The Sword Room

Here is a video snippet from a popular evangelical men’s series. I would like you to watch it and comment.

There are some great points made in this short segment, but one comment beginning at 0:23 of the video got me thinking the minute I heard it: The number one reason why He (God) made me was to minister to this woman (my wife).

I would like you to think about this comment in light of a few questions. (1) What is the meaning of the word minister in this context? (2) How do you think this concept squares with the account of the creation of man and woman in the garden (Genesis 1-2, especially in light of Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9). (3) How does this comment compare to the answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever? (4) Seeing how the husband-wife relationship is analogous to the relationship of Christ to the church (Ephesians 5:22ff), do you think it is fair to say that Christ’s main purpose in existence is to minister to us? (5) If you think the comment in the video does not reflect the teaching of scripture accurately, what modifications would you make to bring it in line with sound theology?

The video segment is about leadership. Obviously one facet of biblical leadership is serving and ministering to those we are to lead. But is it fair to say that is the number one reason why God made us? If such a comment is not biblical, where did it come from. Can you see any cultural factors which might have influenced the pastor in the segment to speak thus?

Please comment.

In Hebrews 11:1 faith is defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” In the examples which follow from the characters of the Old Testament two things stand out. First, the great heroes of the faith did not realize the fulfillment of the promises they hoped for. Second, they exercised trust in a God they could not see. Their faith was the substance of what they hoped for but did not attain and it was the conviction which strengthened their trust in the unseen Creator.

All this makes sense to the believer; but to the unregenerate mind such faith seems blind and irrational. This is because the theory of knowledge (epistemology) adopted by the pagan mind rests on rationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism. Does it make logical sense to spend your life hoping for something you cannot prove exists (Rationalism)? Why believe in something that results in pain and produces no payoff or positive benefit (Pragmatism)? How can you believe in something you cannot verify or falsify with the senses (Empiricism)? The flawed epistemology of the world leads skeptics to the conclusion that Christian belief is without knowledge, or “blind.”

It would be easy to show the inconsistency of the pagan epistemological system. Everyone believes in abstract concepts which cannot be proven or verified in the real world–good, evil, love, justice, etc. How do we know these things exist? Well, we just do–innately and universally. In fact everything we believe we know is based on unprovable assumption. We have a perception of seeing, but we cannot prove rationally or empirically that this perception of seeing is valid and not an illusion. We ”know” it is valid and we proceed on that assumption. Why? Because it is rational to do so: we could not otherwise live in this world.

But the real underlying point of the Faith Chapter is that there is another kind of knowledge available which the unbeliever suppresses in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff.). Revelational knowledge comes to us through the creation and the conscience (General Revelation), as well as through the Word of God (Special Revelation). So faith is not without knowledge even though it is without sight. Of Moses it is said: “By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen” (Heb. 11:27). Moses could not see God, and his actions might have appeared irrational to Pharaoh, but his faith was not without knowledge. The reason it appears thus is that the unbeliever often denies the reality of revelational knowledge. This is why you hear idiots like Bill Maher say that it is impossible to know God is real and Christianity is true. He brilliantly concludes that since he does not possess this knowledge no one else possibly could. Check that for logical consistency.

OK, let’s wrap up. Fellow Christians, your faith is not totally blind: it is based on solid knowledge rooted in divine revelation and the illumination of that revelation by the indwelling Holy Spirit. “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice inexpressible and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8).

A reader commented on my last post with a response that really got me thinking about how I view scripture:

I see a third choice. The Bible is exactly what it is. A collection of writings and letters that were written for a specific reason to a specific people in a specific time in history, which a living God now uses through His Holy Spirit to teach me about Himself. The problems arise when I try to gather and apply universal truths on my own without His help.

Does the historicity of the Bible matter? In other words, did the events depicted in scripture really happen? Did God really speak the words to Abimalech (Genesis 20) that scripture attributes to him? Did Jephthah really do what scripture says he did Judges 11:39 (offered his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord and is later listed by the Holy Spirit as one of the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11:32)? I am trying to grasp the meaning of the above writer’s third choice. I see two obvious options when reading a biblical narrative: (1) It happened as written, (2) It didn’t happen. Would the third choice look something like this: (3) Maybe it happened, and maybe it didn’t; or maybe something happened, but the original story is so embelleshed with myth that we cannot really know for sure what actually occurred. But so what–it doesn’t matter whether it is fact, fiction, or a mixture of both.

According to this view the question of historicity is completely irrelevant. The Bible is not the word of God–Jesus is. We read the Bible and all that matters is that we encounter Jesus. This was the position of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Oh, Deitrich Bonhoffer too.

The problem is the Bible is written in such a way as to claim these events really happened as written. Jesus speaks of Noah as if he really built an ark and world was really flooded. He speaks of Adam in such a way as to suggest he was a real literal man who sinned in a real garden. He bases his prediction of resurrection on the story of a real man Jonah who was really swallowed by a great fish for three days.

So if it does not matter whether these things really happened, does it really matter whether Jesus was literally crucified and raised bodily, or whether the stories of his miracles are true? Maybe we cannot know any of this for sure, but so what? So in this event our epistemology becomes a theory of knowledge based on personal subjective experience–some kind of inner voice or witness.

