J.W. Wartick

This tag is associated with 263 posts

The Wheel of Time “Winter’s Heart” and “Crossroads of Twilight” – A Christian Reflection

cot-jordanRobert Jordan’s epic fantasy series, “The Wheel of Time,” has much to reflect upon from a Christian perspective. Here, I’ll be examining books nine and ten, “Winter’s Heart” and “The Crossroads of Twilight.” There are SPOILERS from both books here. Please do not share spoilers from later books for the sake of readers.

Violence and the Sword

In Winter’s Heart, we find that great restrictions are placed on the use of weapons in Far Madding, a city which has great buffers against use of the Power. The question is, does violence cease when weapons are taken away? A guard in the city explains the reasoning:

“No need for any man to defend himself in Far Madding… The Street Guards take care of that. Let any man as wants start carrying a sword, and soon we’d be as bad as everyplace else…” (538)

However, the guardsman apparently was scarred–from some previous conflict. Moreover, the pages preceding this quote and afterwards spoke of how violence continued whenever the Guards were not immediately in sight. Yes, it may have been thwarted to some extent, but people still found ways to fight and murder. How is it that in a place which attempted so much to restrict violence, violence was perpetuated? It seems that it is because people continued to find ways to do violence, despite said restrictions. The world is in need of redeeming from its own self-centeredness and focus on doing harm.

Deism

Perhaps the most lengthy theological discussion which has occurred in The Wheel of Time yet is found in Crossroads of Twilight, as Rand reflects upon the way things are playing out:

Did he think the Creator had decided to stretch out a merciful hand after three thousand years of suffering? The Creator had made the world and then left humankind to make of it what they would, a heaven or the Pit of Doom by their choosing. The Creator had made many worlds, watched each flower or die, and gone on to make endless worlds beyond. A gardener did not weep for each blossom that fell. (558)

The quote speaks to a kind of deism found in The Wheel of Time. The Creator laid down the pattern, which continually repeats throughout history. It weaves as the Creator willed it. But the Dark One continually tries to make the pattern “fall into the shadow.” One wonders, then, whether Rand al’Thor is correct here. After all, the Creator has held off the Dark One from utterly overthrowing the Pattern–perhaps only through setting it up in such a way that it could correct things. But even that much foresight refutes the notion that the Creator would not have cared whatsoever about the suffering of men cursed to insanity.

I look forward to seeing how theology develops in the Wheel of Time as the final battle approaches.

Fatalism

The Pattern itself is something which garners much discussion, and it seems to point to a kind of fatalism found in the beliefs of many in the universe. For example, Perrin has a discussion with an Aes Sedai about how the Pattern weaves in Crossroads of Twilight:

“You are ta’veren, yes, but you still are only a thread in the Pattern, as am I. In the end, even the Dragon Reborn is just at thread to be woven into the Pattern. Not even a ta’veren thread chooses how it will be woven.” [Annoura–the Aes Sedai–said]
“Those threads are people,” Perrin said wearily. “Sometimes maybe people don’t want to be woven into the Pattern without any say.”
“And you think that makes a difference?” Not waiting on an answer she lifted her reins and [galloped off]. (588)

The notion of fatalism is prevalent throughout the series, but one wonders whether it will hold sway. After all, it really does appear as though some people are able to change things for the better or worse, even working against the Pattern (or going outside/beyond it).

Back to Our World

These themes hare found in many discussions outside of the world of fantasy. Is God so distant that we may not approach Him? Are our destinies simply wrapped up in uncaring fate? Can we stop violence by taking away all weapons? These are questions which speak to moral and transcendent spheres of reality, and interaction with them is beneficial. The Christian view would note that the “Creator” in fact cared so much about creation–each individual–that God sent the Son to redeem the world. It’s a powerful message–one which goes beyond that found in the world of fantasy and takes us into a new plane of reality  in which we are redeemed people living in Christ.

We need not worry about fatalism or the possibility of evil overcoming a plan simply wound up and left to unravel. Instead, God intimately cares for and about each individual.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sources

Robert Jordan, Winter’s Heart (New York: Tor, 2000).

Robert Jordan, Crossroads of Twilight (New York: Tor, 2003).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Can Adam be (merely) a federal head?

afos-mrEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Can Adam be (merely) a federal head?

