I determined early on my family’s development that I would always go to Sunday Church. I think the reason was this: that I wanted my kids to love the church, even in it’s glaring flaws and inconsistencies. Since that time, the Local Church has not been exemplary in its display of the biblical standard. Yet, we have rarely missed attendance over the years.

There is a growing interest in departing from the church along with its local manifestations. Substitutes like “organic church’ replace what they call the “institutional” church. The description “institutional” (reminds me of some mental hospital), is used to imply that the Church has become something unnatural, formal, stiff, legalistic. So good meaning Christians reject the organized church for an “organic” church in the form of house churches or in many cases no church at all.

CS Lewis expressed it this way: (the church)… is a unity of place and not of likings, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity (God) desires. He continues, “the search for a “suitable” church makes the man a critic where (God) wants him a pupil.”

Do you see the point

• The church is a unity of place, NOT of liking

• The church is the vehicle to unite individuals who may not normally like each other

• When we give up on the church simply because it does not “suit” our standards, we become a critic not a student of it!

Here is how I see it. One finds fault with his local church. He searches the internet and finds several web pages that describe the faults of the church and give a basis for returning to the authentic manifestations which it seems only occurred prior to Emperor Constantine. Prior to him, the church was really real…  Since then, it has been only a facade.

Then what happens? This person starts hanging out with those who “agree” with him. And what is lost? The sanctification that occurs of learning to live with and love those whom you would normally not hang out with…. Along with a fundamental witness to the skeptics of Christianity. Jesus exhorted his followers to love their enemies. It is easy to love those who love and agree with you. Jesus asked in effect, “what kind of effort is required of you when you  choose your own friends?” None! But to love one you don’t like, one you would never choose in a thousand years, that is something else altogether, something to talk about. It cannot be duplicated by any unbelieving skeptic.

I must be honest. Could it be that those who only hang out with those who hang out with those who reject God’s church, become quirky and become “One message” people….. I think because they have no sanctifying and balancing force in their life through others who may disagree with them (not to mention the other means of grace in the local church:  preaching, sacraments etc)

My kids have grown up in local church. They love the church. They love Jesus who’s body it represents. I think it is time we agree with Augustine that “there is no salvation outside the Church.”  There is much in that thought.

Francis Shaeffer said it well: Our relationship with each other is the criterion the world uses to judge whether our message is truthful. Christian community is the ultimate apologetic . (quoted in Total Church, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

There is an analogy here.  Just when we get comfortable with the seascape, we become careless and the wave comes and strikes.   I suppose most survive but some don’t.  It struck me that each of us probably has a sneaker wave waiting to overcome us.

Alexander Strauch in his book on Biblical Eldership refers to all of us having a “fatal flaw”  and quotes CS Lewis:

And you see, looking back, how all the plans you have ever made always have shipwrecked on that fatal flaw – on “X’s” incurable jealousy, or laziness, or touchiness, or muddle-headedness, or bossiness, or ill temper, or changeableness…

This is the next great step in wisdom – to realize that you also are just that sort of person.  You also have a fatal flaw in your character.  All the hopes and plans of others have again and again shipwrecked on your character just as your hopes and plans have shipwrecked on theirs.

It is no good passing this over with some vague, general admission such as “Of course, I know I have my faults.”  it is something which gives the other just that same feeling of despair which their flaws give you.  And it is almost certainly something you don’t know about – like what the advertisements call “halotosis” which everyone notices except the person who has it.

But why, you ask, don’t the others tell me? Believe me, they have tried to tell you over and over again, and you just couldn’t  “take it.”  Perhaps a good deal of what you call their “nagging” or “bad temper’ or ‘queerness” are just their attempts to make you see the truth.  And even the faults you do know you don’t know fully.

Strauch continues…. These fatal flaws or blind spots distort your judgment. The deceive us. They can even destroy us.    This is particularly true of multi-talented, charismatic leaders.  Blind to their own flaws and extreme views, some talented leaders have destroyed themselves because they had no peers to confront and balance them and, in fact, wanted none.

