Adam Nossiter, “50 Years Later, Little Rock Can’t Escape Race” The New York Times. 8 May 2007. Accessed 8 May 2007.
I love this statement from New York Times article about Little Rock public schools.
“So polarized are the two sides that after Mr. Brooks summoned a statistician to demonstrate improvements in the schools at a recent board meeting, his opponents summoned another statistician to demonstrate precisely the opposite. Black and white board members took turns rolling their eyes and looking skeptical.”
Source: Adam Nossiter, “50 Years Later, Little Rock Can’t Escape Race” The New York Times. 8 May 2007. Accessed 8 May 2007.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Anglican Baptism
Searching through church websites today, I was surprised to see pictures of a baptism service at an Anglican church in England. Five people were completely immersed in a tub of water at Christ Church Matchborough.
The church website is:
http://www.christchurchmatchborough.org.uk/
The church website is:
http://www.christchurchmatchborough.org.uk/
Monday, May 07, 2007
Planned, Prayed But Prevented
I have been waiting a year and a half for a letter. It arrived today.
It was a relief to receive; regretful to read.
I was struck by its cold, calculated, pre-configured mass-produced nature; five lines and a signature.
Doubly so, because after investing hundreds of hours into researching, writing and editing seven essays, and many more hours filling out endless security forms, all I’ve got to show are five lines on one page.
At least, I thought to myself, the signature was handwritten.
The letter informed me that due to the competitiveness of the job competition they were “unable to offer me an interview.”
I thanked the Lord that I had the opportunity to participate in the competition. And I thanked Him that after a long time of waiting the letter finally arrived.
I planned. I practised answering potential interview questions, picked out my wardrobe (even purchasing a new coat), and looked into apartments in the city.
I prayed. For hours. I rejoice that He was glorified each time I prayed for His will to be done.
Important decisions have for months been beholden to the response. So, now I can reconfigure, regroup and move on.
That my application was rejected signals that many people are interested in National Defence issues. Canada can only be better off because of that.
Am I disappointed?
Yes.
Perplexed?
Somewhat.
Discouraged?
No.
My plans are thwarted easily. God’s providence is not.
Consider what Job told God, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2 ESV).
One of the axioms of Christian theology is the incomprehensibility of God. The Latin phrase fintium non capax infinitum applies; it means, ‘the finite cannot grasp the infinite.’
The word providence comes from a Latin prefix and root. The prefix pro indicates ‘before’ or ‘in front of’. The basic root comes from the Latin ‘videre’, which means ‘to see’.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the providence of God as follows:
"God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness and mercy."
God upholds everything by the free and immutable counsel of His own will.
John Calvin wrote in the Institutes, “First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helms and overrules all events.” [i]
He added, “When Abraham said to His son, God will provide, (Gen. 22: 8,) he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to God but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result.” [ii]
And so, I am eager to see what He will bring about - how He will use my gifts and academic preparation for His glory.
Charles Spurgeon told his congregation, “Your future path has all been marked out in the great decrees of God's predestination. You shall not tread a step which is not mapped out in the great chart of God's decree. Your 'troubles' have been already weighed for you in the scales of his love.”[iii]
There is a divine plan at work my life. It is the plan of a sovereign God.
William Cowper put this reality to music, in a song he called 'God Moves in Mysterious Ways"
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.[iv]
I will make no presumptuous guesses about His plan, nor will I squander time by questioning the wisdom of His providence. Rather, I will carry forth seeking to subject myself to His glorious wisdom.
As Spurgeon said, “You will go nowhere next year except where God shall send you. Oh! How comfortable the thought that everything is in the hand of God, and that all that may occur to me during the future years of my life is foreordained and overruled by the great Jehovah, who is my Father and my friend!”[v]
God is in control. Praise His Holy name.
[i] John Calvin, The Institutes, IV, I.XVII. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.i.xvii.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Charles Spurgeon, “The Vanguard and the Rereward of the Church” 26 Dec. 1858. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0230.htm
[iv] William Cowper, “God moves in a Mysterious Way” Concordia Theological Seminary. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/hymnals/tlh/mysterious.tlh
[v] Spurgeon.
