Medieval Men and Women

Over the last several years I’ve become a medieval man. 

Let me explain: I’ve always read the Bible as God’s Word, but according to a more modernist metaphysic (=way of understanding the nature of reality) than the Bible’s own. There are two modernist metaphysics: First, the secular modern metaphysic can be described in terms of absolute historical progressivism, where time is the ultimate reference point for all that exists (including God), and history is progressing immutably more positively. That is to say that the world is, in its current form, smarter, more advanced, and overall, better than it ever has been (see Disney’s well-known Carousel of Progress for a popular example of this view.) 

The Christian Version 

We might say that absolute historic progressivism is, generally, a liberal and secular ideal. But there is a second version of this progressivist framework, usually held by conservatives/evangelicals. While most of us wouldn’t say that the current day is better than previous days, nevertheless we seem to believe (even if we don’t care to admit it) in a modified version of the theory where society peaked in the 1950s. This absolute peak of civilization is still seen on classic TV: Mayberry represents a societal pinnacle, the Beavers represent familial health, Lucy represents the peak of clean comedy, etc. Meanwhile most people during this time went to church. That was Christendom’s cultural peak. And that peak is the reference point from which to evaluate the health of any aspect of life. So, say many evangelicals, the societal collapse of the West is indicative of something greatly serious: It’s a sign of the times; we must be at the end. Things progressed historically until the 1950s, and since the 1960s we’ve been in a steady decline. We’re left in a sort of post-historical-progression-current-historical-regression where things seem to be headed toward their end, maybe rapidly (hence the end-times alarmist fortune of many Christian “teachers” over the last 75-80 years.) 

So you see, both liberals and conservative evangelicals hold to a progressivist ideal, even if the peak is different: To secularists the peak is now; to conservative evangelicals the peak was 70 years ago. Hence the constant rage and lack of peace: Liberals, because there’s always some bad news, something wrong, and “we should know better by now”; evangelicals, because we need to get back to the way things used to be, and “why can’t people see it?” 

This affects how one reads the Bible, or at least, how one approaches the Bible: Scripture is viewed less as a supernatural revelation of the one who is Supernature (God), and more as an end in itself. The main thing is not what it says and how it’s supposed to change us—not what’s read—but that it’s read. The main thing—again, if the American Christendom of the 1950s is the reference point—is being “Bible men” and “Bible women,” like men and women in western society used to be. My business cards in my first pastorate read “The Bible rules.” It was well-meaning, but indicative of this perspective: “Unlike other so-called christians who aren’t Bible people, we are.”*

Late vs. Early

So, what do I mean when I say I’m a medieval man? First, what I’m not: I’m not a late medieval man. In broad terms the late medieval era adopted a metaphysic that is contrary to that of Scripture itself. Late medieval thinking said that God is so other that we can’t really know him and his heart. The truth is, however, that whereas God is other (cf. Ps.50:21, Is.55:8-9), his otherness is not to be confused with detachedness; rather he is himself the fountain of life who sustains, provides, keeps, gives, and surrounds all of us at all points of time and space (Ps.36:7-9, Ac.17:25-28). That is, in him we live and move and have our being. We are not God. But we don’t exist apart from Him giving us our being at every moment: “All things exist for him and by him” (Col.1:16-17, cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). To theologize a familiar philosophical maxim, wherever we go, there he is (Ps.139:7-10). This is why Jesus had so much to say about worry and anxiety (i.e. Mt.6:25-34, Lk.12:22-32): God is at all points surrounding, providing for, and sustaining us. And he’ll never stop. 

So I’m not a late medieval man. I’m an earlier medieval man, holding to a form of the type of metaphysic—described above—that men like Augustine, Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas held to. This framework says that we have no evaluative power apart from God’s logos (the Word) framing things for us, helping us, leading us, etc. Even if we rush headlong into atheism, it’s either because we’ve rejected the advances of the logos or because he’s hiding his face from us so that we’ll learn lessons that will bring us back to him (cf. Job 37:23). But you see, God is himself our ultimate context, all the time.