Granted, this is written in the context of eldership and most of us are not charismatic leaders.  And granted,  as a description of our blind spot, fatal flaw may be a little strong, and just like the sneaker wave, it may  not be fatal to everyone.. But I believe the point is still valid.

I take a couple points from this

1.  It is easy to see blind spots in others and be blind or deny our own

2.  It is human nature to discount our own flaws while magnifying those of others

3.  It is great wisdom to hear confrontation, exhortation, or rebuke.

4.  There is great exposure to danger in continuing in the self-deceiving belief that we have no flaws.

What is also inferred is how important accountability is.   I will write on this in part 2 and 3.

We need regular reminder of the role presuppositions play in our interpretation (of scripture) and we must moderate our opinion with healthy doses of humility.  Blomberg I Corinthians, NIVAC p 226

Traditional consensus, of course, is not inspired, but weighty arguments are needed to overthrow it.  Craig Blomberg, I Corinthians, NIVAC p 211

Zerwick:  In interpreting the sacred text… we must beware lest we sacrifice to clarity of meaning part of the fullness of the meaning.”   Quoted in Harris NIGTC Commentary on I Corinthians p 419. In other words, there is some paradox or mystery…

Exegesis should control our theology, rather than our theology control our exegesis.  Hoehner, Commentary on Ephesians

Here are some helpful thoughts from John Frame in his article:  A Primer on Perspectivalism

God is infinite… he knows absolutely everything… we are finite, and our knowledge is finite.  I can only know the world from the limited perspective of my own body and mind.  The effects of this finitude, and even more of sin, should caution us against cocksureness in our claims to knowledge…

It often happens that someone’s idea will seem ridiculous when we first encounter it; but when we try to understand where that person is coming from, what considerations have led him to his idea, then our evaluation of it changes. In such a case, we are trying to see the issue from his perspective, and that perspective enriches our own….  It is possible for the perspectives of others to change our perspective, to make us see differently….

This does not mean, of course, that all ideas are equally true, or equally false.  It does mean that as our perspective grows larger we inevitably agree with everybody else. I do think that often a broadening of perspective usually leads to a greater appreciation of the viewpoints of others.

In other words, the more we learn of God’s word the more humble we should become….

I thought you would enjoy this article written by my son Sam…

Throughout the history of Christianity, many great apologists and philosophers have attempted to develop logical arguments to rationally demonstrate that God exists. One of the most notable of these attempts is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid out several persuasive arguments for God’s existence in his multi-volume work Summa Theologica. No argument can really prove God’s existence, but cumulatively they can be very compelling and persuasive. One of the less well known of them but one I think is among the most deeply engaging is the argument from desire. The premises of the argument are laid out below:

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

(Argument outline borrowed from Peter Kreeft)

Two of my literary heroes, C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft, both have named this argument as their favorite. Many former atheists and agnostics, while finding ways to rationally get around the various arguments, have suddenly stopped dead in their tracks when they ran into this argument, unable to ignore its penetrating profundity.

What makes this argument stand out from the rest is that it doesn’t point to the universe, science, biology, history, or any other study to find evidence for God’s existence. Instead of directing the gaze of humanity to that outside of itself, it points directly into the human heart, revealing its deepest longings and desires. Its simple but keen insight into human nature is seemingly irresistible. Following is my own interpretation of the 4 premises of the argument as laid out above.

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

All of us as humans are born with a set of built in needs and desires that have natural satisfactions in this world. We are born with hunger, which corresponds to food. We are born with a desire for fellowship and community, which corresponds to friendship and social interaction. The list goes on. The point is that all of our innate desires have corresponding satisfactions in this life. A desire like a child’s longing to fly through the air like Superman does not apply because that kind of desire is not innate in human beings but is rather produced through cultural conditioning (i.e. movies and comic books).

