Chris-tocentric.com

A Catholic author whom I respect read my manuscript. Shortly afterward he offered an endorsement and pointed out a few areas that he thought were worth expanding. He then made a passing comment, ” Your chapter on Martin Luther helped me to appreciate the man’s courage.” It had been so long since I wrote the Luther chapter that I decided to re-read it. After doing so, I too was inspired. Since then I’ve been reflecting on what it means to have the intestinal fortitude of Luther, even today. The following quote from Dale Davis provides helpful illumination on what this courage might look like.

Dale Ralph Davis (1944 – ), an honored professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, was called back into full-time pastoral ministry. He is well known for his lively devotional commentaries on Old Testament history books, such as Joshua, which combine thoughtful exegesis with practical application. In Joshua 14, Caleb recalls how he and Joshua had stood alone and trusted God, when they spied out the Promised Land (cf. Num. 13-14): faith can sometimes be lonely. Davis applies this insight to a variety of situations faced by today’s Christians.

“Hence [for Caleb] the devotion of faith required courage, a willingness to stand alone, to go against the grain. The devotion of faith led to the isolation of faith. Such is often the case. The Christian teenager knows what this is like, when he or she must go against the moral-ethical flow of high-school culture. The Christian executive who tells his superior that he must either resign or be transferred to another department, because he refuses to line up prostitutes for the company’s weekend visitors—that man knows this loneliness. Even pastors know a good bit of this. So you will not baptize the grandchild of a church member because the parents are not believers? Or you have the gall, along with the other elders, to place someone under church discipline? You may seek to follow the Lord completely and at the same time reduce church membership. God’s people then must be prepared, for devoted faith frequently means lonely faith. And yet when Paul alluded to his first defense and lamented that “everyone deserted me,” he added in the next breath, “But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength” (2 Tim. 4:16-17, NIV).”1

Footnotes:

1 Dale Ralph Davis, Joshua: No Falling Words (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2002), 116-117.

I recently watched a debate between the anti-theist Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza. This was shortly after viewing another debate between William Lane Craig and the radically liberal Bishop John Shelby Spong. After reflecting on them both I’ve reached a conclusion: I have more tolerance for Hitchens than Spong. The following quote from Chesterton explains why.

G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) is one of the best-known writers of his time. His Father Brown mysteries have almost a cult following. His non-fiction contains some of the most trenchant commentary in the English language. Written when he was only thirty-four, his book, Orthodoxy, represents Chesterton’s affirmation of faith against the growing atheism of his day, an atheism that could not be answered by theological liberalism, but only by an orthodox faith.

In the following quotation, Chesterton points out the folly of the theological liberals of his day.

“Modern masters of Science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”1

Footnotes:

1 Gilbert K. Chesterton, Heretics/Orthodoxy (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 176.

This past week we enjoyed the annual preaching workshop at College Church. The theme was “Preaching Apocalyptic” featuring Don Carson, Collin Smith, and David Helm. Pastors gathered from around the country to consider how to better interpret and apply the book of Revelation. This is a scary thing for most pastors, me included, given the literary complexity of the book. I must say, however, that I was not only equipped with interpretive tools, I was also fed. Jesus was exalted and displayed with clarity and force. As a result, I and my colleagues left with a greater sense of how the presence of Jesus speaks to the various issues of life.

Thinking about how the rule of Jesus affects the world, we see a profound example not only in Scripture but also in the post apostolic years. For instance, the Letter to Diognetus was written by an unknown early Christian apologist during the time when the early Church was persecuted by the pagan Roman government (c. 150). The author attacks pagan beliefs and practices as superstitious and immoral. He argues that biblical teaching is superior to pagan philosophy, because it is grounded in the divine revelation, not in human wisdom; Believers are good citizens because their moral values transcend the conventions of pagan society. For example, Christians are staunchly opposed to infanticide (exposure of infants) and adultery:

“For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humanity by country, language, or custom. For nowhere do they live in cities of their own, nor do they speak some unusual dialect, nor do they practice an eccentric life-style. This teaching of theirs has not been discovered by the thought and reflection of ingenious men, nor do they promote any human doctrine, as some do. But while they live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life, at the same time they demonstrate the remarkable and admittedly unusual character of their own citizenship. They live in their own countries, but only as aliens; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like everyone else, and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food, but not their wives. They are “in the flesh,” but they do not live “according to the flesh.” They live on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws; indeed in their private lives they transcend the laws. They love everyone, and by everyone they are persecuted.”1

Footnotes:

1 “The Epistle to Diognetus,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. and rev. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 541. In other translations see 5.1-11.

Yesterday was my day off. Like most Thursdays, I was at home with the family for the entire day. It’s usually an occasion for house projects, errands, and playing with the boys. Yesterday was no exception. By 10:30am I’m already exhausted by the frenetic pace of little people incessantly lobbying for attention. And, like always, I marvel: “How does my wife do this day-in and day-out?”

In a 1905 address, President Theodore Roosevelt (1858 – 1919) reminded a group of mothers how vital their work was to the nation’s health. When he came to the White House in 1901, his own six children ranged in age from 3 to 17 years. Throughout those years, his wife Edith had shown extraordinary strength in managing her social duties as first lady while at the same time raising the notoriously rowdy group of children known to the nation as “the White House Gang.” Roosevelt does not mention Edith by name in his remarks, but he is obviously intimately aware of and deeply grateful for her many sacrifices.

“No ordinary work done by a man is either as hard or as responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children; for upon her time and strength demands are made not only every hour of the day but often every hour of the night. She may have to get up night after night to take care of a sick child, and yet must by day continue to do all her household duties as well; and if the family means are scant she must usually enjoy even her rare holidays taking her whole brood of children with her. The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women. Above all our sympathy and regard are due to the struggling wives among those whom Abraham Lincoln called the plain people, and whom he so loved and trusted; for the lives of these women are often led on the lonely heights of quiet, self-sacrificing heroism. . .

Inasmuch as I am speaking to an assemblage of mothers, I shall have nothing whatever to say in praise of an easy life. Yours is the work which is never ended. No mother has an easy time, the most mothers have very hard times; and yet what true mother would barter her experience of joy and sorrow in exchange for a life of cold selfishness, which insists upon perpetual amusement and the avoidance of care, and which often finds its fit dwelling place in some flat designed to furnish with the least possible expenditure of effort the maximum of comfort and of luxury, but in which there is literally no place for children? . . .

The woman’s task is not easy—no task worth doing is easy—but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes, and all people who realize that her work lies at the foundation of all national happiness and greatness, shall rise up and call her blessed.1″

Footnotes:

1 Theodore Roosevelt, “On American Motherhood,” The World’s Famous Orations, vol. 3, ed. William Jennings Bryan (1906; reprinted, Bartleby.com, 2003), http://www.bartleby.com/268/10/29.html