One might object that to believe as much is not to embrace a medieval idea as much as a biblical idea. And that might be true. But that is sort of my point. I’ve come to think, counter to the chronological snobbery of the modern day (as CS Lewis famously said), which I had embraced almost completely, that civilization is constantly ebbing and flowing in health, and that, therefore, the 1950s weren’t much better than any other era, and the current day isn’t much worse, or better. But the issue is always, whether at an individual or communal level, how we’re engaging with the God before whom we live and before whom are all of our ways (cf. Dan.5:23). Medieval days—contrary to its caricatures of being dark or merely middle—were days where God was thought of as present at every point. Today when people hear something like that they assume a mystical or escapist notion. That misunderstanding couldn’t make my point any clearer: To medieval thinkers connecting with God wasn’t getting in touch with mystical things or escaping reality; it was acknowledging that God is ultimate reality, and that all things are his things. 

I think that medieval men and women thought like this. CS Lewis was a medieval man, and Flannery O'Connor was a medieval woman.** Part of the reason their works endure though a couple of generations past is that they breathed this air of God as ultimate reality. You read them and are encouraged because they learned to live and think in the way that you know you should, too (and that you will, as God leads you.) 

Love, Joy, and Peace, and Their Sources

Practically, this means that one learns to stop saying whether things are good or bad before pursuing practically the love, joy, and peace that come from knowing that God is good and he’s in all things. Indeed, love, joy, and peace are the first fruit of the Holy Spirit, from which all other fruit flow (Gal.5:22). The Spirit takes the Father and Son’s attributes—love, joy, peace—and gives them to us. Thus the only way to perfect peace, according to Isaiah, is to have one’s mind stayed on God (Is.26:3). To the believer God is ultimate reality; all else goes as it goes with him. But if there are hard times, it’s simply the grace of God’s sanctifying care to conform believers to the image of his son (Heb.12:4-12), and demonstrate his glory in ways that please him. 

Ephraim Radner, a leading North American theologian and philosopher, has articulated well this late patristic, early medieval way of thinking in five brief points. I think that Radner’s correct that medieval men and women thought with these assumptions when they approached life and biblical interpretation. What follows is my own summary of Radner’s points so that they’re (hopefully) easier to understand: 

1. The fact of God as ex-nihilo Creator (that is, he created all things out of nothing) means that temporal, material, and chronological points of reference don’t apply to him. That is, he created temporal reality and chronology, so he is subject to neither. This doesn’t mean we can’t relate to him, but that there is a distinction between Creator and creature. It’d be foolish to say “Here’s some hardship, God must not be present,” as though the things of life determine him. Life doesn’t occur apart from him! 

2. The Incarnation of God the Son in the man Jesus Christ gives the basis for us to learn to define the distinction of 1 above. In other words, Christ is the vehicle through which we learn how we relate to and connect with the God who isn’t subject to the same rules of subsistence that we are.

3. Humans must, somehow, by Christ, span the gap between ourselves and God. But the fact that Christ came means we can do so, by him. Hence Jesus said “I’m the way…to the Father” (Jn.14:6), being himself the subject of “the righteous (suffering for) for the unrighteous that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Yes, God being eternal, is other; but in Christ God identifies with us to bring us to himself.

4. God’s eternal nature suggests that there will be oddities in our engagement with him and his Scripture. We’ll note, for instance, that while God “regrets” things (1 Sam.15:10) and “changes his mind,” yet there is properly no change in God (Num.23:18, 1 Sam.15:29, Mal.3:6, James 1:17), such that his “regret” is unlike man’s (more below). 