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

There is a desire inside all of us that nothing can fulfill. We all long for a kind of “ecstatic happiness” that we never even get close to achieving in the realm of time. We try to fill this void with various things this world offers us, but in the end, we are left emptier than before. As my Dad would say, every one of us has a fundamental feeling of “homelessness” that we can’t get rid of, try as we might. In short, everyone is ultimately unhappy. The greatest pleasures we get in this life often only make us more aware of our persistent unhappiness. They only leave us with echoes of an ultimate satisfaction far beyond anything this world can offer.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This premise follows logically from the first and second. Its implications are mind-boggling. Is there really something that can bring the restless human heart to peace? What possibly could be out there that can completely satisfy this ubiquitous longing for a better country? What can fill the gaping void? It must be something more than anything and everything we have in this world.

This premise does not mean that all of our desires are always met, but it does mean that some kind of satisfaction must exist to meet those desires. C.S. Lewis makes this point well:

…we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness can satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? “Nor does being hungry prove that we have bread.” But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation of a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

Although this last premise does not declare the existence of the Christian God, or any God in particular, it still awakens the heart to begin searching for the truth about reality. Because the satisfaction for the desire must be outside of time and space, the simple answer is that it must be what people call “God.” He is the only thing that can give us the ecstatic happiness we all long for.

The Christian God certainly does offer ultimate joy and satisfaction to all who desire it. Ps. 16:11 says: “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore.” Our God freely gives eternal joy to those who trust Him for it, and that joy is found in Himself. A relationship with Him provides eternal happiness beyond all imagination. The only true home for the human heart is in Him.

I have read and reread the article by Dr.Timothy Keller on The Centrality of the Gospel.   I hope this excerpt challenges you as it does me every time I read it…

Since Paul uses a metaphor for being “in line” with the gospel, we can consider that gospel renewal occurs when we keep from walking “off-line” either to the right or to the left. The key for thinking out the implications of the gospel is to consider the gospel a “third” way between two mistaken opposites. However, before we start we must realize that the gospel is not a half-way compromise between the two poles–it does not produce “something in the middle”, but something different from both. The gospel critiques both religion and irreligion (Matt.21:31; 22:10).
Tertullian said, “Just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this doctrine of justification is ever crucified between two opposite errors.” Tertullian meant that there were two basic false ways of thinking, each of which “steals” the power and the distinctiveness of the gospel from us by pulling us “off the gospel line” to one side or the other. These two errors are very powerful, because they represent the natural tendency of the human heart and mind. (The gospel is “revealed” by God (Rom.1:17)– the unaided human mind cannot conceive it.) These “thieves” can be called moralism or legalism on the one hand, and hedonism or relativism on the other hand. Another way to put it is: the gospel opposes both religion and irreligion. On the one hand, “moralism/religion” stresses truth without grace, for it says that we must obey the truth in order to be saved. On the other hand, relativists/irreligion” stresses grace without truth, for they say that we are all accepted by God (if there is a God) and we have to decide what is true for us. But “truth” without grace is not really truth, and “grace” without truth is not really grace. Jesus was “full of grace and truth”. Any religion or philosophy of life that de-emphasizes or lose one or the other of these truths, falls into legalism or into license and either way, the joy and power and “release” of the gospel is stolen by one thief or the other.

“I am more sinful and flawed than I ever dared believe” (vs. antinomianism)

“I am more accepted and loved than I ever dared hope” (vs. legalism)

Keller continues later in his article:

A whole new way of seeing God.

But Christians are those who have adopted a whole new system of approach to God.  They may have had both religious phases and irreligious phases in their lives. But they have come to see that their entire reason for both their irreligion and their religion was essentially the same and essentially wrong! Christians come to see that both their sins and their best deeds have all really been ways of avoiding Jesus as savior. They come to see that Christianity is not  fundamentally an invitation to get more religious. A Christian comes to say: “though I have often failed to obey the moral law, the deeper problem was why I was trying to obey it! Even my efforts to obey it has been just a way of seeking to be my own savior. In that mindset, even if I obey or ask for forgiveness, I am really resisting the gospel and setting myself up as Savior.  To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus’ record for a relationship with God. The irreligious don’t repent at all, and the religious only repent of sins. But Christians also repent of their righteousness. That is the distinction between the three groups–Christian, moralists (religious), and pragmatists (irreligious).

