Handmade Heidelberg Catechism from The Purple Carrot (review)

Heidelberg Catechism, with Scripture Proof Texts
I received this item from The Purple Carrot for review
purposes.  It’s a handcrafted Heidelberg
Catechism.  The cover in front and back
is hard, like a hardback book, but with a sewn-on cover that you can get in a
number of different patterns.  It has a
binding that I think you’d call stitched or sewn.  I don’t know a lot about book binding.  But I would think that the nice thing about
this kind of binding, besides its aesthetic value, is that it seems to be able
to open and close and lay very flat without stressing the binding much at all.  It seems like it would be quite durable and
stand up to some use. 

That durability would be very nice for a piece like this, because one of the
chief uses I could foresee for it would be as a gift for church members having
a child baptized.  You’d want something
that looks this nice to last a while, and to be actually usable without just
falling apart.  Inside is a title page,
an introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, and each of the questions.  All the proof texts are listed as well,
very helpful for catechetical study.

I think the price is pretty reasonable for something
hand-crafted like this ($20).  I think it would
be a really nice touch to give something like this to families with a new baby
or new member families or those kinds of occasions.  The Purple Carrot makes a few different
versions of this- I think right now they have the Heidelberg Catechism, the
Westminster Shorter Catechism and the Catechism for Young Children.  The translation for the Heidelberg that was used is I believe
the same one some of the more conservative Dutch churches.  It’s the same as is listed here on Westminster Theological Seminary’s site, which says it’s the one the Canadian and American Reformed Churches use.  But there’s only minor differences in wording between this and the one we are using in the RCUS right now, which itself has been modified a few times with more modern language.  I’ve been told that The Purple Carrot is putting one together using the current RCUS translation as well.

Overall, I really recommend it.  Well-made, reasonably priced, very useful and attractive item.  Good for churches who want to buy it as a gift item- or buy it yourself for your own family.  I love the Heidelberg of course, but the Westminster Shorter Catechism and the Catechism for Young Children are both great resources too.  If you don’t know which one to get, get the Heidelberg!

Here is a link to The Purple Carrot’s website.

Family Planning and the Christian Couple

I regularly get asked questions about whether it is acceptable for a Christian to use birth control or family planning.  Within Reformed and Evangelical circles there is a perspective or a movement even, sometimes called “Quiverfull“, that teaches against any form of birth control.  I believe this movement to be contrary to Christian principles, primarily the principle that only God is the legislator.

Continue reading “Family Planning and the Christian Couple”

Speak, Lord, for your Servant Hears

These are the words which Eli gave to Samuel, teaching him
how to respond to God’s call.  Oh, that
Eli himself had listened to those words! 
Instead, his sons used the house and worship of God to enrich themselves
and satisfy their lusts, and Eli did nothing, ineffectually rebuking them when
the outcry got too big, and failing to remove them, and execute them, as he
should have.  He decided that he knew
better how to accomplish good outcomes than God Himself did.  Even if he didn’t articulate it that way,
that is the effect of substituting his own goals for God’s.
There is a great deal of talk about what the church should
be trying to accomplish, what goals we should have for our ministries.  We have vision statements and ministry models
and the like.  Some say their great goal
is to save sinners, or to promote missions. 
Some want to “be” the gospel, promoting social justice, or cultural
transformations of one kind or another. 
There is currently an article going around about how the church needs to
be more outspoken about abortion.  Some
think that healthy families are what we need to be promoting; some push political
change; some have some other idea.

But Eli’s instruction to Samuel gives me pause. 
It seems to me that we are far too often goal-oriented, when as servants
of God we really should be task-oriented. 
Samuel says, “Your servant hears.” 
A servant shows up at his master’s beck and call simply to be commanded,
to be told what to do.  He has no right
and no ability to tell the master what the goals ought to be.  He just does what he’s told.  Is that not our relationship to God?  Ought we not simply to faithfully do what God
has told us to do?  We have no control
over outcomes.  We cannot control which
way the culture goes or which way our own churches go.  Those things are in God’s hands.