I recently finished reading the thought-provoking book, Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin. One area of interest was an essay examining differing views of Adam. Against the notion that Adam could be a mere federal head for humanity (among many other hominids and humans that existed at the time–a kind of theistic evolutionism), the author wrote:

Adam’s imputed sin has no ontological basis [on this view]. If only Africans and Asians, let us say, are true physical descendants of Adam, God will still impute Adam’s sin to Britons and Americans since Adam was also the federal head of all his contemporaries (among whom would have been their ancestors). This divine decree seems unfair and arbitrary since it is not grounded in an antecedent natural reality. (217, cited below)

I found this to be an argument that could trouble those who hold to Adam as mere federal head (rather than “natural head”–here being used to mean that Adam and Eve were the first of all humans and all are descended from them), but I think a few responses would be possible from the theistic evolutionist perspective. First, one could argue that there need be no grounding in a natural reality for Adam’s federal headship. After all, divine fiat should settle the question! Second, one might instead argue that God’s decree of Adam as federal headship itself just is the ontological basis. That is, there is an ontological basis for the condemnation: God’s decree. Third, one might argue that the federal headship of Adam went alongside the giving of the human soul to Adam and Eve and that the other humans were also given souls with Adam as their federal head. I think other possibilities are possible as well.

What do you think? Does this argument undermine the possibility of theistic evolutionism? Are the possible responses good rebuttals? Are there other possible responses?

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Michael Reeves and Hans Madueme, “Threads in a Seamless Garment: Original Sin in Systematic Theology” in Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin edited Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014).

SDG.

“Leave it to the Early Church”- A Young Earth challenge

3vce-mrIt’s no secret: I consume just about any book I can get my hands on related to the debate over the duration and means of creation within Christianity. Recently, I read through Three Views on Creation and Evolution, part of the Zondervan Counterpoints series. The young earth creationists (John Mark Reynolds and Paul Nelson) in this volume were more even than many I have read, and I appreciated their contribution in many ways and even found myself agreeing with portions of it. However, they did make a few remarkable claims, one of which will be my focus here. Namely, they suggested we leave interpretation of Genesis behind us and just assume the early church got it right.

Here is the quote:

Our advice, therefore, is to leave the issues of biblical chronology and history to a saner period. (100)

Why should we do that, you ask? Well, before offering this advice, Reynolds and Nelson argue:

Whatever the truth of the matter may be in regard to biblical history, we are… least likely to find it. Nothing about the education of most moderns leaves them disposed to be sympathetic to traditional readings of the biblical text… The almost overwhelming temptation is to “trim” [the portions of text which may be hard to swallow]. Suddenly, new ways of reading the text of Scripture are discovered, which to no one’s surprise allow for accommodation between at least some of the reigning paradigms and traditional religion. (99-100)

I find this simply astonishing! There are a number of reasons to reject this entire line of reasoning immediately. First, it is, in effect, poisoning the well. Second, it abandons any notion that new evidence can challenge established traditions. Third, it begs the question. Fourth, it undermines the need for the church to be semper reformanda - always reforming. We’ll examine these briefly in order.

Poisoned Well

The way Nelson and Reynolds present their argument poisons the well against any who would disagree with them. The insinuation is that the only reason anyone would come to a different conclusion is either because they don’t have an “educational” background which allows them to consider traditional readings or because they are in such a hurry to compromise the text to align with science. Although it is certainly possible that many readings come from these motivations, to suggest that we must put a ban on any future looks at the interpretation of Genesis shows the authors seem to think these motivations apply to all novel interpretations.

New Evidence

To put an interpretation of Genesis on an indisputable pedestal and say “that came from a ‘saner’ time and so we must follow it” undermines any possibility for new evidence to challenge established readings. Yet the fruit of research in many areas of biblical interpretation continues to yield great insight into the biblical text. Moreover, to make an interpretation like that indisputable is to perhaps set up stumbling blocks for future generations, who may in good faith find more evidence which challenges that interpretation.

