JOLLYBLOGGER

Self-Pity as Narcotic

I gotta agree with David Powlison here:

“Feeling sorry for yourself is one of the strongest, most addictive narcotics known to man. It feels so good to feel so bad. Self-pity arises so easily, seems so plausible, and proves so hard to shake off.”

Sadly, the reason I agree with this is that I know it well from personal experience.

The Passion of Christianity

Here's Oswald Chambers from today:

The passion of Christianity is that I deliberately sign away my own rights and become a bond-slave of Jesus Christ. Until I do that, I do not begin to be a saint.

Oswald Chambers on Being Saved by Christ

I've told the story before of the man who asked a minister whether or not we are saved by works or by faith.  To which the minister replied, "neither, we are saved by Christ."   Here's a few words from Oswald Chambers along the same lines.

I am not saved by believing— I simply realize I am saved by believing. And it is not repentance that saves me— repentance is only the sign that I realize what God has done through Christ Jesus. The danger here is putting the emphasis on the effect, instead of on the cause. Is it my obedience, consecration, and dedication that make me right with God? It is never that! I am made right with God because, prior to all of that, Christ died. When I turn to God and by belief accept what God reveals, the miraculous atonement by the Cross of Christ instantly places me into a right relationship with God. And as a result of the supernatural miracle of God’s grace I stand justified, not because I am sorry for my sin, or because I have repented, but because of what Jesus has done. The Spirit of God brings justification with a shattering, radiant light, and I know that I am saved, even though I don’t know how it was accomplished.

The Roots of Our Evangelical Anxieties

I am now contributing to a new group blog called Evangel.  It's an evangelical presence hosted by the Catholic periodical First Things.  I don't know how much I'll post there but I'll try to cross-post here when I do.

Here's the first post I did for them, under a new title with a couple of little modifications.  There was a wee bit of discussion over there which you can follow if you care to. 

Here's my topic/question for discussion?

Are some of the hottest issues in evangelicalism today rooted in long standing anxieties over our loss of privilege and status as described by Ann Douglas in her book "The Feminization of American Culture (Google Books/Amazon)."

I wanted to discuss this because 1) I'm reading the book right now and am finding it terribly interesting and stimulating, and 2)  I assume, or at least hope, that some of the other contributors to this blog are more familiar with Douglas than I and thus can correct/enhance our understanding of the issues she raises. If any of you are familiar with scholarly responses to Douglas, how well accepted is her thesis?  She wrote back in the 70's so I hope I'm not basing too much on either an out of date or discredited thesis.  Assuming for now this is not the case I'll proceed.

To introduce this, here are some of her words on the loss of the intellectual rigor of the Calvinistic tradition in favor of an obsession with popularity in society. 

A Great Summary of Gospel Ministry

There is so much right with this quote in so many ways . . .

We declare what has been accomplished, not what we would like to be accomplished.

It's on a live blog of the Desiring God National Conference for a talk by Doug Wilson.  Gospel ministry is all about what Christ has accomplished, yet it seems to me that most of what passes for life and ministry in the church is focused on what we would like to be accomplished, hence we miss Christ.

Of course I suppose you could argue that it is permissible, even necessary to discuss what could/should be accomplished based on what has been accomplished.  But it would help if we discussed this in reference to what Christ would like to accomplish, and then make sure we limit ourselves in this regard to what is revealed in the Word, to keep our own imaginations out of it. 

And of course there is one thing yet for Christ to accomplish - the second coming and the bringing in of the new heavens and new earth.

Paul the Supreme Libertarian

The following is lifted from "The Confessional Outhouse."   I was able to chase down the citation - it is from F. F. Bruce's "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free" (Amazon/Google Books), p. 189.  Note Bruce's words on what Paul "insisted" on.  He insisted that our lives be governed by the law of love, not "prudential rules and regulations."  Does this lead to antinomianism, to liscentiousness?  Bruce implies that moralists of his day and ours would say yes, but that Paul would say no.

“This insistence on the law of love, instead of prudential rules and regulations, was felt by many of Paul’s Christian contemporaries to come unrealistically near to encouraging moral indifferentism; and many Christians since his day have shared their sentiments. But, unlike Paul’s contemporary critics, Christian moralists since Paul’s day have tended to hold that, in insisting on prudential rules and regulations, they are following the implications of his teaching, if not his express judgments. But we should appreciate that Paul conforms no more to the conventions of religious people today than he conformed to the conventions of religious people around A.D. 50; it is best to let Paul be Paul. And when we do that, we shall recognize in him the supreme libertarian, the great herald of Christian freedom, insisting that man in Christ has reached his spiritual majority and must no longer be confined to the leading-strings of infancy but enjoy the birthright of the freeborn sons of God. Here if anywhere Luther entered into the mind of Paul: “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” “Subject to none” in respect of his liberty; “subject to all” in respect of his charity. This, for Paul, is the law of Christ because this was the way of Christ. And in this way, for Paul, the divine purpose underlying Moses’ law is vindicated and accomplished.”

The Earthly City is Ruled By It's Lust of Rule

I started reading/listening to Augustine's City of God today - we'll see how far I go with it as it is a daunting book to read. 