Jesus set the vision for the church in Matthew 28, and
spelled out the details through the Apostles. 
Our job is to preach the gospel and to teach people to observe what God
has commanded.  We are to preach the
whole counsel of God, to watch out over our flocks, to refute false teachers,
to warn and exhort people.  That is the
task the church has been given.  Whenever
the church has tried to shape the outcomes, the results have been terrible.
It’s not that there isn’t plenty to do.  Our people need taught the truth.  Sin needs to be rebuked.  The gospel needs to be faithfully
preached.  People need to be encouraged
and exhorted as the Scriptures lay out for us. 
So many ministers are so involved in their various causes and programs,
one wonders- are their churches being pastored? 
Are the brokenhearted being built up, the proud rebuked, the sick
visited, the children trained?  Are they
so involved in all their various pet projects because they’ve so mastered the
work of ministering to the local church, there are no needs to occupy them?  Have they so faithfully fulfilled their Master’s
commands that they now feel free to go and pursue their own agendas?  Or is it perhaps that the difficulty of the
work before them causes them to neglect it in favor of easier and safer
pursuits?
Even for those things that fall into the work of the church,
like calling people to repentance or training them in discipleship, much of the
church’s failure, I think, comes from this tendency to be goal oriented instead
of task oriented.  When our goal is to
make disciples, we tend to think of how we can best accomplish that goal, and
then adjust our techniques to the mode that will effectively achieve that
result.  So in the past we got
indulgences, clerical celibacy, monasticism, mandated fasts and holy days, all
in this attempt to do what, in our wisdom, would accomplish the right
goals.  Today we get the seeker sensitive
movement and the like.  I have heard
people say that they don’t do church discipline because “it doesn’t work,” as
if it was up to us to decide whether God’s commands were effective or not!  If instead we recognized that it is God who
truly makes disciples through His Spirit, then we would just be busy about the
tasks that God gives us- preaching the gospel, teaching His word, governing His
church according to His rules, and trusting Him to work the results He wants to
work through our labors.  This is what it
means to be task-oriented instead of goal-oriented.

Paul exhorted Timothy to preach the word, in season and out of season- meaning,
when it’s heard and when it isn’t, when it’s popular and when it isn’t.  We just need to preach the word.

In a company, there is the board of directors and then there’s
the guy in the mailroom.  I remember in
my foolish youth thinking that the companies I worked for ought to be run
differently than they were.  But the guy
in the boardroom sets the vision and goals for the company.  The guy in the mailroom just delivers the
mail.


In the church, and in the world, we are just the guys in the mailroom.  God knows what He’s doing, and has no need to
be advised or informed by us.  Eli,
Hophni and Phinehas made their own decisions about what God’s church was
for.  God killed them as a result.  He raised up for Himself a faithful servant
in their place and taught that servant to say simply, “Speak, Lord, for your
servant hears.”  May He continue to raise
up faithful servants to Himself in our day as well, who will put away the pride
of thinking that we get to decide what the church should be and what it should
do, and simply be faithful to the tasks that God has given us, in His strength.

40 Years On

1973 was the year Roe v. Wade was decided, legalizing most abortions.  That year, a poor family with five kids went into the hospital to discuss a sixth pregnancy.  The doctor asked them if the pregnancy was planned, and they answered, “no.”  So the doctor said, “We’ll schedule the abortion.”  Appalled, the family refused.  Right at the beginning of 1974, 40 years ago, as a result of their willingness to sacrifice their own finances, time, and even health for the life of another, I was born.

That was the first of many testimonies to me to what it means to be a disciple of Christ.  I am who I am because an awful lot of people have been willing to suffer for my good.  In that, they follow the example of Christ Himself, willing to suffer the wrath and curse of God for my salvation.  I have been greatly blessed in my life, by the grace of God, and that decision that my parents made was just one example of that.  I just would not even be able to name all of the people in my life who have done good for me, often at costs that I didn’t appreciate for many years after.  Many of them never received any thanks or recognition from me.  I am sure that I am not even aware of many of those people, many of those sacrifices.  And they all flow from that One Sacrifice, the lamb who was slain for the sins of the world.

I will celebrate my 40th birthday in two days.  I thank God for my life, for what He has given me and continues to give me, and I pray that God would teach me grace, teach me to take up my cross for others, that I might learn this year a little bit more what it means to die to self and live for God, as so many before me have done.

Atheist Morality and Castles Built on Sand

It was common in time past to think of atheists as untrustworthy, without moral character, with no understanding of right and wrong.  Many of the States of this nation, when they were colonies and even later as states, had various clauses in their constitutions that forbade anyone who did not believe in a supreme being or a future state of reward or punishment from holding office.  Even though the US Constitution forbade religious tests, the doctrine of states’ rights at that time held that states were free from those kinds of restrictions that existed on the federal level.  The reasoning for those tests was not really religious bigotry per se, since they were worded broadly enough that Jews, Muslims, or even many Hindus or Buddhists could have passed them.  But it was the particular concern that anyone who did not believe in a future state of reward or punishment or who did not believe in a supreme being had no real basis for morality.  They had no foundation for right and wrong.
Naturally, as atheism or agnosticism has grown in popularity, they have been anxious to refute this charge.  Certainly, they seem to have some evidence on their side.  Nations with low levels of belief in God do not necessarily have higher crime rates; indeed, they often have lower ones (like the modern largely secular democracies such as France, Sweden or Japan.)  The evidence is not monolithic, however; one recent study strongly correlated stronger belief in hell with lower rates of crime.
But I’m not particularly wanting to debate that specific issue here simply because people are inconsistent.   I believe it is perfectly possible for an atheist to act in a moral way.  I know many that do.  But the question is whether belief in right and wrong can be defended or supported by an atheist philosophy.  We want to address particularly atheists who are materialists, that is, that believe that only the material world is real and that everything other than matter and energy (such as souls, angels, spirits, God or gods) are figments of our imagination.  The great problem the materialistic atheist faces is that he has no basis for saying what should be.  What is the ideal state of matter?  How can we know?  The materialist can only comment on what is, not what should or should not be.  Thus any statement a materialist makes about what ought to be is a castle built on a foundation of sand.