It was a relief to receive; regretful to read.
I was struck by its cold, calculated, pre-configured mass-produced nature; five lines and a signature.
Doubly so, because after investing hundreds of hours into researching, writing and editing seven essays, and many more hours filling out endless security forms, all I’ve got to show are five lines on one page.
At least, I thought to myself, the signature was handwritten.
The letter informed me that due to the competitiveness of the job competition they were “unable to offer me an interview.”
I thanked the Lord that I had the opportunity to participate in the competition. And I thanked Him that after a long time of waiting the letter finally arrived.
I planned. I practised answering potential interview questions, picked out my wardrobe (even purchasing a new coat), and looked into apartments in the city.
I prayed. For hours. I rejoice that He was glorified each time I prayed for His will to be done.
Important decisions have for months been beholden to the response. So, now I can reconfigure, regroup and move on.
That my application was rejected signals that many people are interested in National Defence issues. Canada can only be better off because of that.
Am I disappointed?
Yes.
Perplexed?
Somewhat.
Discouraged?
No.
My plans are thwarted easily. God’s providence is not.
Consider what Job told God, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2 ESV).
One of the axioms of Christian theology is the incomprehensibility of God. The Latin phrase fintium non capax infinitum applies; it means, ‘the finite cannot grasp the infinite.’
The word providence comes from a Latin prefix and root. The prefix pro indicates ‘before’ or ‘in front of’. The basic root comes from the Latin ‘videre’, which means ‘to see’.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the providence of God as follows:
"God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness and mercy."
God upholds everything by the free and immutable counsel of His own will.
John Calvin wrote in the Institutes, “First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helms and overrules all events.” [i]
He added, “When Abraham said to His son, God will provide, (Gen. 22: 8,) he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to God but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result.” [ii]
And so, I am eager to see what He will bring about - how He will use my gifts and academic preparation for His glory.
Charles Spurgeon told his congregation, “Your future path has all been marked out in the great decrees of God's predestination. You shall not tread a step which is not mapped out in the great chart of God's decree. Your 'troubles' have been already weighed for you in the scales of his love.”[iii]
There is a divine plan at work my life. It is the plan of a sovereign God.
William Cowper put this reality to music, in a song he called 'God Moves in Mysterious Ways"
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.[iv]
I will make no presumptuous guesses about His plan, nor will I squander time by questioning the wisdom of His providence. Rather, I will carry forth seeking to subject myself to His glorious wisdom.
As Spurgeon said, “You will go nowhere next year except where God shall send you. Oh! How comfortable the thought that everything is in the hand of God, and that all that may occur to me during the future years of my life is foreordained and overruled by the great Jehovah, who is my Father and my friend!”[v]
God is in control. Praise His Holy name.
[i] John Calvin, The Institutes, IV, I.XVII. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.i.xvii.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Charles Spurgeon, “The Vanguard and the Rereward of the Church” 26 Dec. 1858. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0230.htm
[iv] William Cowper, “God moves in a Mysterious Way” Concordia Theological Seminary. Accessed 7 May 2007. Available
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/hymnals/tlh/mysterious.tlh
[v] Spurgeon.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Dancing Angels
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
In the Middle Ages this was a serious question scholars debated in the Middle Ages. It’s now often used today to mock the frivolity of theological discourse in the Middle Ages.
But, it’s not as irrelevant as one might assume, according to Carl Trueman, a professor at Westminister Theological Seminary.
Speaking at the Theology for All Conference in the United Kingdom, Dr. Trueman points out that this question brings up the matter of how eternal beings relate to time and space.
That’s certainly not trivial!
Source: “Theology and Everyday Life: The Reformation and Beyond” http://www.theologyforall.org/
In the Middle Ages this was a serious question scholars debated in the Middle Ages. It’s now often used today to mock the frivolity of theological discourse in the Middle Ages.
But, it’s not as irrelevant as one might assume, according to Carl Trueman, a professor at Westminister Theological Seminary.
Speaking at the Theology for All Conference in the United Kingdom, Dr. Trueman points out that this question brings up the matter of how eternal beings relate to time and space.
That’s certainly not trivial!