5. Patristic and medieval interpretive methods, whether typology, allegory, tropology, or anagogy, weren’t technical tools for biblical interpretation as much as attitudes of perception responding to the oddities, listed above, of relating to and hearing from God. In other words, Augustine would allegorize and Aquinas would do typology not because they just wanted to and liked it, but because they understood that God is eternal, we’re not, and Christ who brings us to God, not time and space, is our first point of reference.*^ One example is, again, whether God regrets or changes his mind. Under a historical metaphysic, clearly he does change his mind (for, just look at how he seems to feel about the world in Noah’s time and about Saul as king.) But if we understand that he’s eternal and unchanging, it must mean that he didn’t change his mind like we who are bound by time as a succession of moments do. Hence Samuel says “God” (who earlier regretted making Saul king) “is not like man, to have regrets”: He regretted making Saul king, but not in the same way that we regret a poor decision. God doesn’t make poor decisions. So here his regret is different from ours.^^ It is likely, thus, that his regret is a gracious condescension to explain something about his holiness and how he will not tolerate sin.

Enchantment

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Medieval men and women were so enchanted by God that the things of this life were only enchanted insofar as God’s presence, working, and grace could be found in it. These folks weren’t enchanted with the world as it is, and thus they wouldn’t last long in discontentedness at the wrongness of things or the inferiority of things compared to earlier days. They knew that it was foolish to say “Why were former days better than these?” (Ecc.7:10) They also knew how foolish it was to suggest that the world is so much smarter now than it past days, because if one thinks he knows anything, he knows not as he ought (1 Cor. 8:2). Rather God is our life (cf. Deut.30:20), and creation reflects and derives its being and nature from him so that whatever is happening, he is present, accomplishing his purpose. Medieval men and women learned with Paul to be content in all things (Phil.4:11), and take both the good and bad because both come from God (Job 1:21, 2:10). This is, I think, what it means to have treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19f.): To treat God like he’s your treasure. And if he is, you possess all else, too. 

--

*Hence how so many Christians still enjoy watching old Billy Graham sermons and reformed evangelicals love David Martyn-Lloyd Jones. Whereas I love them both, we probably love the time in which they lived and ministered more than we care to admit. 

**On Lewis, see Jason Baxter's The Medieval Mind of CS Lewis; on Flannery O'Connor, see portions of her The Habit of Being, and how much she loved Aquinas' Summa Theologia. 

*^See Radner's Time and The Word, 57-58.

^^I'd also ask you to consider Deuteronomy 31:17. There God has Moses tell Joshua that the later generations will forsake God, at which point his anger will be kindled against them and he'll judge them. God is here in control of his wrath and response to sin. It's decreed. His "regret" and "repentance" are thus different from ours. 

Calvin on Pride in the Church

In preparing to preach Hebrews 10:19-25 for church tomorrow, I came across this extended quote from Calvin that is too good not to share widely. In it the French reformer explains why unity and love is so hard to come by in the local church: Our own pride and tendency to look down on others. Apparently churches in 16th century Geneva weren’t much different than those in 21st century America! This, again, is taken from Calvin's commentary on Hebrews 10:25: 

“It is an evil which prevails everywhere among mankind that everyone sets himself above others, and especially that those who seem in anything to excel cannot well endure their inferiors to be on an equality with themselves. And then there is so much morosity (READ: ill-temperament) almost in all, that individuals would gladly make churches for themselves if they could; for they find it so difficult to accommodate themselves to the ways and habits of others. The rich envy one another; and hardly one in a hundred can be found among the rich, who allows the poor the name and rank of brethren. Unless similarity of habits or some allurements or advantages draw us together, it is very difficult even to maintain a continual concord among ourselves. 

“Extremely needed, then, by us all is the admonition to be stimulated to love and not to envy, and not to separate from those whom God has joined to us, but to embrace with brotherly kindness all those who are united to us in faith. And surely it behoves us the more earnestly to cultivate unity, as the more eagerly watchful Satan is, either to tear us by any means from the Church, or stealthily to seduce us from it. And such would be the happy effect, were no one to please himself too much, and were all of us to preserve this one object, mutually to provoke one another to love, and to allow no emulation among ourselves, but that of doing good works. For doubtless the contempt of the brethren, moroseness, envy, immoderate estimate of ourselves, and other sinful impulses, clearly show that our love is either very cold, or does not at all exist.”