But to me the issue of historicity is black and white. If scripture tells me that God did or said thus and such, then that is exactly what he did. The application of truth might be individualistic and subjective, but not the interpretation on which the application is based. The text as written tells me something concrete about what God is like. I do not need to pray or ask for some kind of special giudance from the Holy Spirit to know if God really parted the Red Sea or sent the angel of death against the firstborn of the Egyptians. Scripture says he did and that settles it. Moreover, since Jesus claims repeatedly to be Jehovah, then I attribute the acts of God in the Old Testament to him.

So I am not sure what the middle path–the third option–really is. Further, I am not sure what this help or assistance from the Holy Spirit is supposed to look like. If I see a verse or whole class of verses which teach the deity of Christ, do I need to wait for the Holy Spirit to help me deductively conclude that Jesus is God? That seems like a universal truth to me. A timeless truth, a truth that God to be sure laid down at a specific time and place in history.

It is true that God did give commands and regulations that were situation and culture specific. The ceremonial law of the Old Testament is an example. But the New Testament makes it clear that these types and shadows have their fulfillment in Christ and are now obsolete. But the underlying universal timeless truth is that God is holy and man is a sinner–without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin. There are many capital offenses in the Old Testament; and although we no longer impose the death penalty on individuals for these crimes because we are no longer living under a theocracy, the fact that such behaviors are worthy of death tells us they are acts of wickedness God hates. I do not need to wait on the Lord for special guidance to arrive at these conclusions. All I need to do is compare scripture with scripture and the meaning is as clear as the nose on my face.

Emil Brunner, the famous German Neo-Orthodox scholar, used the following metaphor to desribe how scripture functions. He said that when he listened to a phonograph recording of his favorite classical music, what he heard was beautiful, but it was not the real symphony. Through the scratches on the vinyl disc and the distorted sound coming through the speaker he could hear a faint reproduction of the musicians, but this was not the same as hearing it live.

Bruner believed that because fallible men wrote scripture using propositional statements recorded on papyrus with ink, what they wrote could not have been the pure word of God. And yet through the literary styles, personalities, errors, and biases of the writers we hear a faint representation of the voice of God. To Brunner this was not the word of God but a signpost pointing us to the word of God–Christ. The Bible truly becomes the word of God when we are encountered by the living Christ through it. To Brunner the questions of inerrancy and historicity mattered not a whit, and he spent no time even discussing this. In fact he claimed to take a middle ground between the fundamentalists, who held to a high view of scripture and the liberals who relegated it to the realm of mythology. That debate was for Brunner largely beside the point. His approach was to stop arguing about the Bible and seek Jesus. (My question to Brunner would be, Which Jesus are you referring to? If not the Jesus literally depicted in the Bible, then who?)

I wonder if this sounds anywhere close to the above writer’s third option.

To me the issue of whether it is me or memorex is settled by 2 Timothy 3:16. Scripture is God-breathed. It is as much the pure word of God as if God were speaking audibly to me face-to-face. I will not claim I always understand it aright or obey what God says. But the problem is on my end. In the Bible God says what he means and means what he says.

If you have followed some of the comments in the last post you have noticed we got on the topic of continuing revelation. As you can see there is a semantic issue involved, and I would like to clarify with an analogy from everyday life. First let’s define what revelation is. My strict working definition is that revelation is God’s self-disclosure. A more inclusive definition would say that revelation is God communicating truth about Himself, His will, about man and about reality.

God reveals Himself propositionally through the Scripture (special revelation) and non-verbally through the creation and conscience (general revelation). But events can also be seen as a kind of communication from God. The miracles of Jesus demonstrated and communicated truth about His identity as the Son of God. This is why Nicodemus told Jesus, “No one can do the works you do unless God be with him.” When Herod was eaten with worms and stricken dead as he glorified himself in the rostrum at Ceasarea, no verbal message was needed to convey the truth that God will not share His glory with mortals.

Now for the analogy. You husbands know what it means when you are sitting in front of the TV and from the kitchen you hear cupboards being slammed shut and dishes being noisily put away. When my wife does this she need not  say a word to communicate the general message that she is upset about something, and that something most likely involves me. Or, she can come up to me at the end of a hard day, put her arms around me and lay her head against my chest. Again no words are necessary for her to communicate that she is tired and discouraged.

The problem is, I cannot understand specifically what she wants until she talks to me and tells me. She has communicated to me in a way I really don’t fully understand. I need a spoken word from her. Otherwise I cannot be sure how to interpret the noise from the kitchen. One thing I can tell you about my wife that holds true for women generally is that if you ask them they are more than willing to talk a hind leg off of you about why they are mad at you.

Here is where we get into trouble when we start talking about continuing revelation. How do we know whether that inner twinge or impression is a leading from God or the pizza from last night? I can tell you for a fact that the earthquakes and tsunami in Japan are clear revelations of God’s glory, and they should drive people to their knees. But to say these disasters were specifically sent from God as judgment on the pagan Japanese is as subjective as it is presumptuous. (It would be equally subjective and presumptuous to rule that out as a possibility, however.) Without a clear propositional explanation of why God caused (or allowed if it makes you feel better) these events we are shooting in the dark. God chooses to tell us certain things propositionally and verbally, but he does not tell us everything.

So in closing I would say this to anyone who thinks God is talking to them. If you have to ask, “Is it me or Memorex,” then the answer is obvious. Does the alleged word from God harmonize with Scripture? If not, then it is not from Him. And finally, don’t come with some supposed word from God about what he wants me to do. God knows my address and phone number, thank you very much.