The Good, Beautiful, and True

I believe this triad comes from JMR. It seems a fitting and well rounded triad of the things that should be important to and dwelt upon by Christians. It is an interesting triad for sure. The Good is obvious enough, the one true morality, the biblical Righteousness, and the divine ideal of how things ought to be ordered. Skipping ahead, nothing should be more important than the true. God is the source of truth, has revealed himself through the True one, and all of reality as it actually is can only be understood by some grasp of truth.

So good and true both make a lot of sense for a Christian perspective. A Christian perspective being those things that should be most important to a Christian, those things that he should spend his time dwelling on, and those things that should occupy the majority of his thoughts. These are things that draw him closer to God because these are essential characteristics of God. To dwell on these at some level is to dwell on the character of God, because these things are defined and shaped by his existence. Further, growing in these areas means one is being conformed to God's likeness, because he is allowing these realities of God to shape his thinking and permeate his being.

This is all good and true (no pun intended), and should be plainly obvious to most. But where some (possibly many?) will disagree is whether or not beauty should be included in this category. After all, is not beauty superficial? Is it not vanity to be concerned about the mere aesthetic?

Of course we can say that a term we often use in a subjective sense can find its only objective meaning in God himself. I am far from qualified to provide any philosophical definition of beauty. But, despite being amateur and unskilled, I will give it a shot in order to answer the question, is beauty in the same category of the good and true?

Beauty is attraction. It is elation. It is some sensory experience that brings pleasure. But it is must be more than neurons firing in specific patterns, because beauty transcends the individual, transcends the community, the culture, and the race. Although many will dispute some forms of beauty, it will be nearly universally agree upon about others. Beauty is something external that stimulates our senses and raises our opinion of the world around us. Beauty can be perverted of course, as with all good and true things. Beauty involves pleasure, but is also certainly distinct and greater than pleasure.

Beauty is the motivation behind art. Beauty is allusive, even though it is all around us. Beauty is beyond function, and can be seen in order, chaos, symmetry, and asymmetry. Whether spoken, music, or picture, artists attempt to create something that conveys and captures some degree of beauty. Man stands out from all creation in his appreciation of beauty.

Is it possible that beauty, like the true and good, is actually a reflection of the divine? That those things we find genuinely beautiful in some sense reflect the divine glory? If this is the case, then we find things beautiful (in a pure sense) only when we see some echo of the divine glory. Only when we seen something that reminds an innate sense in our soul of the one and true Beautiful. When we enjoy a breathtaking sunset, or are awakened by a fresh sunrise, or enjoy a landscape, or hear a song that we are experiencing the fingerprint of God on creation. This would explain its elusive nature, because we are only detecting the imprints of the divine glory on and in creation. But this also explains how it can be all around us at the same time.

There is no reason for beauty to exist. Some might try to explain how morality is just a pragmatic way to help the species endure, (though this hardly will due), there really is no practical or beneficial reason for beauty to exist. One might try to define beauty as those things which also will help the species continue, but this is easily refuted by one's experience of beauty.

Beauty is also sinister. As flawed humans, we can only enjoy so much beauty before it becomes perversion. At some point, we either become numb to the reality of beauty, or we became gorged on it.

Once again, I have neither the skill nor the knowledge to further articulate this point. But it does seem clear to me that those things we find genuinely beautiful (without perversion) are a dim and minor reflection of the divine glory. If this is the case, then beauty definitely belongs in the same category as the good an the true. And if this is the case, then learning to appreciate beauty at a deeper and more mature level is a goal that all Christians should have, right alongside growing in understanding of the good and true. It is because all three of these are reflections of the Divine, and in dwelling on these and growing in our appreciation of them, we are growing closer to the mind of God.

So why is it that Christians should not settle for poor art? Or should not settle for mediocre music? Or should not settle with trends and clichés? It is the same reason why we should not settle for simple truths and basic morality. We are not growing as persons, and we are not growing as Christians. Gaining a deeper appreciation and understanding of beauty in art, music, literature, and so on are all important goals that as people, as Christians, and as disciples of Christ we should wholeheartedly pursue. It is the good, the beautiful, and the true.