Question Begged

By saying we need to leave the interpretation of Genesis to the past, Reynolds and Nelson have begged the question by assuming this interpretation is correct. In fact, they seem to assume it is so obviously correct that they don’t even bother to defend it. But of course this is not how theology ought to be done. We should not just relegate interpretations to the ecclesial past because we don’t want to face the challenges of today. Rather, we should explore the new evidence and new interpretations to see if they might in fact better match God’s revealed truths. By simply assuming we can leave an interpretation of Genesis as is, Reynolds and Nelson just assert their view is obviously correct without argument.

Semper Reformanda

The notion that the church needs to continually be reforming seems to be correct. When we find truths revealed in God’s natural revelation, we should be prepared to realize this may not align with our established paradigms. We need not reject these discoveries merely because the historical church didn’t know about them. Instead, we should realize that as an imperfect church waiting for our Lord’s return, we may get things wrong. We are always going to need to reform.

Conclusion

Thus, I think that any young earth creationist who simply asserts we must hold to the historic understanding of the text of Genesis is mistaken. Of course, I would also point out that the “historic” understanding is hardly what the modern young earth creationist would believe (such as the duration of the entire universe only lasting 6000 years in order to align with the creation days, etc.), but that is a matter for a different post. For now, it should be acknowledged that we should not just abandon attempts to understand God’s revelation in Genesis.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate- Check out all my posts on the discussion within Christianity over the duration and means of creation.

Source

Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, “Conclusion” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Charismata and Authority of Scripture

occ-ruthvenEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Charismata and the Authority of Scripture

I have been reading through Jon Mark Ruthven’s On the Cessation of the Charismata, a book that is arguing against the position of cessationism. Cessationism is the notion that at least some spiritual gifts–things like healing, prophecy, etc.–mentioned in the New Testament did not continue beyond the New Testament era of the formative church [read more on the various views of spiritual gifts here]. One of the most controversial topics in this debate is the issue of authority. Ruthven is fairly blunt when he considers B.B. Warfield’s rejection of the spiritual gifts. The rejection was based, in part, on:

the implicit attack on the sufficiency of scriptural authority made by those claiming miracles and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit… Such claims [of spiritual gifts]… represented a direct challenge to Protestant religious authority in that it was specifically based upon a closed canon of Scripture. (32, cited below)

Now I have not finished the book, so I’m not sure whether Ruthven would affirm this point. Indeed, he calls this a “polemical” argument against spiritual gifts, so I suspect he’s going to argue that the “continuationist” position–that which affirms spiritual gifts moving into the modern era–does not need to deny the closedness of the canon or affirm a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. I’m looking forward to seeing how his argument proceeds, and whether he will indeed argue against this or affirm the openness of the canon.

What do you think? Do charismata–spiritual gifts–entail this position? If so, how problematic is it? What is your position? I’d love to read your thoughts in the comments.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

“Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?”- A look at four views in Christian Theology- I provide a look at four positions on miraculous/spiritual gifts in contemporary theology.

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Jon Mark Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata (Tulsa, OK: Word & Spirit Press, 2011).

SDG.

Kathy Tyers’ “Firebird Trilogy” – Faith, Humanity, and Conflict in the Far Future

firebird-tyers

Kathy Tyers’ The Annotated Firebird trilogy is an epic space opera spanning several planets as they are embroiled in an interstellar and cultural conflict. Here, I analyze the series from a worldview perspective. On my other site, I have offered a review of the trilogy. There will be SPOILERS in what follows.

Faith in the Future

Throughout the trilogy, faith is front-and-center. The characters come from different faith backgrounds–Firebird is from a culture that worships the Nine “Powers”- essentially deified character traits; Brennan is from a people of exiles who have psychic powers and look to a coming Messiah from his line; others have no religious affiliation. This sets up a way to generate conflict among the characters but also have development.

Firebird is confronted by the notion that the “Powers” she worships are ultimately impersonal and thus seemingly without any power. Moreover, she is intrigued by  a system which is not based upon what she does but rather on the grace of a Holy God. It is a struggle throughout her conversion to accept this notion–that she herself does not need to do anything to earn her salvation. Her path of faith is one that is extremely interesting because it shows how the Christian worldview can come into dialogue with other religious traditions on a number of levels–on the level of salvation/soteriology; on the level of deity; and on many other levels.

