June 11 2009—Obama and King Solomon

I am so not feeling well. On top of losing my job at Starbucks—the gayest job in this world's existence—I have this sickness of a stifling nose. I'm schlepping to my bed. Ha! What a word. It was this morning's word-of-the-day in The Free Dictionary website. It's a verb and it means to carry clumsily or with difficulty, in this case, my own body. Ugh! I hate being sick. Every time I turn on this stupid fan, my nose gets this way—every single time! On a different note, I read in the Old Covenant Scriptures about the wisdom of Solomon—no, not the book—and how he dealt with issues, issues he explicated, dialogues he gave. Everyone in the text seemed—no, they did—to come to hear him speak at every occasion. There was something that clearly smacked me in my proverbial face: President Barack Obama. Now I'm not going to equivocate the wisdom of Solomon with that of the current president, but there is correlative significance with the media's incessant accolade of Obama's rhetoric and the Old Covenant community's adoration to hear Solomon speak.

I honestly believe that people today would, if they are Christians or idealists, would see Obama in this light. I can't remember how many articles I leaf through that exude this attitude in Newsweek and the LA Times daily news—the quipped "news that's fit to print."

June 6th, 2009—Musings and Devotion

Something had occurred to me as I was reading Scripture—I love writing that as if I do it all the time. I noticed the times that Old Testament saints and the not-so-saintly, when they sacrificed offerings of whatever kind it was always in connection to the res significado (I think that's the right word)—the thing signified. Even in the times that God revealed through the prophets his will to the people he made it explicitly clear that the heart in connection with the thing is desired more for proper piety. This occurred to me as I was reading the story of David's last days in 1 Kings 1:1-53, found in the ESV One Year Bible, June 6.

---

On another note, these past two days were on "what's in a name" theology. Joel McDurmon, a writer for American Vision, has recently published an article called Blasphemy and Freedom. And in that article the author describes what can only be described as a proper delineation of name-ology. However in this article I think the author really just intends to outline a Christian attitude in invoking the name of God. He writes, "At the bottom of all, is the foundation of allegiance to God; and the commandment does not forbid swearing period, but swearing in vain. Bearing God's name in truth—not in vain, but in truth—is the bedrock of religion and therefore of social health." I was really surprised to read that last part. How could bearing God's name be the bedrock of social health? Musing over this issue, I began to see its reality as I remembered today's reading in 1 Kings. But before I scribe down everything I read this morning, I found the dialog between Romeo and Juliet—a dialog that Mr. McDurmon duly notes in relation to God's name—appropriate.

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and refuse thy name;

Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,

And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

…which was her surname. Romeo mumbles to himself, listens on; Juliet continues:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s a Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

This short dialog, I think, properly notes the nimbleness of extolling the vacuity of names. Even at certain times I would find this a valid expression, but, of course, this is due to the current situation in post-modernity. Much is given sway to the meaningfulness of anything, including names. However, in the Scriptures, a lot is given to the dutiful lauding—and duly rueful deprecation—of names. To give one example, God in his New Covenant had throughout eternity decided to judge men under the name Jesus. I think the primary reason for doing that is largely due to God's insistence of meaning behind names. The author again writes, "The concept of 'God's name' so closely pertains to His Being and Nature that any affront to any of God’s attributes is subsumed under the very mention of His name." So closely related to are the designations and imaginations of names subsumed under a person's character, office, piety, justice, etc., that no characterization can be made apart from the name. On any note, such were the musings of this morning. Blessing in the Trinity.

Further Notes on Ecclesiology

I haven't written in a while, and frankly, I've been neglecting most of readings in systematic theology. More recent works on covenant theology have occupied my mind, though my readings in the area are scarce. Taking a break from these readings, I've been able to have a more concentrated effort for my faith personally. I've also been concentrated in Biblical theology so that I wouldn't necessarily become "system-minded" instead by being driven from the Biblical data. I've recently had a conversation with a good friend a while back on the subject of being too abstract. Don't get me wrong, I love being abstract. But maybe this is perhaps the stoicism that I need to correct in my life. The reason I have that tendency is due primarily to the anti-intellectual character of modern evangelicals. Frankly I can't stand it. Maybe that's what leads me to become stoic sometimes. More to come. I'm reading Frame's Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology and finishing Edmund Clowney's book on the Church. I think it's going to take a little longer to finish M. Scott Horton's book, People & Place.  

New Outline for Body of Divinity 4

THESIS: In order to understand proper theology (and more tentatively the theology of the Church), one must understand the current philosophical, theological, and social climate of the Church.