Source: “Theology and Everyday Life: The Reformation and Beyond” http://www.theologyforall.org/
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Funerals
We are terrified of death. And so we sentimentalize it.
The contemporary funeral deals with grief by indulging it, even feeding it. A successful funeral — with its heartwrenching personal testimonials, its parade of mourners pouring out their anguish, the emotional manipulation of the congregation — works by creating an emotional catharsis.
This upsurge of feeling can indeed feel cleansing. As at the ending of a tragedy, the emotions are purged. We bereaved feel drained. The aftermath, in Milton’s words, is “calm of mind, all passions spent.” The grievers really do feel better.
But how different is a traditional Christian funeral. In a Christian service of the burial of the dead, the mourner’s grief is fully acknowledged and shared. But it is channeled into contemplation and prayer. The grievers are given not catharsis but consolation.
The consolation is not to be found in how good of a guy the dear departed was. Even Christian funerals sometimes miss this point. My former pastor refused to deliver eulogies. It is not something, he would say, nor is it comforting, to dwell at a funeral on the dead person’s good works. When we die, we dare not stand before God claiming how good we are. So that must not be the emphasis at a funeral.
The dead person’s only hope is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the only hope of the grievers at the funeral, who, having been forced to confront the reality of death, tend to be uniquely receptive to spiritual truth.
Source: Gene Edward Veith, “A Tale of Two Funerals” TableTalk, April 2007. p. 63. Accessed 4 May 2007. Accessed:
http://www.ligonier.org/docs/Apr_TT_Veith.pdf
The contemporary funeral deals with grief by indulging it, even feeding it. A successful funeral — with its heartwrenching personal testimonials, its parade of mourners pouring out their anguish, the emotional manipulation of the congregation — works by creating an emotional catharsis.
This upsurge of feeling can indeed feel cleansing. As at the ending of a tragedy, the emotions are purged. We bereaved feel drained. The aftermath, in Milton’s words, is “calm of mind, all passions spent.” The grievers really do feel better.
But how different is a traditional Christian funeral. In a Christian service of the burial of the dead, the mourner’s grief is fully acknowledged and shared. But it is channeled into contemplation and prayer. The grievers are given not catharsis but consolation.
The consolation is not to be found in how good of a guy the dear departed was. Even Christian funerals sometimes miss this point. My former pastor refused to deliver eulogies. It is not something, he would say, nor is it comforting, to dwell at a funeral on the dead person’s good works. When we die, we dare not stand before God claiming how good we are. So that must not be the emphasis at a funeral.
The dead person’s only hope is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the only hope of the grievers at the funeral, who, having been forced to confront the reality of death, tend to be uniquely receptive to spiritual truth.
Source: Gene Edward Veith, “A Tale of Two Funerals” TableTalk, April 2007. p. 63. Accessed 4 May 2007. Accessed:
http://www.ligonier.org/docs/Apr_TT_Veith.pdf
Friday, May 04, 2007
Supreme End
All the works and activities of heaven have in view one supreme end: the manifestation of God’s glory through the gospel. To this high objective all other designs of creation and providence have been subordinated.
A cluster of divine excellencies unfolds before our eyes in the gospel, with a lustre not elsewhere displayed. Here we see the justice of God uniquely exhibited: in the cursing of even the eternal Son of God as he ‘was made sin’. Here we see the wisdom of God in opening up a way of salvation, which meets all the requirements of God’s law and satisfies all the claims of His righteousness. Here, above all, we behold the love and grace of God, in His providing a free pardon and a sure title to heaven for all penitent sinners, even the worst.
Since the gospel is the high-point in the designs of heaven, it follows that everything connected with the gospel should be regarded by us as excellent and engrossingly important. This is especially true of that which lies at the heart of the gospel and is its supreme glory: the blood-shedding of our Saviour. Here, in the blood of Jesus, is the holy of holies of all our religion. Here, where the Son of God shed the blood of His divine person, is that focal-point where all the mysteries of Christian faith converge. It is as we ponder the meaning of this sacrificial work of Christ that we enter most into an attitude of awe and wonder.
Source: Maurice Roberts, “The Cleaning of the Church” The Banner of Truth. April 1996, Issue 391, p. 1.