How much of our church drama stems from our having a proud attitude toward others, viewing church as the place I go to be "fed" (i.e. to get what I want), not as the Lord's appointed venue in which I am to stir up others to love and good works? 

Anger

“Men are often accustomed to plead zeal…for the honor of God, as the cause of their indignation, when it is only their own private interest that is concerned…It is remarkable how forward men are to appear, as if they were zealous for God…in cases wherein their interest has been touched, and to make pretense of this in injuring others or complaining of them”

-Jonathan Edwards, 18th c*

Alexander Strauch shares this Jonathan Edwards quote in his own book about handling church conflict (my current reading). I’m stunned at how much the Bible has to say about anger; first, how ubiquitous anger is to the human experience, and second, how destructive it is to people and their relationships to God and to others. Just think of all of the Old Testament stories where anger drives lying, murdering, etc. ruining families, faith, and all of the rest. That’s why the Proverbs have so much to say about the foolishness of giving vent to one’s anger (29:11) and how hot tempered men stir up trouble (15:18); Proverbs even says to stay away from folks given to anger (22:24-25). Why? Because it will influence you, too. 

Because Jesus intends to produce in us a new creation, the New Testament is full of treatment about leaving anger behind. “Fits of anger” (Gal.5:20) are works of the sinful flesh, not God; how we practice anger will be controlled by our pre-Christ fallen flesh, and thus Christians are to entirely put away anger (Eph.4:31, Col.3:8). We are to be “slow to anger,” for “the anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God (Jms.1:19). This makes sense: we walk in God’s love, and “love is not easily angered” (1Cor.13:5). “Be angry and do not sin” (Eph.4:26, cf. Ps.4:4), insinuates that anger will boil up sometimes, but we are to catch it before it boils over, not allowing ourselves to sin. Since Jesus is not, by nature, angry, we, who are called to reflect him by imitation (Rom.13:14) are called to put on his peace, long-sufferingness, and gentleness.

The Edwards quote is particularly striking, because it is driven by a seasoned pastoral wisdom. Edwards astutely notes something that often characterizes church folks: They often, by practicing “righteous indignation” (so-called), though pursuing some good, are not driven by their zeal for the good, but by a commitment to their own desires and wants. They’ll (read: “We’ll”: me too) argue strongly, logically, and even consistently for why they must be so impassioned and insistent on getting what they’re sticking their neck out for. But they’re driven by selfish motivation, not by God’s zeal—the desire, perhaps, to control or analyze or argue or whatever. “I’m standing up because this is wrong,” or “I’ve always been a person who will speak up when I think I need to.” But selfish ambition—getting their way—drives the anger that drives their actions, seen in how they engage the issue with words and attitudes that hardly distinguish them from worldly people. 

So is anger sinful? Not necessarily—notice in Eph.4:26 that sin is isolated from anger: “Be angry and do not sin.” It’s as though one can have anger but not in a sinful way. Nevertheless, it is within just a few verses that we are told to “put away all anger” from us (4:31). This seems to suggest that there is a fatal flaw in our fallen hearts that causes us to not possess anger correctly, like God does (Ps.7:11).** Put another way, anger is not necessarily sinful; but since we are, we will make it sinful. Thus we are to put it away from us by rightly practicing our Christian faith: Looking to Jesus our perfect example and savior; recognizing the wrongness of our practice of what might even be good things (like anger); and repenting of the act of anger, including cutting off whatever might lend itself to our giving into it (Mt.5:29-30). 