PROVING MY THESIS: There are roughly three avenues that the church has her influence in the particular existentialism: from the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard.

---

In this installment I want to focus on how the philosophy of Existentialism has affected the Church in its thinking patterns of theology, and ultimately in its effects on the social order.

Kierkegaard's three stories:

1. Philosophy

2. Theology

3. Social influence

This is basically the pattern that Francis Schaeffer follows in his works, but more specifically in The God Who is There. What does the idea of subjectivity and Søren Kierkegaard do for the Christian, why and did he make it so pointedly subjective? A little history lesson before I go is in order. According to Colin Brown, professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Kierkegaard was a very controversial man amid philosophical idealism (Hegel). He was never a fan of the organized church—he even refused to take communion on his deathbed. (His very notion of autonomy and self-analytics is seen in his death bed.) It is no wonder that so many Christians who have no record of studying this man echo his philosophy to the crossing of the "t" and the dotting of the "i."

His idea of knowing God is not as important to him as just the mere thought that God exists. For instance, one need only experience of the story of the Wizard of Oz. The Tin Man's belief that the Wizard existed did not matter whether or not he actually existed, only that he existed in the mind of the Tin Man. Since faith and reason are pitted against each other, it isn't so much how you think about something—in our case, God. It's what you do with that belief: in the case of our three pedestrians, the journey.

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Calvin, Zwingli and others for the sake of saving the Word rejected all art; Luther, with an equal concern for the Word, but far more conservative, would have all the arts to be the servants of the Gospel."

I don't know if I want to agree here, but it seems like the writer here seems to say that Calvin himself left no room for art. I don't believe this is entirely true. Such a statement would make any Calvinist want to side with Luther, if he or she is inclined to the humanities, i.e., the arts. I know for me that I love to study Renaissance art and its impact on history. When I read Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, I didn't get the idea that all pictorial forms are sinful. I think this is just a disingenuous critique of Calvin's interpretation of the Decalogue by calling him a radical, much like Andreas Karlstadt and the peasant wars of Germany.

Vlogging and Its Relationship to Reading

    So here I am, at home bored wondering what to write. I just saw the Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 and I must say that I was impressed. I just bought it, and I can't wait to open it and begin blogging (or should I say Vlogging). I have so much research done and some research that I am doing. Unfortunately the camera that I current have in my possession is not mine…and currently isn't working with my OS (Vista Business, 64-Bit). There is something of an unrelated point that I am going to bring up here, and that is the very nature of vlogging—again with my philosophical slant. People naturally are not impressed anymore with reading blogs, and there is reason or reasons for that. Most people who don't know how to write or are not experienced in polemics (i.e., dialectical training) have a tendency to equivocate and be misunderstood. This is a very significant problem and poorly evaluated by opponents. For instance, some of my readers tend to misunderstand me when I argue in favor of Christian Theism and, say, not in favor of general theism—much like the debate that took place between Bertrand Russell and Copelstone (a priest), whose definition brought a concession among many atheists and evangelicals (the definition has even defined the debate for many years). Now, the problem isn't that I haven't had training, but that people can be taken the wrong way in their writing. (I don't want to appear like some high-minded intellectual either, having all the sufficient arguments and have some sort of apex in knowledge. I would like to stress, however, that I am confident in my endeavors via my epistemic—much like Cornelius Van Til wrote in a short pamphlet called Why I Believe in God.) The other problem is seen ardently in people's short attention span in logic, reasoning and all other intellectual endeavors. Anything that has a tendency to be somewhat cerebral, people either get lost or have a much easier time looking at the person speak rather than reading a laborious blog. On the other hand, people just don't like reading something really long and would rather see something being pontificated at them. In fact, when the eye does not have the sufficient temerity—for instance, the eye muscles are not that well developed by the due exercise of reading—the person tends to skim the person's ideas and misreads them in the process. In any case, using a webcam will actually be a pragmatic move on my part—though I don't think that my appearance will be that helpful.

    For those of you that have a similar problem with "reading" blogs the way I have described, I highly suggest books on the blogosphere and how to read. I have in my possession one of the best books on reading. It is called How to Read a Book, by Adler Mortimer & Doren. It is par excellence in the intellectual field of reading and mapping out ideas.

^[1] Notice that I do not use the lower case "t" for theism. I want to be very specific when I speak for theism contrasted with those who favor general theism. Among them is William Lane Craig and the said Copelstone.