The question is not whether an atheist might have good reason to behave in a moral way.  There are many incentives for him to do so.  Society might punish him legally or informally for behaving badly.  His friends and family members might disapprove.  He might suffer physical or financial consequences for doing certain kinds of things.  He might even feel bad inside, suffering guilt for doing bad things.  But none of those things can really answer the question of whether something is right or wrong.  It only tells us if certain actions may have good or bad consequences.

Take this video, for example, which purports to define morality in the absence of theistic belief.  In the first several minutes of the video, the speaker says that morality cannot be based on power, tradition, majority belief or law, and I agree.  But he never really does state what it is based on.  He outlines rational principles, that it must be in agreement with scientific fact and rationality.  But at one point (in defining society 2, starting at 3:44), he introduces the principle of reciprocity, that it is rationally inconsistent for me to hurt others when not wanting to be hurt myself.  But he never supports this assertion.  He states that if I recognize my own wrongdoing then consistently I must recognize others, by the same system of justice.  But there’s simply no reason why that is so.  He has already assumed the existence of an abstract system of justice with which I must be consistent.  But he has never demonstrated the existence of any such system.

It is in fact perfectly consistent for me to desire not to be harmed myself, while being indifferent to the harm of others or even causing that harm.  That can be adequately supported by my desire to avoid suffering myself because I find that suffering unpleasant or a threat to my survival, a principle that does not extend to the suffering of others since that suffering does not bother me.  In fact, if my welfare can be enhanced by causing the suffering of others, then there is no rational reason for me to refrain from causing that suffering.

He even states that part of morality’s essence is a plural view- recognizing our impact on others and adjusting our actions in response.  But this is pure assertion.  He’s skipping steps.  He has not established why I should care about the impact my actions have on others.  Apart from the possible impact that other people’s feelings may at some point have on me, why should I care what impact my actions have on others?  This is never established.  But he goes on as if he has made the point, and bases much of the rest of his argument on the premise that it is immoral to cause suffering to others having never actually presented any reason for that assertion.

This is just one example of course of how to defend morality in an atheistic worldview.  In fact, popular opinion or cultural standards as the basis of morality is the more common argument that I have heard, though it’s an argument that is obviously flawed.  If popular opinion defines morality then truly there is no morality, since virtually any kind of terrible crime has been approved of on a popular level at one time or another.  Basing morality on cultural standards is essentially surrendering the argument and admitting that there are no moral standards.

If popular opinion or cultural standards were the basis of morality, then in fact it would be immoral to ever agitate for social change, since by definition such agitation would be contrary to popular opinion.  If your cause was already accepted by the majority of your culture there would be no reason to agitate for it.  Thus, those who agitated for an end to slavery, for voting rights for women, or for an end to child labor were all acting immorally since all of those things were approved by majorities at one point.

Often, atheists will appeal to evolutionary principles.  They say we evolve empathy and a desire for social cooperation because those things give us a survival advantage.  Without going into the whole argument for and against evolution, consider- if our morality is simply based on evolved traits, then it still can’t be properly called right and wrong, but just what humans do to survive.  Humans also often resort to murder and enslavement to improve their survival and welfare.  Is that an evolved trait as well?  If not, why not?  And if so, why is it more moral for me to live by one evolved trait (empathy) and not another (cruelty)?  Further, if a man decides to resist his natural empathy and act cruelly to others without regard to the suffering he causes, on what grounds can the atheist say he is behaving immorally?  Perhaps he is evolving further, and developing to a greater degree his natural trait of cruelty, and leaving behind his more primitive empathy.  If you think empathy is a superior and more sophisticated trait than cruelty, you need to have some principle to base that on.  If it’s your opinion that empathy leads to greater survival of the species than cruelty, that is just an opinion, and it’s only a matter of opinion and no cause for moral outrage.  Some people might come to a different conclusion about what will benefit their survival and welfare, and you’d have no reason to protest on any moral ground.

The Roman Empire, for example, existed for a thousand years, and the people who ran it had lives of great luxury and ease for the most part.  That empire was based on slavery.  Slavery was very good for the people who lived at the top.  The few slave revolts that happened were always crushed and were never any threat to the survival of the Empire.  Eventually the empire fell, but only after a thousand years, and the countless upper-class people whose positions were made possible by slavery never paid any price for their exploitation and abuse of millions of people.  Were they immoral to do so?  On what grounds?