For help, I couldn’t recommend enough Strauch’s If You Bite and Devour One Another, ch.4. In it Strauch, probably evangelicalism’s foremost expert on biblical church leadership, gives the way forward to deal with anger. If we don’t deal with our anger the devil will get a foothold and exploit it: “Be angry and do not sin…give no opportunity to the devil” (Eph.4:26-27); catch the anger before it boils over, or else it will. And the devil will be close. 

------

*from Charity and Its Fruits, 1852, Banner of Truth reprint, 198; quoted in Alexander Strauch, If You Bite and Devour Each Other, 53fn2

**but note that God doesn’t have anger as an attribute but as a response: his holiness responding to sin is, properly, his anger. See Matthew Barrett et.al. Proclaiming the Triune God: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Life of the Church, 37, for the case that since we need sin in order to understand the wrath of God, his wrath cannot properly be an attribute of God. His attributes are what he is eternally; since sin is not eternal in the way that God is (for sin didn’t occur until the devil fell and then humanity fell), God’s response to it isn’t eternal like his attributes are. But that which drives his just-wrath response to sin—holiness—is an attribute of God. 

Calvin on the Gospel as Our Soul Anchor

I use John Calvin’s (1509-64) commentaries almost week every during my sermon preparation. In a way that is, perhaps, surprising to some, his commentaries are extremely pastoral, full of consideration for the people in the pew, to “build them up” (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). Calvin does get into some of the technical aspects of biblical exegesis, but that is only because of the Bible’s great linguistic, historical, and thematic depth. If you want to know the Bible, get ready to go deep. Calvin’s commentaries provide my favorite example of the right exegetical and pastoral balance. Hence there have been some weeks where I step away saying, “Can I just stand up Sunday and read this for my message?” There are also some weeks where I disagree with his conclusions (and this happens to be one of those weeks.) 

But a couple of weeks ago I was preparing to preach Hebrews 6:19, where the biblical author mentions that our Christian hope is a “sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain.” I highlighted this lengthy Calvin quote because I thought it so stunningly depicted the contents both of the struggles of this life and the hope we have in Jesus. Hopefully the passage is a blessing to you:

It is a striking likeness when he compares faith leaning on God’s word to an anchor; for doubtless, as long as we sojourn in this world, we stand not on firm ground, but are tossed here and there as it were in the midst of the sea, and that indeed very turbulent; for Satan is incessantly stirring up innumerable storms, which would immediately upset and sink our vessel, were we not to cast our anchor fast in the deep. For nowhere a haven appears to our eyes, but wherever we look water alone is in view; yea, waves also arise and threaten us; but as the anchor is cast through the waters into a dark and unseen place, and while it lies hid there, keeps the vessel beaten by waves from being overwhelmed; so must our hope be fixed on the invisible God. 

There is this difference—the anchor is cast downwards into the sea, for it has the earth as its bottom; but our hope rises upwards and soars aloft, for in the world it finds nothing on which it can stand, nor ought it to cleave to created things, but to rest on God alone. As the cable also by which the anchor is suspended joins the vessel with the earth through a long and dark intermediate space, so the truth of God is a bond to connect us with himself, so that no distance of place and no darkness can prevent us from cleaving to him. Thus when united to God, though we must struggle with continual storms, we are yet beyond the peril of shipwreck. 

On Augustine's Confessions--A 1600+ Year-Old Extended Personal Reflection

I recently returned to New Jersey from Orlando where my family—including three young kids—and I spent two weeks at Disney World. Somehow I’m still alive, though barely. I made a resolution that while I was away I would read through Augustine’s Confessions (written 397-400). I’ve read a lot of Augustine over the last few years, but I’d never read his most well-known book. While reading the entire book proved difficult for the duration of the time in Orlando, a final day stuck in an extended layover in Charlotte (long story) afforded me the extra time to finish. 