Brennan’s walk of faith is quite different as he was raised a believer. His character’s viewpoint is filled with brief prayers to the “Singer”–a primary name for deity in the book. These asides never throw off the pace of the book but rather offer ways for the readers to engage in the genuine faith of the characters therein. It’s also a call to believers to take their own faith lives more seriously. How often do we offer a brief prayer over some issue or of thanks throughout the day? How might we integrate our faith better in our daily walk?

Overall, the picture of faith in the Firebird trilogy is one that expects truth in religious belief as well as evidence, confronts rival views in a compassionate way, and is lived out.

Humans who are “Waste”?

Another major theme in the trilogy is that of human lives and the way they are often deemed waste. Firebird’s society is run by a monarchy and nobility which dominates all life and expects to be viewed as ruling with divine right. This is used as an excuse for devaluing the lower classes. Moreover, Firebird herself is considered a “Wastling”- one who is far enough back in succession that they are dedicated to serve until they die in combat or commit an ordered suicide because they are no longer deemed useful.

This is, of course, an unjust state of affairs. It is one that must be confronted on a systemic level, and this is only beginning when the trilogy wraps up. However, I think the reader cannot help but reflect upon the notion that in our own society, we treat some people like “wastlings” to be discarded as unneeded and unwanted. We do not value human life as we should–as created in the image of God.

Another aspect of this devaluing of life is found in the society of the Shuhr–a people who are the radical offshoot from Brennan’s own society. They practice genetic cloning and seek to make themselves immortal. The way they pursue this is through the creation and mutilation of embryos. Frankly, this disrespect of human life is little different from our own society’s, which allows for the murder of the unborn on demand. By putting this theme into science fiction, Tyers confronts our own worldview in a dramatic fashion.

Brief Autobiographical Note

Permit me a brief autobiographical aside:

I remember when I was younger–probably about 12 years old–shopping a table at a book sale that was going on in the parish hall at my church. I saw the cover of this book that looked like science fiction and reminded me of Star Wars. I had to have it! There were three of them, a trilogy! I begged my parents and with some extra chores loaded on I received the books.

I devoured them almost instantly, used Legos to try to build spaceships from them. I went to a Christian bookstore and demanded more science fiction from the author. The bewildered staff searched in vain to find anything else from Kathy Tyers. Without any more to read, I forgot the author but the trilogy entered that hallowed place of unassailable nostalgic bliss that we create in our childhood.

Then, when I saw a newly released edition with notes from the author pop up in my recommendations on Amazon, I was instantly intrigued. Lo and behold, sequels were on the way! I purchased the trilogy again, but didn’t read it, fearful I would penetrate that nostalgic bubble and perhaps discover the series wasn’t as amazing as I’d hoped. Finally, after over a year of owning the book, I opened it up, read it, and now offered this look at the series. Check out my review of the book on my other interests site.

Conclusion

The Annotated Firebird is an excellent edition to pick up in order to experience the whole Firebird trilogy. It is a series which resonates strongly with the Christian worldview, but more importantly it does so without ever compromising on the story, world-building, or characters. Tyers has created a masterpiece.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Microview: “The Annotated Firebird Trilogy” by Kathy Tyers- I review the trilogy with a brief look at the plot and some positives and negatives in the book.

Popular Books- Check out my looks into other popular books (scroll down for more).

Source

Kathy Tyers, The Annotated Firebird (Colorado Springs, CO: Marcher Lord [Enclave], 2011).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- An Eclectic Dialogue Between Christianity and Science

afos-mrEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

An Eclectic Dialogue Between Christianity and Science

I recently finished reading Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin, a series of essays from a variety of authors on these highly important subjects. There are a number of excellent articles in this work, and I highly recommend it. One great quote from the book was about Christianity and science and the way to integrate them:

[W]hy should we choose sides [between science and Christianity]? Theology should be eclectic in how it engages with science. Christians should engage scientific theories on a case-by-case basis. Different theories will invite different attitudes and responses (sometimes dialogue, sometimes conflict, sometimes independence, and so on)… This is partly because Scripture does not usually answer our scientific questions and partly because scientific claims are by nature revisable. (243-244, cited below)

I found this an enormously helpful quote and approach because I think too often Christians and non-Christians act as though “science” is this homogeneous whole, and that “Christianity” is itself a single entire unit. But realistically, this is not at all the case. Different theories and different theological points have their own spheres of influence and should be approached individually in order to see how they might overlap.