All of this is to say that the atheistic materialist has no grounds for preferring one set of moral standards over another, or over no standards at all, other than personal preference or opinion.  He may no more claim that kindness is preferable to cruelty than red is preferable to blue, or liquids to solids.  Physical substances and energies simply are.  There can be no question of what they should be, only what they are.  If matter is all there is, then there is no ideal to compare the current state of affairs to.  There is no “perfect” state of matter and energy; they simply are.  Nobody talks about what an ant or a tiger ought to be, we simply say what they are.

I certainly prefer kindness to cruelty.  I even prefer atheists to be kind as opposed to being cruel, since that is likely to work out better for me.  And I know many atheists prefer kindness over cruelty.  But there are a great many people in this world, both atheist and theist, who are usually cruel and not kind.  We do not say simply that they are what they are, or even stop at taking steps to protect ourselves from them.  We react in horror and outrage when innocents are hurt, when men are robbed of their property or the result of their labor, when people say one thing and do another.  We react with moral outrage to those things.  Yet the atheist’s philosophy offers him no reason for such horror.  The truth is that there is an absolute standard, given to us by a Lawgiver, who embedded that standard in our hearts to point us to Himself, for He created us in His image.  This is why it is wrong to hurt others, because to do so is an offense to the God that made the other and also made me.  The atheist has this moral sense within him regardless of what he claims to believe, and this is why he spends so much time and effort trying to construct moral systems on a foundation of sand, in order to justify the existence of moral beliefs he holds while he flouts whichever ones he finds unpleasant or inconvenient.  He knows he is moral, but he wants to define that morality himself, leaving himself free to do as he wishes while still defining himself as a moral person.

I Deserve Hell

I deserve hell.  I
deserve to be punished in torment for all eternity, suffering the most exquisite pain and horror every moment for the rest of my existence.
I know the secret thoughts I have entertained, the things I
would have done if I could have gotten away with it.  What good is it if I am restrained merely by
the fear of consequences?  Does that make
me a good person?
I also know how affected I am by peer pressure, how much I
am influenced by the standards of the culture around me.  What if I had been born the son of a
plantation owner in the south in 1800? 
Would I have treated Africans like property?  What if I had been a Comanche?  Would I have treated the women in the tribe
as beasts of burden, and have kidnapped the women of other tribes or of white
settlers to be my slave, to be tortured to death for my pleasure?  What if I had been a Mongol, or a Hun, or a
Vandal?  Would I have viewed it as a
credit and honor to my gods to burn the villages of people who had done me no harm?    Am I
to be credited with merit in God’s eyes just because I happen to be born in a
place where such things are viewed as reprehensible?
Instead, I’ve been born an American, with a great deal of wealth,
security, and moral training at my disposal. 
Thousands of years of Christianity have taught us the equality of all people
in God’s eyes, that I am to treat others as I would like to be treated
regardless of their race, class, tribe, or sex, that all of us are to be judged
by God for how we treat others, even those who are our enemies.  I have been taught the law of God as my
instruction for what a human being is supposed to be.  I have been given the tremendous example of
Christ, who sacrificed Himself on behalf of those who hated and despised
Him.  He prayed for the forgiveness of
those who nailed Him to the cross.  He
sent His Spirit through His church to me, to transform my heart and open my
mind to the truth.  I have been given to a
family that loved me and sacrificed for me. 
I have been showered with blessing after blessing, never experiencing disease, hunger, or deprivation of any significance, and with all that blessing I can
just about manage to not be completely selfish every second of the day.  What does this say about me?  What credit does it do to my moral character
that I have produced such paltry results from such tremendous investment?
And if I was condemned to hell for the moral corruption and
ruin of my soul, would I be improved by my experience?  Thinking back on how often I have responded
to suffering with bitterness and anger, would the torments of hell make me
better?  Or would I respond with more
anger and bitterness, “gnashing of teeth”? 
Would I ever get to a stage when I no longer deserved that punishment?
When I consider the doctrine of hell, and I struggle with
the rightness of condemning someone else to that awful eternal torment, I
remind myself that I don’t know anyone else’s heart.  I don’t know the true depths to which they
would descend if God did not restrain them. 
I can only know myself, and even that only partly.  With all the blessings God has given me, and
all the restraints God has hedged me, I still see how badly I fall short of
what I should be.  And in that light I
see all I need to know about what I deserve.

It matters not at all whether anyone else deserves hell.  I know nothing of some hypothetical “good”
bushman or Hindu who never heard the name of Christ.  I only know of myself, and what I deserve for
what I am.  I can take no credit for the
many ways God has held me back from being as hellishly awful as I could have
been, and for the Spirit of God that is within me and remaking me.  I can only consider what I am in myself, in
my own merit.  When I see the great
selfishness, the lack of concern for the suffering of others, the great pride, the squandering and waste of so many good gifts,  I can only conclude that I would have done what the Vandal or the Nazi did,
were I in their shoes.  The wonder is not
that someone would do something so horrible, for history is full of whole civilizations that practiced such things constantly.  The wonder, the grace of God, is that any of us would do anything else.