Body of Divinity 3

In attempting to formulate a proper illustration that coalesce proper church government and a compulsory--and normative--obligation for church attendance, I was bemoaned to find one. However important it was for me to find a suitable illustration, Calvin's Geneva looked like a Republic, respectively. And that being the case I sought to find a political jeremiad, like the current state of the economy, and relate it to the current state of Christian theism and her view of the Church. Unfortunately, many imbibe a sort of existential view of the church in its current malaise. There are more citations of Sartre (in philosophy) and Kierkegaard (theology) than there is of Christ in the Church. Calvin, too, bemoans this in his Institutes; if it was found in his day, it most certainly will be found in ours. Christians think more of their outlook than their theology; and if they do think of their theology, it is bereft of a proper theology of God as a Covenant Lord—yes, I didn't misspell it by adding the article "a"—and the theology of the Church. In evaluating the current state of the Church, we then must churn (or postulate with the proper Biblical data) a proper view of those two ideas.

Christians today hardly have an acquired knowledge of philosophy, so I will have to do some defining without too long a respite (or taking too much time in defining all my terms and ideas).

Herman Bavinck, best known for his voluminous Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Eng. "Reformed Dogmatics") in four volumes, wrote a compendium of that work in brief form. The title of that work is called Our Reasonable Faith which he published in 1909 under the title The Wonderful Works of God. The content of that work seems to be concentric to a Jesucentric theology, meaning it is surrounded around Christ and Redemption. Having browsed only in cursory detail, after he deals with the Christian doctrine of sanctification he outlines his doctrine of the church by which the Christian receives the benefits of Salvation and all that follows it. In his short volume, he surveys and properly shows that the Christian, to be called a Christian, must unite himself to her (the Church); in other words, one cannot be duly called a Christian without belonging to the Mother Church. He also notes that like a natural birth, one needs a father and a mother. In the same manner, the state of the Christian as a Christian (Christian qua Christian) contains anthropologic faculties, like the one stated above: God is Father and the Church is the Mother. My apparent dilemma surrounded not the benefits of salvation and the Church but the necessary binding of the Christian to its mother, the Church. However, in this climate of intellectual promiscuity—also called thus by me in a letter called "A Public Letter to the Christian Church: Intellectual Promiscuity"—the church has largely forgot her place in this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). This is the outline or preliminary course, the reason for writing this, of the beginning of my Body of Divinity. Many notables in theology have already taken this stand in the public arena, like Dr. M. Horton, professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California, Professor R. Scott Clark who is author of Recovering the Reformed Confession. I only hope that this serves as a private attempt to correct many in the Christian community to forsake her existential philosophy in religion and begin thinking in more Reformed ways, that is, that a true and systematic theology is a biblical one. (In fact, Iwould treat the terms Reformed and biblical almost synonymous, since they imply each other.)

Francis Schaeffer wrote in his The God Who is There that existential philosophy entered into religious thought after the modernism of Immanuel Kant. How that affects the Church as a structure impacts many areas of theology, more specifically in the area of Justification and Law (see Horton, Christless Christianity, chapter 3). For instance, Horton notes that the idea of Law and gospel have become so equivocal that deeds are often mistaken for gospel, and vice-versa: All A is B and all B is A. This is just bad logic:

P1. All horses have four legs.

P2. Therefore, all four legged creatures are horses?

Is this really the thinking of contemporary theology (religion)? In similar parlance (or manner in speaking), people who belong or belonged to the church would think like this: All of life is worship; therefore going to church is similar to an everyday occurrence of worship. Though in some qualitative sense it is true that going to church is worship and that all days in the Christian life is worship, there is a difference. However, this same logic of equivocation is pervasive in the thinking of modern Christians. This equivocation has produced an amassed pessimism in the church and a call for existentialism. This pessimism is seen under a two-story approach; Schaeffer called it "the line of despair."

RATIONAL = CRITICAL (PESSIMISM)

SPIRITUAL EXISTENTIAL = LEAP OF FAITH (OPTIMISM)

Those who deny the Reformed view of the church typically fall under these two categories. Which really shocks me is that those who claim the upper story tend to lend their ears to a formal lower story: "I am the church; ergo, I don't need the church." Do you see the equivocation here? One affirms "the church in themselves" (step 1) and in effect denies the church (step 2) by the end of the syllogism. The Christian cannot even begin to define his or her "Christian-ness" without falling into the sea of skepticism, the upper story. So what does the Christian do? He falls into the sea of existential thought. Somewhere along the line we stopped doing Biblical-exegetical thinking. We have forgotten the Lord who instituted the Church, the sacraments, church discipline in Paul's writing, etc. These means of grace are now seen under this two-story approach, i.e., it is either a rational matter (critical pessimism) or an existential matter (naïve optimism).