Christmas '08

Sources for Renewing Theology

Maybe this is a shameless plug but the following list of sources didn't get put up with my original 'response' post in the discussion over at Common Grounds online. So here it is: 

John Frame "Machen's Warrior Children"

John Frame  Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought

Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine

Tim Keller, "How Shall We Then Live Together?" Essay on subscription available at: http://djchuang.googlepages.com/GAKeller.pdf

Tim Keller "The Cultures of the Presbyterian Church in America": available at: http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf

Tim Keller "Contextualizing Ministry: Wisdom or Compromise--Parts 1 & 2." Mp3 lectures available at http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/default.asp

Carl Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology

Discussion about PCA Renewal

Common Grounds Online is hosting a blog-discussion of the Conversation on the Denominational Renewal of the PCA held last year in St. Louis.  Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan have already responded to Greg Thompson's address and each of the talks given at the conference will be discussed by different respondents.  My talk on Renewing Theology will be taken up next week. 

The site also links the mp3s of each of the talks. 

The PCA Needs Marriage Counseling

I have hesitated for some time now to comment on any particular controversial matters relating to my home denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, not only because I don't want to assume everyone's interest in such things, but also because I don't want to become part of the angry, almost entirely unhelpful ecclesial blogosphere that seems to bring out the worst in nearly all parties. 

But: I think, talk, worry, pray, get upset about, etc., all of this stuff all the time (way too much) and maybe the few of you who read this and are invested in the PCA will engage me on what follows. 

John Gottman is one of the premier marriage researchers in the country and his book The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work has been enormously helpful to me, not only in my own marriage but also in trying to help married folks in our church.  Gottman's basic argument is that the heart of marriage is intimate friendship, commitment and the deep interpersonal unity that results.  Through his research into nearly 4000 couples at his 'love lab' at the University of Washington, Gottman has identified a cluster of behaviors that are the true culprits in causing divorce and marital break-down.  He calls these "the four horsemen of the apocalypse": criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.  These actions over time produce 'negative sentiment override' in which everything the partner says or does (or has done) is interpreted in a negative manner.  

The really important insight here is that these everyday patterns are the real sins that kill the heart of a marriage and produce the conditions of loneliness, pain, and physical/emotional distance in which adultery, abuse, desertion typically take place.  Thus, the first step in repairing damaged marriages is to replace the four horsemen with good communication patterns.  Then, the conflicts that have been handled poorly can actually be discussed in a fruitful way. 

But there's more: once the four horsemen are cleared out of the way, Gottman has specific advice on handling areas of conflict and disagreement within a marriage.  He says that most big, lasting areas of disagreement between couples are rooted in deep value differences that are themselves tied into each person's past experience.  In this situation, the only way to move forward is for each person to listen to the other as they talk in depth about why they hold the values the do.  Gottman says that if this kind of safe space can be created for honest discussion and sharing then the listening process can engender (at least) some measure of mutual understanding and empathy for the value difference in the other.  Finally, with the four horsemen replaced by understanding, the couple can begin to negotiate their different approaches to issues and find ways forward that satisfy to some degree their differing values. 

What does this have to do with the PCA? 

The different parties in the PCA are like married partners whose ecclesial marriage relationship has been deeply damaged by the presence of "the four horsemen": criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling.  (Actually, if we add incessant gossip and slander then that makes six, but who's counting).  While sin is certainly enough to produce these kinds of destructive behaviors in all of us, they often rage during church conflicts where both sides see the issues very differently.  (The fact that our system of polity is court-based and legal in nature only makes adversarial stances and strategies all too easy).   I am suggesting that, as may be obvious, our disagreements are rooted in different theological or ecclesial values held by the parties in question.  Much of the time, even in more constructive dialogue, all the conversation partners attempt to do is clarify their points of agreement and disagreement, while offering a critique of the other's position; while this kind of 'charitable debate' format can be helpful, Gottman's insight into the dynamics of crumbling marriages suggests that it's not enough.

The differing parties within the PCA need marriage counseling along the lines Gottman suggests.  First, safe spaces must be created for conversation in which each 'side' can honestly describe the ecclesial values they hold dear and, more importantly, why they do so.  There  must be a commitment first to understanding the other and why they believe the way they do.  Such an exercise, undertaken in reliance on the Holy Spirit and a posture of humility, prayer, and repentance, could actually produce genuine empathy instead of angry debates and dismissals. Presumably, these kinds of conversations would surely bring to light much relational sin of which to repent. Perhaps new relationships and even friendships would emerge with the strength to withstand further discussion. If such reconciliation occurred between the polarized PCA parties, fruitful negotiations could then go forward and (maybe) creative solutions be found to many of the issues that vex us.  

Of course, at the end of all this, deep differences - even at the level of values and vision - would probably still exist (as they continue to exist in most marriages!); but the process would leave the partners in a different place than where they began.  And that couldn't but be a good thing.

Summer Nuttiness

Wow. 

The summer has, as I anticipated, been a little crazy, trying to make it to a couple of different training events (RUF, RYM) as well as taking vacation and planning for the fall at Redeemer. Oh, and then there was summer baseball during May and June for Isaac, Lucy, and Nathan (that's him on the left).  

I've gotten a little reading done that's been helpful. The three most important things are: The Churching of America, by Stark and Finke; Christ and Culture Revisited, by D. A. Carson; and Searching for a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism, by Muether and D. G. Hart.  The three were interesting to read together because both Churching and Searching advance ideas about why Presbyterian (Searching) and Methodist (Churching) denominations declined in America.  Carson is especially helpful on pointing out the limitations of Nieburh's critique and suggesting that the ideal relationship between Christ (or the church) and any particular culture can only be decided in specific contexts. 