You who do not believe in God and recoil at the doctrine of
hell, I ask you- do not consider hypotheticals. 
Do not construct artificial examples of kind and benevolent unbelievers
and ask yourself whether they deserve hell. 
Ask yourself whether you deserve hell.  Look
into your own heart and ask yourself not only what you have done, but what it
is that separates you from the murderers, the torturers, the kidnappers, the
enslavers that have populated all of human history.  If all you can point to are things outside
yourself, things you had no control over, things you did not create, then you
have your answer.  You are no
different.  Take away the external
restraints of culture, family, education, peer pressure- that is, take away the
restraint of God’s grace, and you are the same. 
Even if you do not believe in God, you cannot deny that you had no
control over the external circumstances under which you were born, the only thing that
makes you any different from all the marauding evil men that repulse our modern
enlightened society.  You are the monster
that has made human history one long parade of misery and atrocity.  You deserve hell for what you are, just like
I do.  And if you do not believe me, know this- God will, sometime in your life, give you an opportunity to prove just what you are- if not to the world, then at the least, to yourself.  If you will be truly honest with yourself, chances are good that this moment has already happened.

You should not be astonished that there is a hell.  You should be astonished that by the grace of
God, anyone escapes it.

Redeeming the Time

Ephesians 5:16 “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”

Say you’re driving along in your car, and suddenly, you run out of gas.  You’re out in the middle of nowhere, an old country road with nothing around for miles.  But you’ve got cell phone coverage, so you call your wife or AAA or someone to come fill you up.  They say they’ll get there in a couple of hours or so.  Now you’ve got nothing to do but wait.  Your day is ruined.

But you’ve got a good book with you.  Now you realize that even though the day isn’t what it was supposed to be, you’ve got something productive to do with your time that will reap benefits down the road.  The wasted time is salvaged- it’s not a complete loss.  I think this is the sort of thing Paul is talking about in Ephesians 5:16.

Contrary to what some tell you, you are not going to have your best life now.  This world does not work.  It’s broken.  Because of sin, your relationships, at their very best, are going to be only a pale shadow of what they ought to be.  You will spend a great deal of your productive time simply sweeping back the bad effects of the curse rather than making any forward progress.  Illness, conflict, poverty, disaster, death- If you look for your satisfaction in this life, you’re going to be extremely disappointed.

But Jesus tells us to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven.  Thanks to the gospel, we can “redeem the time”.  We can start overcoming sin now.  We can learn to be faithful with the little bit of responsibility that we have now, and Jesus tells us that he that is responsible with a little now will be put in charge of a great deal in the age to come.  In this way, we can “redeem the time”.

Redeeming the time doesn’t mean fixing the broken nature of this age.  This age isn’t going to be fixed.  It’s going to be burned up with fire.  But we shouldn’t just put on our hippie clothes and wait around for that to happen.  We should be productively using the short time we have as best we can.  We should be learning to be faithful in our relationships, faithful in our work, faithful as citizens, as spouses, as employers or employees, faithful with our own bodies.  In all of these things, we learn to be truly human, to be what God made us to be, and we glorify Him who made us in the process.  It may make some small difference in the quality of our life right now.  But that’s not really the point.  The laborer doesn’t labor in order to improve the quality of his workday; he labors for the paycheck at the end of the day.  And by God’s grace we have a big paycheck coming one day.  Let us labor with that in mind.

We don’t really know a lot about how the eternal age is going to work, or how our labors now translate into our state then.  We do know it’s all of grace, that even God’s reward of our good works is of grace, and not of merit.  He is, in fact, only crowning His grace with more grace, since the good works themselves were works of His grace.  But we do know, with no doubt, that what we do now has eternal implications.  So in the light of the gospel, in the light of His grace and mercy covering all our sins and failures, let us redeem the time, laboring not for the payoff we can get right now, simply seeking to minimize suffering or enjoy this life as much as we can, but being faithful as best as we can with what God has put in front of us, looking to eternity and God’s grace for the harvest of our labors.

Unintended Consequences

Charles Miller, in _The Rise and Development of Calvinism_, says that Louis XIV was completely unprepared for the result of outlawing Protestantism in France in 1685. France lost perhaps half a million of its most able citizens. He says in one town, Touraine, ninety percent of the silk weavers fled and eighty five percent of the looms were idle. The Huguenots made up most of the French middle class. I do not think it any accident that the French Revolution came less than a century later. The gutting of the middle class in France destroyed their economy and left no moderating influence between the nobility and the peasants, with well-known tragic results.

A lesson, perhaps, for our own age- the elites of a society are never as wise as they think they are, or as good at predicting the results of their actions.

Tradition and the Interpretation of Scripture

From a discussion regarding tradition, and the Protestant lack of an infallible interpreter:

The problem in my mind with positing Scripture and tradition as equal is than in practicality it’s impossible. If the traditions of the church are the only infallible interpreter of the Scripture, then in reality the traditions become supreme- Scripture can only say what traditions permit them to say. Beside that, there has always been the problem- which tradition? The witness of the church has never been unified; there were divisions right back to the writing of 1 Corinthians.