A cluster of divine excellencies unfolds before our eyes in the gospel, with a lustre not elsewhere displayed. Here we see the justice of God uniquely exhibited: in the cursing of even the eternal Son of God as he ‘was made sin’. Here we see the wisdom of God in opening up a way of salvation, which meets all the requirements of God’s law and satisfies all the claims of His righteousness. Here, above all, we behold the love and grace of God, in His providing a free pardon and a sure title to heaven for all penitent sinners, even the worst.
Since the gospel is the high-point in the designs of heaven, it follows that everything connected with the gospel should be regarded by us as excellent and engrossingly important. This is especially true of that which lies at the heart of the gospel and is its supreme glory: the blood-shedding of our Saviour. Here, in the blood of Jesus, is the holy of holies of all our religion. Here, where the Son of God shed the blood of His divine person, is that focal-point where all the mysteries of Christian faith converge. It is as we ponder the meaning of this sacrificial work of Christ that we enter most into an attitude of awe and wonder.
Source: Maurice Roberts, “The Cleaning of the Church” The Banner of Truth. April 1996, Issue 391, p. 1.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The Ultimate Issue
I was speaking to an unregenerate friend yesterday, and he suggested that I didn’t want to play poker because I wanted to earn points to be admitted into heaven.
I reminded him that no works (or in this case abstention from something) will earn anyone salvation. I’ve told him that before, but it hasn’t yet clicked.
But my friend’s reasoning is extremely common.
R.C. Sproul sent a team of interviewers to American college campuses to pose questions to students.
The final question asked students why they should be admitted into heaven if they died that night.
“Like, well, you looked over me all my seventeen years, and I’ve been nothing but good, so I have every right to be in there,” said one interviewee.
R.C Sproul writes, “This convinces me that most people are unaware of one of two things. Many aren’t aware of either of them.”
First, they don’t know who God is.
Second, they don’t know who they are.
“God is perfect and we are not. And our righteousness is not righteousness enough. That’s why the only way a human being can possibly stand before God is that he must be clothed with true righteousness.”
Amen!
Source: R.C. Sproul, Ultimate Issues. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2nd ed., 2005, pp. 83, 85.
I reminded him that no works (or in this case abstention from something) will earn anyone salvation. I’ve told him that before, but it hasn’t yet clicked.
But my friend’s reasoning is extremely common.
R.C. Sproul sent a team of interviewers to American college campuses to pose questions to students.
The final question asked students why they should be admitted into heaven if they died that night.
“Like, well, you looked over me all my seventeen years, and I’ve been nothing but good, so I have every right to be in there,” said one interviewee.
R.C Sproul writes, “This convinces me that most people are unaware of one of two things. Many aren’t aware of either of them.”
First, they don’t know who God is.
Second, they don’t know who they are.
“God is perfect and we are not. And our righteousness is not righteousness enough. That’s why the only way a human being can possibly stand before God is that he must be clothed with true righteousness.”
Amen!
Source: R.C. Sproul, Ultimate Issues. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2nd ed., 2005, pp. 83, 85.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Ignorance & Misinformation
Many pagans in the first century thought Christians engaged in communal love-fests and cannibalism. Such assumptions were based on rumours and misinformation, fuelled by fear and mistrust.
Some things don’t change.
The Globe and Mail published a story yesterday about the huge gap between the amount of money donated to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party so far in 2007.
The reason, some speculated in the comments? Evangelicals.
Vern McPherson writes, “It's easy to shelter little amounts of money between church groups and relatives/friends in the US of A. Watch for the ultimate scandal on this one.”
Jason Green from writes “Don't forget all the money that the bible thumpin' headcases down south have surreptitously funneled up here to the Conservatives to stop gay marriage from happening. Americans have sent a LOT of money to Harper”
Not all pointed to the Americans.
Miles Lunn condescendingly noted, “While I doubt the Conservatives get money for US religious fundamentalists simply because most of them couldn't even find Canada on a map let alone know anything about our political system, I do have a suspicion a lot comes through churches and other religious organizations who are very good at raising money.”
Someone pointed out that Paul Martin, the previous prime minister, was a Roman Catholic.