At the beginning, in the preface, Augustine makes the following comment about the earthly city.

we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.

I've got a discussion here of power in human relationships and I make the following reference to Genesis 3:16 which I believe offers a pretty good paradigm for understanding the dynamics involved in relational breakdown, on a large and small scale.

5. The first discussion of the use of power in a human to human sense is in Genesis 3:16, where Eve is told:

Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

In this passage the "desire" which Eve will have for her husband is a desire to control. The word for "desire" here is used in Genesis 4:7 of sin's desire to "have" Cain. This desire is not a benevolent desire, it is the original "will to power." So, Eve will desire to control her husband and the husband will "rule" over her. Again, because this is in the context of the fall, it is difficult to see this desire to rule on the part of the man as being a benevolent desire. It seems to be more of a desire to conquer the woman.

Again, my point is not that the exercise of power in human relationships is always in and of itself sinful. But we must keep in mind that the fall introduced a kind of desire for power that is tyrannical and despotic by nature.

Augustine seems to back this up, and this offers all kinds of implications for life, particularly our public life.  If Augustine is correct then the rules of the game for the world center around a lust for rule.  As such, when Christians try to influence the powers and authorities of our world, at least those on a human scale, we've got to realize they play by a set of rules that are foreign to the Christian (i.e. the Christian's identity is that of servant, not ruler Phil. 2:5ff).  We have to be careful to not think we can adopt their presuppositions, their ways and their "rules of the game," and then think we'll be able to persuade them to change all of that.  We also have to understand that if we are faithful to our own presuppositions, ways and "rules of the game" we'll be largely unintelligible to them. 

Oswald Chambers on Sin as "Disposition"

This is the quote/explanation I have been looking for!  In trying to explain the concept of sin to people I've looked for a short explanation which best sums up the nature of sin.  I've never been quite happy with the standard explanations of the nature of sin because they usually somehow make their way to the idea that sin is something you do.

In my overeagerness to counter that I have sometimes thought that sin is something you are, not that you do, but that's not right either.  We "are" not sin - we are image bearers.  So the definition of sin falls somewhere in between or outside of those two things and I think Oswald Chambers nails it here - this is from the October 5 reading in "My Utmost for His Highest." 

The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of selfrealization—I am my own god (italics mine). This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself. When Our Lord faced men with all the forces of evil in them, and men who were clean living and moral and upright, He did not pay any attention to the moral degradation of.the one or to the moral attainment of the other; He looked at something we do not see, viz., the disposition.

Interestingly, in the rest of the reading for the day I think he is pretty weak on the concept of original sin, but I think he is right on in these words. I've always thought that one of the best bible verses for explaining the concept of sin is Luke 19:14:

19:14 But his citizens​ hated​​ him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man​​ to be king​​ over us!’ 

In that light I think Chambers nails it.

The True Israelite is a Man of Peace Even in the Midst of Battle

There has been an exchange going on between Joe Carter and a few other blogs and commenters on the present state of conservatism centered around this post.  I'd encourage all of you to read that for some good thoughts on the state of modern conservatism, but for now I'd call your attention to this comment on the trouble with inflammatory rhetoric.  This is a good caution/warning for all who are passionate about their cause, whether it be a spiritual, ecclesiastical, political or any other cause:

A more formal, serious tone is (at least in my opinion) appropriate for serious matters. Accusations may be emotionally satisfying to us when we are troubled and even frightened with the way matters of state are tending but violent speech can have very serious, unintended consequences. The greater the danger, the more we need clear thinking, a “steady hand at the helm”. A passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux makes an impression: “When the battle is at hand … They think not of glory and seek to be formidable rather than flamboyant. At the same time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but soberly, prudently and providently drawn up into orderly ranks, as we read of the fathers. Indeed the true Israelite is a man of peace, even when he goes forth to battle.” If there are times when inflammatory rhetoric presents no great danger, that time is not now. Setting one unsettled mind afire is all that it takes; that spark can be the beginning of a conflagration.

Be Careful About Saying "That's of the Devil"

I'm reading Craig Blomberg on heresy this morning (HT - City of God) and am only on the second or third page of the article, but wanted to stop and take a break to quote something that I find of interest.

It's not uncommon, or at least it hasn't been in the circles I have run in to hear people saying that certain things are of the devil.  Blomberg offers a pretty good warning/caution about such declarations here:

Portraying perhaps the harshest interchange between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in all the Synoptics, Mark 3:22–30 and parallels depict cer- tain scribes who accuse Jesus of exorcising by the power of the devil. After pointing out how self-defeating this would be, Jesus in turn implies that his accusers come perilously close to committing an unforgivable sin—blas- pheming against the Holy Spirit. The context enables us to define this sin fairly precisely as being so out of touch with the true God of the universe as to attribute patently obviously divine manifestations to the power of God’s arch-enemy. This exchange should make us extraordinarily cautious about using the language of diabolical influence on a fellow Christian, since to do so mistakenly places us in the identical position of those Jesus warned against unforgivable blasphemy (Italics mine). 

This is not to say that the devil has no influence in the world today, it's just a fair caution not to play fast and loose with our rhetoric.