I think we see this discussion play out right here in our own circles though, in our own way. There is often a tension in our discussions between what someone believes Scripture teaches and what certain authorities or creeds seem to say Scripture teaches. We fear the “me and my Bible only” approach of much of the evangelical world, and in reaction to that sometimes I think we erect a tradition that is every bit as infallible in our minds as the pope is to the Catholic. Certainly we as believers should be conscious of our place in a larger whole. But the problem of picking a tradition to follow is inevitable, even within the Reformed / Presbyterian world. As uncomfortable as this makes a lot of people, there are lots of fault lines even within our tradition, lots of discussions and disagreements that go right back to the beginning of the Reformation.

Really, for me I think the unavoidable conclusion is that we must rely on the Spirit of God to guide us. He is the infallible interpreter we all seek. And I am not just being trite. There is no other option. It’s the Holy Spirit, or it’s just “Me and my Bible”, whether I clothe that in appeal to some human authority or not. Because if I say I adhere to the Reformed creeds and that they are my ultimate interpreter, well, I have chosen those creeds, as opposed to the Lutheran, Orthodox or Anabaptist traditions. If I appeal to Scottish Covenanter tradition, or German Reformed, or Dutch Calvinist- again, I have chosen that tradition, just as much as the Catholic chooses to adhere to the Pope. They want some external witness to that authority, so they cite apostolic succession, but we all know just how problematic that is.

So, we have to depend on the Spirit of God, and we have to know how the Spirit works. He works through the churches, through the community of God’s people, and He also works individually within our hearts and minds. We look to the witness of history, of the faithful community of God’s people interpreting Scripture in the past and in the present, and we also strive to understand the Scriptures ourselves, guided by the Spirit of God ourselves, as we seek to be faithful to the internal illumination of that Spirit.

I know how tempting it is to have some external authority, to look at some established body of knowledge- whether it be the Pope, the Church, the Reformed Creeds, or the latest celebrity writer and say that’s my authority. It would be easier. But God has called us to maturity. He has poured His Spirit out on His churches, and called us to come to knowledge. So we work and strive to know the Scriptures; we listen to the understanding of the community of which we are a part; and we trust God to bring us to perfection. If God wanted to establish an infallible interpreter, He could have done so, and then testified to that infallible interpreter with signs and wonders. This is what Judas (not Iscariot) asked in John 14:22- “How do you manifest yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus’ answer is that the internal work of the Spirit, which prepares a place for the indwelling of the Trinity in the believer, is all the manifestation that we require.

Jesus also told His disciples in John 7:17 that the one who is committed to do the will of God will know whether the doctrine is true or not. So we have to commit ourselves to follow the Scripture, to do the will of God. We will be informed and aided by the community in which He has placed us, but that community is never infallible. But if we commit ourselves to obedience to God then He will reveal the truth, over time, to us. It might not satisfy Judas’ desire to prove the truth of the doctrine to the world, to manifest it to everyone else, but Jesus will do that when He comes again. Until then, we are to rely on the Comforter, working through the believing community and in ourselves.

Civilization requires faith

The Stanford marshmallow experiment refers to a series of studies on delayed gratification in the late 1960s and early 1970s led by psychologist Walter Mischel then a professor at Stanford University. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward (sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel, etc.) provided immediately or two small rewards if he or she waited until the experimenter returned (after an absence of approximately 15 minutes). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores, educational attainment, body mass index (BMI) and other life measures.  However, recent work calls into question whether self-control, as opposed to strategic reasoning, determines children’s behavior.

Prior to the Marshmallow Studies at Stanford, Walter Mischel had shown that the child’s belief that the promised delayed rewards would actually be delivered is an important determinant of the choice to delay…

From the Wikipedia article.

I hope you read that block quote at least.  If you didn’t, please go back and do so.  I know people skip over block quotes frequently, but please don’t skip over this.

Here’s a simple story.  A long time ago, the West (Europe, the US) was largely Christian.  During the time that the West was largely Christian, there was slavery, women weren’t allowed to vote, children were frequently beaten and made to work in coal mines, people didn’t know hardly anything about the universe, and most people lived in ignorance and poverty and died young.  Now, the West is much less Christian than it was, and women have equality, children are protected by law, slavery is ended, most people are much better educated than they were, children have a great deal of legal protection and standards of living are much higher than they used to be.  Therefore, Christianity is bad and we should keep moving away from Christian tenets, and therefore allow gays to marry and pregnancies to be terminated.

Simple stories are appealing.  Many people will believe simple stories precisely because they are simple, because they easily support preexisting prejudices and fit easily into worldviews.  Thinking is hard; understanding complex stories is hard.  Simple stories win the fight for mindspace all the time, not because they are true, but because they are simple.  But the fact is, history isn’t simple, and neither is reality.