For those unfamiliar, in Confessions Augustine, the great fourth and fifth century African church bishop whose influence over the global church is hard to overstate, outlines his conversion to Christianity from sinful youth to wise man. Here are my reflections, broken down book by book across Augustine’s work: 

Books 1-2 Augustine’s pre-Christian days: Throughout his youth, while his mother Monica, a strong Christian, prayed for him, Augustine “ran from true rest” and “hated simple truth” (this is spelled out in Book 1). He indulged in wrongness bc it felt nice, especially sexual sin (Book 2). 

-How telling is this? The non-Christian spends their whole lives running in circles trying to find rest and they can’t. Proof of their restlessness is their unwillingness to sit and think long and hard about simple truth. They’re bored by it, because it doesn’t excite. Further, the non-Christian sins on purpose because it makes them feel at home. And indeed, in their sinful flesh, they are right at home running from God (consider how Cain couldn’t repent of his pride, though God pursued him).  

Books 3-5 Beginning process of coming to God in his 20s: Augustine struggled through Manichaeism, an ancient dualistic religion. As Augustine states in Book 3, for years he wrestled hard to stay away from the Lord, the fountain of life (Ps.36:9). But the Lord himself pursued Augustine. Augustine still lived in vanity, spiritually dead, though Christ, our very life (Jn.1:4, Col.3:4), had earlier come to the world to put away our death. Eventually Augustine, now a civic teacher of rhetoric, moved from Rome to Milan where bishop Ambrose showed him Christ in the Old Testament. It was here that Augustine began to understand the gospel.

-Note that just like in the Apostles’ preaching in Acts, Christ’s presence in and fulfillment of the Old Testament was instrumental for conversion. I often hear that evangelical churches need to preach the Old Testament more, and this is probably true. But Christ as the fulfillment, goal, and source of the Old Testament is the church’s gospel, such that the Old Testament is not preached unless Christ is preached. Once Christ is put on display, the Spirit of God shows him to believers as the fountain of life. Sinners, therefore, are invited by his call to “Come to me and drink” (Jn.7:37).

Books 6-7 Closer and closer to faith, cutting his teeth on the things of Lord over time, age 29 into his 30s: Augustine relays how he learned spiritual interpretation of Scripture, based on 2 Cor. 3:6 (“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”) Note that “spiritual” is not opposite of “true,” but of mere grammatical-historical meaning, that is, human authorial and original reader intention. In other words, spiritual interpretation reads the historical meaning of a passage as a witness to the eternal being of Christ and his salvation worked out in time, as Augustine would later explain in the quadriga. Historical things point to eternal things, and thus both application and Christ connections have many possibilities. Finally, in this time Augustine made peace with the existence of evil in a good creation. He learned that in God’s creation all things are good but corruptible. And because of the fall, all things have been corrupted to one degree or another. But Jesus’ resurrection proves that corruption is not the end of the story. 

-Note this hard question people still have: If God is good, why does evil exist? Only the Christian gospel can give a substantial answer that doesn’t make a bad guy of particular people groups, but locates the origin of sin in something that touches each of us and is, indeed, inside of each of us. Still, as in Augustine’s day, God leads sinners through this process, to truth and peace (Jn.6:45, Is.54:13). 

Book 8 Augustine’s famous conversion: Amidst his wrestling he hears the children in a neighboring yard singing “tole lege” (“take and read”), prompting him to pick up his friends Romans codex, where he turns to Romans 13:14: “Put on the Lord Jesus, and make no opportunity for the flesh, to indulge its desires.” Augustine’s conversion is complete—he now believes. He further relays how he makes peace with his long period of wrestling which led to his salvation, describing what CS Lewis would later call undulation,* where in a fallen world good and evil go back and forth to produce good for us in the end. We have to experience downs so we can get to the ups, and the ups help us make peace with the downs.

-This explains Augustine’s affirmation of the sovereignty of God, preparing him for a literary and ecclesial battle he would wage the rest of his life. 