More to come. Just thought I'd throw up this brief update. 

Augustine on Christian Motivation

During seminary I was introduced to the ethical debate within the Reformed tradition about the biblical motivation for obedience.  Boiling it down, some argue that love born of faith is the only proper motive; others argue that different motives, such as fear, are also acceptable. 

Here's Augustine on the subject.  He's describing the legalistic obedience of some of the Israelites under the old covenant.

"...[they] received the law.  They did not observe what is in the decalogue.  And any who did comply did so out of fear of punishment, not out of love of justice.  They were carrying the harp, but they weren't singing.  If you are singing, it's enjoyable; if you are fearing, it's burdensome. That's why the old man either doesn't do it [obey] or does it out of fear, not out of love of holiness, not out of delight in chastity, not out of the calmness of charity, but out of fear.  It's because he is the old man, and the old man can sing the old song but not the new one.  In order to sing the new song he must become the new man.... If you do it [obey] out of love, you are singing the new song.  If you do it out of fear but do it all the same you are indeed carrying the harp but you are not yet singing....  Anyone who is still singing the old song has not yet come to an agreement with his adversary [God and his Word].  He is afraid of God coming and condemning him.  Chastity has no delights for him yet, justice has no delights for him yet, but it is because he is in dread of God's judgment that he abstains from such deeds.  He does not condemn that actual lust that is seething inside him.  He does not yet take delight in what is good. He does not yet find there the pleasant inspiration to sing the new song, but out of his old habits he is still fearing punishments.  (From "Sermon 9" in Essential Sermons, trans. Edmund Hill, 32-33).  

What struck me in this passage is its similarity to the argumentation in the Reformed tradition used by those who assert that love for God is the only proper motivation for obedience.  Even the use of the image of singing a new song to represent obedience out of love for God is used by Jack Miller in some of his "sonship" teaching.  And the argument that obedience out of fear is actually a form of disobedience (because the person does not yet delight in the law nor hate his sin) is common too. 

Imaginary Career by Rilke

At first a childhood, limitless and free

of any goals.  Ah sweet unconsciousness.

Then sudden terror, schoolrooms, slavery,

the plunge into temptation and deep loss. 

Defiance.  The child bent becomes the bender,

inflicts on others what he once went through.

Loved, feared, rescuer, wrestler, victor, 

he takes his vengeance, blow by blow. 

And now in vast, cold, empty space, alone. 

Yet hidden deep within the grown up heart,

a longing for the first world, the ancient one...

Then, from His place of ambush, God leapt out.

God doesn't save idiots, Eli.

There Will Be Blood is an instant American classic, simply a masterpiece on every level.  Some critics are calling Day-Lewis' performance one of the greatest in film history.  When I left the theater the other night I wondered "is this what it felt like to walk out of The Godfather?"  The movie itself deals with so many American themes at the same time and reminds you (without being repetitious) of great characters, people, novels, and other epic movies from the past.  It felt like I didn't see a movie but a great American novel that was made as a film instead of written as a book.  

(Warning: massive spoilers ahead).

There's alot of controversy about the ending which is the only thing about the movie that even had me wondering if it 100% worked.  Upon more reflection I think it does, in a sort of Flannery O'Connorish way.  Some critics are saying the whole last 1920s part of the movie is off and that's nuts to me. I always thought Daniel would kill Eli; they were playing the same game from different sides.  I expected the oil/blood connection to be made explicitly, even that Daniel would baptize himself with Eli's blood in the last shot of the movie - maybe too over the top? The whole last segment is a brilliant portrayal of what our idols do to us: they turn us into charicatures of ourselves and our appetites.  Daniel becomes greed incarnate, literally 'beating the competition' to death.  He's the ultimate consumer capitalist, sucking the life/oil/blood out of Eli and everyone in his life. 

Something none of the critics I've read comment on is the theme of father-son abandonment that occurs here as in PTA's other work.  This is where Day-Lewis' portrayal (and PTA's writing) of Daniel's character is so careful; for Plainview is far from a monster during the first 2/3 of the film.  He takes the orphaned boy in during the first act, and even though his relationship with "H.W." is far from ideal, he does evidence genuine affection for the boy which becomes apparent when H.W. is hurt by the gusher and when Daniel weeps after leaving him on the train. Of course, H.W. is only the latest in a string of abandoned sons in PTA's films. When Daniel is forced by Eli to repeatedly scream "I've abandoned my son!" it reminded me of Frank T. J. Mackey's breakdown at his dying father's bedside "I hate you, don't leave me!" 

Final thought: PTA is a generation-X film-maker and even though There Will Be Blood is (almost) universally recognized right now as an instant classic, I wonder if it may be resisted by some of the older school film critics and/or the Academy Awards (for everything but Best Actor which almost has to go to Day-Lewis).  I thought about this after reading Roger Ebert's semi-critical review where he said point-blank that he considered No Country for Old Men a perfect movie and that There Will Be Blood is not perfect.  As I posted about last month, No Country blew me away and I do think it is perfect technically-speaking; but There Will Be Blood not only seeks to accomplish more than No Country does thematically, it does so with a few unorthodox twists - the score by Johnny Greenwood, the over-the-top ending.  It's these breaks with classic film-making tradition that mar There Will Be Blood in Ebert's (and other critics') eyes and, at the same time, make it even more powerful to me, someone of PTA's generation.  And I guess that's what fascinates me so much about PTA and this movie: he is telling a classic story, even a classic American story, in a pretty straight-forward way for the most part and doing it with stunning excellence. Yet, even in the midst of working within the epic film tradition, he updates it, not only in terms of style (score, ending, etc) but also in terms of theme (consumerism, father abandonment).