What are your thoughts? Is this a helpful way to view the religious and scientific dialogue?

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin edited Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014).

SDG.

“A Crown of Swords” and “The Path of Daggers”- A Christian Reflection on the Wheel of Time

path-of-daggersRobert Jordan’s epic fantasy series, “The Wheel of Time,” has much to reflect upon from a Christian perspective. Here, I’ll be examining books seven and eight, “A Crown of Swords” and “The Path of Daggers.” There are minor SPOILERS from both books here. Please do not share spoilers from later books for the sake of readers.

Men and Women

Throughout both books–and indeed the entire series–there is an undercurrent from many characters that “men always ____” or “women always ____.” What is interesting is that Jordan frequently flips these phrases around so that men are saying women are impossible to understand, but women then turn around and say the same about men. There is parallelism here which I believe was intentional.

The notion that there is a kind of “gender essentialism” is one which, unfortunately, is frequently pushed in Christian communities. I’m not saying at all there is no such thing as distinct genders; rather, my point is that what we conceive of as being gendered is often not the case at all. I actually found myself jarred at times when the women in the Wheel of Time novels would complain about the men being “impossible” or “gossipy”–after all, is that not what women are generally conceived as? But of course these patterns of behavior are not essential to male or female but rather aspects of personalities. Thus, it seems Jordan has a streak of feminist thought running through his works, though it is at times very subtle and even concealed. His writing speaks to the absurdity of labeling all people of one gender or the other as acting in specific, deterministic ways.

In the Service of…

Another concept which frequently occurs throughout these books is that there is complexity to relationships and loyalties particularly concerning evil or “The Dark One.” Many of the Forsaken follow after their own ends, to the point in which they frequently oppose each other, which itself seems to work against the will and ends of “The Dark One.”

Thus, it seems that for “The Wheel of Time” the service of evil is ultimately an irrational end which leads to chaos and disorder. It moves against the Pattern–the idea that there is a unity of time which continues to be woven together to make reality–and it also ultimately seeks to defeat itself just as much as it fights against the forces of the Light.

Belief, Evil, and Pragmatism

At one point in The Path of Daggers, Rand is surveying his arrayed forces and he considers their loyalty (and lack thereof). But in this considering, he notes:

they feared him [Rand] far more than they did the Aiel. Maybe more than they did the Dark One, in whom some did not really believe… (327-328)

The people, it seems, were more concerned with firmly holding their own wealth or gaining positions of authority and power than they were with the true evil which threatened the world. Unconvinced by the coming tribulation, they instead sought favor from the most powerful man in the world. The condition, it seems, is one which mirrors our own at points. Rather than being concerned with evil facing our world, or rather than fighting injustice, people are obsessed with gain that cannot be carried over across death and the grave. The true powers which threaten the world are left to expand and strengthen,while people seek their own gain.

It is a kind of pragmatism which infects us: injustice is “over there” and we are “right here,” so why be concerned with it? The notion that there is a spiritual realm with any sort of power is shrugged off, ignored, or even scorned as ancient superstition, unworthy of concern. Like the people who surround Rand in the book, we convince ourselves that evil has no power in the world and “[the Dark One”] could [not] and would [not] touch the world harder than he had already (328).

Conclusion

There is much to consider throughout the “Wheel of Time” series. Fantasy resonates with reality in sometimes tangible ways, as anyone who reads fiction frequently knows. How do you approach books from a worldview perspective? What do you think of the themes above, and what others have I not discussed from these two books?

I will be writing on later books in the series when able. Until then, I covet your thoughts!

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Desecrating Creation’s Holy Ground?

pecEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Desecrating Creation’s Holy Ground?