Book 9 Augustine’s baby steps as a Christian, and Monica’s death: Now that Augustine’s come to faith, Monica is ready to die, and she does. 

-Note the wisdom and purposes of God as well as his use of human means to accomplish his purposes: She lives only long enough to see her son come to faith, God using her prayers in his saving purposes. Then she goes home.

Book 10 Coming clearer on the battle with sin: Augustine learned that we are constantly pulled both up and down: Up toward God’s happiness, true beatitude with him the happy One (Matt. 5:3-12), and Down toward the world’s fleeting and perverted happiness, using God’s creation as ends in itself instead of means to ends of enjoying God. Augustine cites Paul’s words in Gal.5:17 about the inner battle between the flesh and the Spirit to describe our being pulled up and down. 

Book 10 is a powerhouse of insightful quotations and reflections: 

-Humans want to remain hidden from God while also possessing perfect knowledge of everything, whereby nothing is hidden to them. But the opposite is true: God fully knows us (Heb.4:12-13), and yet we ourselves know so little. I’m reminded of Peter Kreeft’s comment about Aquinas that though both his faith in God and his commitment to Christian dogma was so strong, yet the fact that he recognized how little we actually know (cf. 1Cor.13:12) moves him closer to agnosticism than to dogmatism! In other words, a moment’s reflection on God’s knowledge and our smallness shows us that there’s more we don’t know than we do know.

-Much of our temptation is not for pleasure but for curiosity—That is, we tend to think that all of our sin temptations are pleasure-oriented. But often it is out of simple curiosity: We want to do or experience something new, because we’re so unhappy with what we already possess. We just want to try new things, not land on and live in truth. 

-Finally, Augustine despairs of perfectly knowing his own motives: “Am I not then quite uncertain of myself in this respect?”—That is, we’ll never know our hearts fully; our hearts deceive us (Jer.17:9). Introspection is good when it doesn’t go too far. You’re not your ultimate judge.**

Book 11 Time as an enigma: I’m going to skip this Book, as it will be confusing to the vast majority of those who would read this post. I find it challenging to understand too. 

Books 12-13 Genesis and allegory: Here we find Augustine the believer learning to interpret the nature of the universe in light of how Genesis describes it. Anchoring himself in his (famous) conviction that interpretation can’t contradict the Lord’s “law of love” (“love the Lord…love your neighbor..”*^), he offers a spiritual interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. According to Augustine, since the purpose of God’s creation is to produce a new creation, we can see in Genesis what he is doing in the world through the church: 

a) God created by speaking the Word, and so now he sends his Word by his church throughout the world to produce a new creation. 

b) God called Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiple, so now he calls his church to multiply by making disciples and discipling them (Matt.28:18-20). 

c) God overcame peoples’ sin with sovereign grace (see Gen.19:16, 20:6, 50:20), and so now he does the same thing through the world, advancing his kingdom through the sinful acts of mankind, using even their evil for good. 

Augustine wrote this book 1,625 years ago, and yet it is still such a penetrating picture of a man struggling through his native rebellion to God and how God patiently overcame the man’s rebellion and then caused that redemptive process to dominate the man’s framework for reality from that point forward. May it be the case today as well! “There’s nothing new under the sun” (Ecc.1:9). 

Stephanopoulos, Donalds, and God's Existence

You’re probably aware that former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump was recently interviewed by the National Association of Black Journalists, to much criticism and fanfare. Trump was asked if he thinks his opponent Kamala Harris is on the Democrat presidential ticket because she’s black (she is of Indian and Jamaican heritage). He responded by criticizing how she used to always tout her Indian heritage, but then, says Trump, she suddenly began to tout her black heritage. It seems that Trump was responding to a hostile interviewer, and was voicing his chagrin over the current day’s racial obsession, which allows those who have a mixed heritage to identify with whatever part of their heritage fits the occasion. Nevertheless, another ugly Trump interview. 