Here’s a more complex story.  A long time ago, the world was pagan, meaning that almost everyone believed that the world was eternal, was occupied by hosts of gods, demons, spirits and other sorts of things that were, in one way or another, generated by the eternal world.  As a result, everyone believed that the world was basically hostile to people.  People were an accident in the world.  They weren’t really the plan.  Further, the time would come when the universe would reset to its ancient state of chaos, and therefore there really wasn’t much point in working hard or trying to improve life.  Most people spent their lives in fear of demons or gods, and relied on the protection of priests, emperors or caesars who were closer to the gods than they were.  Most of their economic produce went to support the priests, emperors and pharaohs who ruled over them, because their incredibly lavish projects and lifestyles and armies were necessary to keep them safe from the hostile world.  They did as little as possible that might affect the world for fear of angering the demons.  Most people therefore were basically slaves, and did the minimum they could to get by, to relieve the pain of existence as best they could until they died.

Then one day a new religion burst on to the scene.  This religion taught them that God had rescued them from all the demons and evil spirits in the world.  The universe in fact was not eternal at all; it had been created by God as a home for man, who was to rule over the world in peace and harmony, but man had rebelled against God’s rule and this was the reason that man was now in the miserable state that he was in.  But God had come down to earth, had taken the form of a man, had done battle with the curse of sin and death which He had imposed on creation and overcame it.  All those therefore who put their trust in the true God that had made heaven and earth, who trusted the Anointed One who had come to earth to save mankind, would be reunited to their creator, forgiven of all their past evil deeds, would be empowered with new life to finally become what human beings were actually supposed to be.

This religion spread like wildfire.  Especially the lowest, poorest members of society rapidly embraced it.  The idea that they weren’t just accidents, that they were the beloved children of God, that redemption from their miserable state was possible, that they were destined to rule over all of creation- all these were powerful ideas.  As a result, gradually over long periods of time, the old ways were changed.  Slavery was rejected.  Women were treated with greater equality.  Racism started to diminish.  Also, as people started to accept the idea that the world was intended by God to be understood and developed by man, people started to develop science, industry, and commerce.  New forms of political structures began to arise that though imperfect in many ways, began to recognize the fundamental fact that all people were created in the image of God and were therefore equally deserving of fair treatment under the law.

The result of these various results were that people began to produce a lot more wealth.  Because people were able to keep most of the product of their own labor rather than have it stolen from them by their rulers; because people began to count on the law as a guarantee of fair treatment rather than a tool of oppression; because those previously marginalized by evil cultures began to have their full value recognized; because of all of this, there was an explosion of scientific development, economic productivity, and political freedom.  Most people’s lives improved dramatically.

All of this happened because society became Christian.  They followed this new religion which taught them hope in the future, love for our fellow mankind, faith in God.  Above all, that last- they had faith in God’s word.  They believed that hard work and honest dealings would be rewarded.  Maybe not always in this life, but in eternity.  They believed that the world could be understood, so they set about working hard to understand it, even though the results of their word was often not seen in their lifetimes, or even in their grandchildren’s lifetimes.  They sacrificed for fairer political systems, for more just and equitable treatment of women, of children, of prisoners, of the poor, of foreigners.  They did all these things not because there were immediate rewards for doing so, or even rewards that they ever saw in their lifetimes.  They did these things because they had faith in the Word of God, and worked to thank God for the many good things that God had done for them.  They worked at all of these things for the joy of being human, for the joy of being made in the image of God.

But over the course of the centuries, people forgot.  They forgot what it was like in the old days before Christianity.  They believed the lies of God’s enemies that things were better before Christianity came along.  They thought that it was just human wisdom and human ingenuity which had accomplished all the marvels of the modern age, that it was actually the rejection of Christianity which had made the West free and prosperous.  So they thought they could do without Christianity.  They thought they could maintain the blessings of freedom, of prosperity, of science, of peace, without submitting to the rule of God over the universe.  And as they did so, they forgot what man actually was.  They thought he was just an animal, though a very complex one.  They thought he was just an accident.  They thought that nothing would happen after they die, that life would just end.  That is to say, they returned to the ancient pagan beliefs, that the universe was eternal, that chaos was the norm, that there was no plan or purpose in anything, and that therefore sooner or later the darkness would return.  Therefore they stopped working for the future, and focused only on the present, and on the satisfaction of their animal desires.  And as they did so, they began to lose all the hard-earned benefits that Christianity had brought to the world.  They started falling back into barbarism.  Governments became more oppressive and deceitful.  Families broke down. Children were routinely abused and mistreated.  Women, deceived into thinking that they would be empowered by doing so, were exploited as objects for men’s pleasure.  Hatred between races increased.  Prosperity declined.  War returned with a vengeance.

But in other places in the world, Christianity continued to grow, and many more people who had spend long centuries in barbarism and ignorance began to emerge from it.  The social orders who depended on people’s ignorance for their oppression fought it, but such systems were always powerless against the truth of the Ruler of the Universe.  And even as some societies slid back into barbarism because they rejected the God who made them, other societies escaped that same darkness by embracing Him.