To which, Suzanne Peters writes: “RCs ain't The Holy roller Hands in the Air Praisin' Jayzus kind of people. RCs are more the Private kind of prayers for we Were Not Drilled to death with the Bible and Sunday School,most of us just barely got through Mass Once on Sundays.Now You do Have your OOPs Days Us people But they're just a Fringe group,evangelics are Crazy (deleted swear word) Just Like the Fanatic Muslims for BOTH want to Foist THIER Version of Religion On Us All. Most Catholics are Liberals Like Christ Himself was.Many of us live more by the Beatitudes than the Ten Commandments for Christ gave us the Beatitudes in the NT Freaky Fundies Live in the OT BIG difference.”
Hmm. I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous; Her grammar and spelling or her ideas.
Diane Marie thoughtfully (rolls eyes) added, “I am quite uncomfortable with the degree of influence they (evangelicals) enjoy within the CPC, an influence disproportionate with their presence in the general population. Of course, one might say the same thing about older white males, but they don't all appear to want to send the women of Canada back to the kitchen, euphemistically speaking.”
The most ignorant comment award goes to Jason Davidson who speculated, “The Cons under Harper get a lot of 'grass roots' supports from churches etc. They pass around the tithe bowls at prayer services and prayer breakfasts and the flock puts in their money.”
That this would be a silly thing to do (churches would risk losing their charity status) apparently never occurred to Mr. Davidson.
Fortunately, not all commentators are so uninformed.
Eddy Black said, “Jason Davidson, that claim of yours that churches pass the tithe bowl and give the money to the Conservatives is a pitiful lie…Churches are charitable organizations and the money they raise in collections is spent on operating expenses, third world aid and assistance to the less fortunate in their parish, supporting a political party could cause a church to lose their charitable tax status. The Conservatives receive the money they need from party members who believe in the party leader and the Conservative policies. The money received by a political party is acknowledged by a receipt for the political contribution.”
Vern jumped back into the fray by clarifying her comments. “Eddy baby you must think the rest of us are really stupid - do you ? Of course the churches can't make political contributions out of their collection plates. The fact is they don't use the collection plates or general revenue to do it. Yes it would cost them their Charitable status but what about a fundraiser in the church basement every week ? Just don't insult people's intelligence please and sound off here like a cheap tinkling cymbal. (like it says in the bible).”
Weekly political fundraisers in church basements?
Disdain towards evangelicals should be expected. Our message is offensive (as is increasingly our position on social issues). But when such scorn is based on misinformation and preposterous assumptions, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Source:
Joan Bryden, “Conservatives raise 10 times more than Liberals” (Comments) The Globe and Mail. 1 May 2007. Accessed 1 May 2007. Available:
Some things don’t change.
The Globe and Mail published a story yesterday about the huge gap between the amount of money donated to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party so far in 2007.
The reason, some speculated in the comments? Evangelicals.
Vern McPherson writes, “It's easy to shelter little amounts of money between church groups and relatives/friends in the US of A. Watch for the ultimate scandal on this one.”
Jason Green from writes “Don't forget all the money that the bible thumpin' headcases down south have surreptitously funneled up here to the Conservatives to stop gay marriage from happening. Americans have sent a LOT of money to Harper”
Not all pointed to the Americans.
Miles Lunn condescendingly noted, “While I doubt the Conservatives get money for US religious fundamentalists simply because most of them couldn't even find Canada on a map let alone know anything about our political system, I do have a suspicion a lot comes through churches and other religious organizations who are very good at raising money.”
Someone pointed out that Paul Martin, the previous prime minister, was a Roman Catholic.
To which, Suzanne Peters writes: “RCs ain't The Holy roller Hands in the Air Praisin' Jayzus kind of people. RCs are more the Private kind of prayers for we Were Not Drilled to death with the Bible and Sunday School,most of us just barely got through Mass Once on Sundays.Now You do Have your OOPs Days Us people But they're just a Fringe group,evangelics are Crazy (deleted swear word) Just Like the Fanatic Muslims for BOTH want to Foist THIER Version of Religion On Us All. Most Catholics are Liberals Like Christ Himself was.Many of us live more by the Beatitudes than the Ten Commandments for Christ gave us the Beatitudes in the NT Freaky Fundies Live in the OT BIG difference.”