I recently read through Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, a book of essays centered around defending theistic evolutionism. I think it is important to read books from several different perspectives in order to test them and keep the good. I came upon an interesting quote in one of the essays on caring for creation:

For those who can see creation glorifying God there is an opportunity to get a glimpse of “his eternal power and divine nature” (Romans 1:20, NRSV) in the things he has made. Genesis presents the entire creation as a cosmic sanctuary where the Creator is present, glorified, and to be worshipped… If creation is God’s sanctuary, then when we desecrate creation for our short-term needs, we are desecrating holy ground. (Braaten, 422-423, cited below)

The notion that creation is God’s temple or sanctuary is one found in numerous studies on Genesis and its context. I find it to be a very appropriate way to envision creation as God’s ordered cosmos. I had not, however, thought of creation care in these terms. It seems to me to be correct, however. After all, if we really believe that all of creation is God’s temple, then the unwarranted and often greedy molestation of creation for monetary or other short-term gain is a molestation of God’s holy ground. It is a desecration.

How might we better approach creation and care for it as we have been charged to do? That is a difficult question–one I and others have explored elsewhere. However, I think it is time we as Christians stop ignoring the issues of caring for creation. We need to stand against the desecration of God’s temple.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Caring for Creation: A discussion among evangelicals- I write about creation care from a number of perspectives offered at a recent panel of prominent evangelical thinkers in this area.

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Laurie Braaten, “May the Glory of the Lord Endure Forever! Biblical Reflections on Creation Care” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited Keith Miller (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003).

SDG.

Sunday Quote!- Bonhoeffer on the Abuse of Grace

dietrich_bonhoefferEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

The Abuse of Grace

The life of a Christian is not easy, and many pitfalls remain in our path as we walk along the narrow way. One difficulty that is particularly acute is the problem of falling into taking grace for granted. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister martyred by the Nazis in World War II, has powerful words about this:

Is there a more diabolical abuse of grace than to sin and rely on the grace which God has given? (52, cited below)

As Christians, we need always be aware of the danger of thinking we can sin freely because of God’s grace. Bonhoeffer was of course aware of Luther’s oft-abused and taken out of context phrase, “Sin Boldly.” He commented:

For Luther, “sin boldly” could only be his very last refuge, the consolation for one whose attempts to follow Christ had taught him that he can never become sinless, who in his fear of sin despairs of the grace of God. (ibid)

Knowing that God is graceful, we can be confident that our stumbles will not condemn us; however, we must always be wary lest we begin to blaspheme against God’s grace by taking it for granted. Bonhoeffer’s work, The Cost of Discipleship, is as powerful as ever. I suggest you read it.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). First edition 1959 published by SCM Press, Ltd.

SDG.

Handel’s “Messiah” as Apologetic

hmcgp-stapert“I should be sorry if I only entertained them [the audience], I wish to make them better.” – Handel 

Handel’s “Messiah” is one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed. It has been performed constantly since he wrote it. There is no doubting the enduring popularity of the piece and the way it brings comfort to God’s people. It is often played during the Christmas or Advent seasons and has become a way for many to hear the message of Christ during this time.

One aspect that is not often explored, however, is the way the piece may be seen as an apologetic for Christianity. Calvin Stapert, in his work on the piece, Handel’s Messiah: Comfort for God’s People, notes how the work was written in part as apologetic. The biblical selections which were put together to form the lyrics of the performance were selected by Charles Jennens, whose brother had committed suicide during some doubt-inducing talks with a famous deist (77-78, cited below).

Moreover, Christian apologists during this time–during the height of Enlightenment–were beginning to realize that simply making arguments from natural revelation or reason alone was in some way to not engage with the Deists who were at large. After all, Deists could agree God existed. The question was which God and whether God was personal. So although the arguments of natural theology were helpful, they could not do all the work on their own, and Christian apologists set about the task of proving Christianity through the Scriptures (75-77).

By simply putting forth a different narrative than that of the Deists, Handel and Jennens challenged the notion that God was impersonal. Moreover, they pressed home the need for a savior due to our own futile raging against God. The beauty of he piece serves to enhance its apologetic narrative, making it entice the heater to keep listening. The music forges links between the notion of he need for a savior and the Incarnate Son.

The Messiah, then, is part of this project. It is a story of prophecy and the way that God sent the Son into the world, incarnate in the flesh, to bring about salvation. It is a masterful interweaving of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment. More than that, it is an apologetic voice in the wilderness.

Source

Calvin Stapert, Handel’s Messiah: Comfort for God’s People (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews- There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy

 

 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,584 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,584 other followers