Byron Donalds, a Florida congressman who has supported Trump, and is black, was then interviewed on ABC News by George Stephanopoulos, who asked him to condemn the president’s supposedly racist comments. Donalds wouldn’t say that the president was wrong, citing how relatively little time was taken up with these comments, and how there are bigger issues. Stephanopoulos wasn’t having Donalds’s redirect, so both men went back and forth about the topic for about five minutes. It was, predictably, an ugly segment for truth-seekers but a beautiful segment for entertainment seekers. 

What caught my eye was what I saw immediately after on Twitter/X. Liberal-leaning respondents touted Stephanopoulos' “dominance” of Donalds, how he “wiped the floor” with the congressman. But conservative-leaning respondents watched the exact same segment and concluded the opposite: Donalds “owned” the host, and “crushed” him for his ugly questions and narrative. 

Hmm...Well, which is it? Who won this debate? What’s true? Both sides seem convinced that they represent the truth, and that it matters immensely. 

Let’s not miss this: Both sides say that truth exists, that it matters, and that they themselves see it clearly, as should anyone else with a brain. But—and this is a snapshot of social media—what they see as “true” cannot be proved beyond doubt to one who is biased in another direction. And since, having all “gone their own way” (Is.53:6), all are biased, arguing about it seems like a losing battle. 

The fact that we acknowledge truth’s existence and that we care deeply about it at least suggests–if it doesn’t entirely prove–the existence of God. How can could truth exist if there isn’t at least someone who sees it clearly? Many people tout some version of moral relativism today, but I’m not convinced anyone actually believes it (because then crime doesn't exist, etc.). Instead, we all, like C.S. Lewis famously said, feel this sense of pressure from the outside, this moral standard pressing in on us, holding us accountable. That standard is truth, albeit mingled with our biases and preferences. But to come into light is to say, “Truth exists, and I’m too invested in myself and the world to see it clearly. But I want to grow up. So I’m going to ask God to lead me.” That’s why Scripture says that those who seek the truth come to the light, who is Jesus himself, the Word made flesh, and their coming shows that God has led them there (cf. Jn.3:20-21). They see through the human impulse to reconstruct truth according to personal interests, and they want to advance to what Francis Schaeffer called "true truth": That which is true regardless of how it might impact my life as currently constructed. Again, they’re ready to grow up.

May you be among them.

The Christian and the Negative World: Aaron Renn's Diagnosis

See the video above for my analysis of Aaron Renn's extremely helpful Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture.  I can't recommend the book enough! 

This will help you follow along: 

I. Knowing our world now 

    a) Positive world (1960s-early 90s): Christianity positively viewed by world; morals same. 

    b) Neutral world (Early 90s-early 2010s): Morals changing; Christianity "eh"

    c) Negative world (2010s-now): Christianity seen as weird, outdated, maybe dangerous 

        -pre-Christian paganism returning, seen in RNC Hindu prayer and other capitulations 

II. We'll need to engage the world differently 

    Used to be three types of evangelical engagements: 

        a) Culture warriors (religious right): Robert Jeffries, Dinesh D'souza, Eric Metaxas 

        b) Seeker sensitive (friendly, large churches): Rick Warren, Hillsong

        c) Cultural engagement (affirm, show Jesus as solution): Keller

    In negative world, (a) might survive in pockets, but (b) and (c) will struggle because they depend on being liked. We simply aren't. 

III. We'll need: 

    a) Individual -- excellence, resilience, and strength 

            -pursue community, institutional strength, and ownership 

    b) Corporate -- clarity on truth, right and wrong (counter "I'm not a biologist, so I don't know what a woman is"); why do young men seek J Peterson, Shapiro, Tate, when not Christians? Because what they say is useful, and stuff at church, the young men think, isn't. 

            -will need prudence: Vote not for candidate that is perfect (in a negative world there isn't one), but for candidates that will promote righteousness and peace so the gospel can advance