—-

Which story is true?  Let me remind you of the marshmallows.  When a child believes that he will receive two marshmallows if he will wait a little bit, then he is much more likely to wait.  If a man believes that the universe is understandable and that he was made to understand it, then he will sacrifice his wealth, his health and his time to learn about it.  If he believes that God intends for people to treat each other fairly, to love each other, to make peace with each other, to help the fatherless and widow, and if he believes that God is just, sees what He does and rewards them that seek to please Him with their lives, then that man will work hard at those seemingly thankless tasks.

But if a man believes that the universe is all there is, that it has always existed, that he is simply an accidental product of that universe; if he believes that nothing at all happens when he dies except that he ceases to exist; if he thinks that there is no reason at all why the poor will be lifted up and the arrogant oppressor cast down; if he thinks there is no consequence for anything he does other than what happens to him right now; if he thinks that nobody sees his acts of sacrificial kindness; then what will that man do?  He’ll grab the marshmallow.  If he happens to be born in a position of power and privilege, then he’ll use that position to maintain his power and privilege whatever the cost.  And if not, he’ll turn on the X-Box, grab a beer, watch the game, eat another burger.  Anything to distract him from the essential pointlessness of his life.

The ancient world was a very stable place.  The status quo was remarkably long-lived.  Tyranny, poverty and barbarism was the order of the day.  There really wasn’t any evolutionary progress; that’s a myth of the modern age.  If anything, there was decline.  Most ancient civilizations have myths of some kind of golden age, a time when men were capable of feats of strength and engineering which are now lost.  The Greeks of Homer’s day looked at the walls of the ruined Mycenaean cities, and with no idea how such huge stone blocks could be moved, invented the tale of giants.

Everywhere where Christianity went, everything changed.  Society moved forward.  Progress happened.  While life in China or India or central Africa in the second century BC was not that different from life there in the 15th century AD, everywhere where Christianity went, there were huge and drastic upheavals.  Science moved forward.  Political freedoms expanded.  The rule of law began to be recognized and valued.  Women were treated as fully human.  Children were protected by law.  It was the decline of Christianity in Spain and Portugal that saw slavery return to the western world as their traders began the slave trade (already common in non-Christian Africa) centuries after Christians had ended it in Europe, and it was Christians that once again put a stop to it throughout Europe.  It was Christians that fought for equal legal treatment for women; Christians that put an end to child labor; Christians that fought for environmental stewardship; Christians that fought for humane treatment of prisoners.  It was Christians who developed the scientific method, believing that the world was made by God to be understood by humanity, and Christians who led the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution, that brought untold benefits to the western world.

Without the influence of Christianity or of the Christian view of the world, people remained in barbarism.  Africa; China; Japan; India- all of these civilizations remained barbaric, tyrannous places.  People in India were still burning widows on the pyres of of their husbands just two centuries ago.  The Japanese taught that their emperor was a god to be worshiped, that the non-Japanese were not fully human and could cruelly abused any way the Japanese liked, less than a century ago.  The Chinese lived under the rule of warrior kings as recently as 1900.  None of them had anything even approaching Western science, Western freedom, or Western prosperity, until fairly recently.  Even today, Africa, India and China mostly lag far behind our standards of living.

Is this because Westerners are superior inherently somehow over these people?  A look at the enrollment lists of most upper-tier west coast colleges should dispel that notion.  No, it is Christianity that made us great.  Christianity will make them great too.

This is because civilization requires faith.  It requires deferring gratification, which only happens when one believes that good things will come as a result of sacrifice.  They did the marshmallow experiment a second time just recently- this time first having one group of children who were deceived into thinking something good would happen before running the experiment.  They discovered that for the child to wait for the second marshmallow, he had to have faith.  If his faith in the honesty of the experimenter was undermined, he was much less likely to wait.  It was faith in the future expectation of reward that led him to defer his gratification, just as it was faith in the promise of Jesus Christ that led to all of the sacrifices that people made that led to modern civilization.

Many who do not believe in God still clung to a downgrade version of that faith- even as they denied Christ, even as later they denied the afterlife, they still clung to some idea that hard work and responsibility would pay off.  So society still benefited, even from this residue of true faith.  But a residue only lasts so long.  One generation stops believing in Christ.  The next generation stops believing in heaven.  The next stops believing in God at all.  And the next doesn’t believe in anything but the marshmallow right in front of them, and that is the end of modern civilization.  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.  This is the worldview that the Bible ascribes to the Gentiles.  This is the worldview of post-Christian America as well.

It’s not by magic that all good things ultimately come only to those who trust in God.  This is true because this is the way God made the world.  Submit to His rule, and you’ll understand the world you live in, and ultimately you’ll prosper.  Rebel against it, and you’ll come to ruin.  And God’s timing is not our timing- it may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen, one way or another.