Hmm. I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous; Her grammar and spelling or her ideas.
Diane Marie thoughtfully (rolls eyes) added, “I am quite uncomfortable with the degree of influence they (evangelicals) enjoy within the CPC, an influence disproportionate with their presence in the general population. Of course, one might say the same thing about older white males, but they don't all appear to want to send the women of Canada back to the kitchen, euphemistically speaking.”
The most ignorant comment award goes to Jason Davidson who speculated, “The Cons under Harper get a lot of 'grass roots' supports from churches etc. They pass around the tithe bowls at prayer services and prayer breakfasts and the flock puts in their money.”
That this would be a silly thing to do (churches would risk losing their charity status) apparently never occurred to Mr. Davidson.
Fortunately, not all commentators are so uninformed.
Eddy Black said, “Jason Davidson, that claim of yours that churches pass the tithe bowl and give the money to the Conservatives is a pitiful lie…Churches are charitable organizations and the money they raise in collections is spent on operating expenses, third world aid and assistance to the less fortunate in their parish, supporting a political party could cause a church to lose their charitable tax status. The Conservatives receive the money they need from party members who believe in the party leader and the Conservative policies. The money received by a political party is acknowledged by a receipt for the political contribution.”
Vern jumped back into the fray by clarifying her comments. “Eddy baby you must think the rest of us are really stupid - do you ? Of course the churches can't make political contributions out of their collection plates. The fact is they don't use the collection plates or general revenue to do it. Yes it would cost them their Charitable status but what about a fundraiser in the church basement every week ? Just don't insult people's intelligence please and sound off here like a cheap tinkling cymbal. (like it says in the bible).”
Weekly political fundraisers in church basements?
Disdain towards evangelicals should be expected. Our message is offensive (as is increasingly our position on social issues). But when such scorn is based on misinformation and preposterous assumptions, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Source:
Joan Bryden, “Conservatives raise 10 times more than Liberals” (Comments) The Globe and Mail. 1 May 2007. Accessed 1 May 2007. Available:
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Deo Volente
I am waiting for an e-mail that will determine my future. It’s been a long wait – about a year and a half. I have confidence in the future. But, of course, I don’t know what the future will entail. God does. And He does as He pleases.
That’s why I often attach ‘God willing’ as a caveat when speaking about future plans.
We are instructed by Scripture to bracket our statements about the future by saying ‘Deo Volente’ (God willing).
The Word says, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit’-- yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.’” (James 4:13–15 ESV)
R.C. Sproul writes, “From our creaturely perspective we regard the future in terms of contingencies. We have a plan B in case our plan A fails to materialize. To the finite mind, future events appear contingent. That is because we are contingent beings, dependent upon something outside ourselves for our very existence. But God is not a dependent or contingent Being. He knows what He knows absolutely. God upholds all things by the free and immutable counsel of His own will. The sustaining providence of God is driven by His will, and His will is absolutely free. It is bound and determined by no creaturely thing. It is not subject to our whims or actions. His will is not only free but immutably so.”
Source: R.C. Sproul, The Invisible Hand, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003, p. 21.
That’s why I often attach ‘God willing’ as a caveat when speaking about future plans.
We are instructed by Scripture to bracket our statements about the future by saying ‘Deo Volente’ (God willing).
The Word says, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit’-- yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.’” (James 4:13–15 ESV)
R.C. Sproul writes, “From our creaturely perspective we regard the future in terms of contingencies. We have a plan B in case our plan A fails to materialize. To the finite mind, future events appear contingent. That is because we are contingent beings, dependent upon something outside ourselves for our very existence. But God is not a dependent or contingent Being. He knows what He knows absolutely. God upholds all things by the free and immutable counsel of His own will. The sustaining providence of God is driven by His will, and His will is absolutely free. It is bound and determined by no creaturely thing. It is not subject to our whims or actions. His will is not only free but immutably so.”
Source: R.C. Sproul, The Invisible Hand, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003, p. 21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