There are no ordinary people.  You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal , and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.  But it is immortals whom we joke with , work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn.  We must play.  But our merriment must be of the kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. and our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in sprite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.  Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.  If he is your Christian neighbor, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat - the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

I have some amazing friends!

Anyone in our world who devotes his whole life to seeking heaven will be like Reepicheep. (CS Lewis, Letters to Children)

In the CS Lewis fantasy The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when presented with an opportunity to enjoy a daily king’s feast and stay back from the risk and peril of continuing on to the “World’s End,”  Reepicheep replies:

“My own plans are made.  While I can, I sail east in the Dawn Treader. when she fails me, I paddle  east in my coracle. When she sinks, I shall swim east with my four paws.  And when I can swim no longer, if I have not reached Aslan’s country, or shot over the edge of the world in some vast cataract, I shall sink with my nose to the sunrise…. “

Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. But most of us find it very difficult to want “heaven” at all… (CS Lewis Mere Christianity  120)

Reepicheep…  Small of stature, yet pure in heart.   He was BIG!   His valiant love for God and passion for heaven made up for his smallness.  At the end of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when he saw Aslan’s country in view, he “bade them good-bye, trying to be sad for their sakes; but he was quivering with happiness. ” (CS Lewis, The voyage of the dawn treader.)

Our view of the future will absolutely condition how one lives in the present… Those who have a definite future and see it with clarity live in the present with radically altered values as to what counts and what does not. (Gordon Fee, NICNT I Corinthians 7.29ff))

They do not know the first rule of the holy game, which is that every player must by all means touch the ball and then immediately pass it on. To be found with it in your hand is a fault: to cling to it, death. But when it flies to and fro among the players too swift for eye to follow, and the great master Himself leads the revelry, giving Himself eternally to His creatures in the generation, and back to Himself in the sacrifice, of the Word, then indeed the eternal dance “makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.” CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, page 137

May our lives in this new year be transformed by a clearer view of heaven and a God who demonstrated for us that Joy was the result of giving it all away … and a little more like Reepicheep!

Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in. (CS Lewis, Mere Christianity p 191)

]]> http://www.theforwardlook.com/2009/01/reepicheep/feed/ 4 http://www.theforwardlook.com/2009/01/the-happiness-of-god-jonathan-edwards/ http://www.theforwardlook.com/2009/01/the-happiness-of-god-jonathan-edwards/#comments Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:16:35 +0000 Chris Taylor http://www.theforwardlook.com/?p=233 It is evident by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy; that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature;  or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being. Jonathan Edwards, The End for Which God Created the World

Infinitely, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy!  AND he cannot be profited by OR receive anything from, the creature.

Remember this, that God IS happy, all the time… because His will is always accomplished, and His will is always gloriously good.  May we enter into His joy every day even when we do not understand….

I was reminded of this quote from CS Lewis.

In self-giving, if anywhere, we touch a rhythm not only of all creation but of all being.  For the Eternal Word also gives Himself in sacrifice; and that not only on Calvary. For when he was crucified, He “did that in the wild weather of His outlying provinces which he had done at home in glory and gladness.”  From before the foundation of the world He surrenders begotten Deity back to begetting Deity in obedience. and as the Son glorifies the Father, so also the Father glorifies the Son (John 17.1,4,5)…  From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever…. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature… but simply and solely hell.

They did not know the first rule of the holy game, which is that every player must by all means touch the ball and then immediately pass it on.  To be found with it in  your hands is a fault: to cling to it, death.   But when it flies to and fro among the players too swift for the eye to follow, and the great master Himself leads the revelry, giving Himself eternally to His creatures in the generation, and back to Himself in the sacrifice of the Word, then indeed the eternal dance “makes heaven drowsy with the harmony.” CS Lewis,  The Problem of Pain P 137

Give up your self, and you will find your real self.  Lose your life and you will save it.  Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing.  Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in. CS Lewis,  Mere Christianity. p 191