Read more...

There is Power in the Blood

As Christians, we cherish the theological truth of the power in Jesus' blood. Jesus' death on the cross is easily the center of Christianity. The worship song "There is power in the blood" articulates this notion, that there is power in Jesus' blood, "wonder working power". A few months ago, it struck me while spending some time in thought that Jesus' sacrifice rightly should stand as our center focus. After all, it was his blood that established the new covenant, it is by his blood that we will stand justified before God, and it is by his blood that God's plan for redeeming humanity is accomplished. What struck me though was that I could not think of any Biblical significance to the resurrection.

Paul certainly believes the resurrection is core, as he is willing to say that his entire ministry is in vain and his and the church's faith is in vain if Christ didn't actually rise from the dead, (1 Cor. 15:14). So the resurrection is certainly important, if for anything as a demonstration of God's power, and Christ's living presence today. But theologically, is this the entirety of its significance?

One might chime in at this point that in fact there is more, because the resurrection proves Jesus' deity. But the New Testament authors consistently attribute the power of Jesus' resurrection to the Father, and though theologically we could add a note here about the Trinity, this role / distinction should not be removed. However, there is in fact a lot more significance to the resurrection. There is a very good and solid theological basis for Paul's strong words about the importance of Jesus' resurrection. We must first begin by defining the significance of resurrection in a Biblical framework.

First, resurrection is most importantly a resurrection to life. This mostly goes without saying, but it cannot be overstressed. Man's fall into sin brought death. This curse was not only manifest itself in man dying (spiritually and likely physically Gen 3:19), but also all of creation suffered a curse. The undoing of this death obviously would need to be brought about by a new infusion of life. Paul says as much in Romans 5, that Jesus' death undid our enmity with God, but it is by his life that we are saved.

So, resurrection means new life. This infusion of life and restoration can be seen in the Old Testament prophets, (such as Jeremiah's stone of flesh). 1 Peter also picks up on this theme, that we are a part of a new creation, we have new life in salvation. This is seen again and again throughout the New Testament.

As Christians, I think we reduce Christianity to simply dealing with the problem of sin. We stress that Jesus not only paid the debt, but also stands in our place before God, so that God only sees Jesus' righteousness. In a more Pauline vein, we are redeemed from enslavement to sin and freed to live righteously to please our Father. Salvation is not just about having our debt of sin paid. In fact, I think that the issue of sin is actually secondary.

Sin is what brought our death and enslavement, and thus it has to be dealt with. But God's purpose was not just to pay a debt. His goal was redemption. The reason the Biblical narrative begins and ends with Eden is because Eden is God's goal. A righteous and pure human race that has an unhindered relationship with God. More than this, God wanted a restoration of all creation. New Creation is primarily about humanity, but Paul and John both see this applying to all of creation. Dealing with the debt of sin does not transform. Death is the problem, and it was caused by sin. So sin must be dealt with, but Jesus' sacrifice does not bring life, it only deals with the problem of sin. Of course we will admit that God makes us righteous, but it often seems like the details are averted to Sanctification, and then glossed over. How does God want to make us righteous?

The solution is new life, new creation. God wants to remove our slavery to sin by Christ's death, and pay our debt. But it is by the power of his resurrection that he wants to transform us. Jesus' resurrection is the first fruits of God's promised new creation. This is not only spiritual life, but physical life. New life means an undoing of physical death and decay. Our new bodies will not suffer the same ills as today, and thus Paul can say that Jesus' resurrection is the firstfruits of a wider physical resurrection of those already dead, (1 Cor. 15:20). We cannot relegate God's salvation only to our spiritual lives, it must encompass all of creation because God's kingdom is repeatedly couched in such language throughout scripture. One has a hard time studying John's theological of life and its biblical background to miss this. In the same line of thinking, Jesus' death brought the New Covenant, but the purpose of covenant is to bring life.

Many passages speak of our present experience of this new life. We are both freed from sin and giving this new life. Of course it is natural to expect this to be progressive in this already/not yet period. And naturally our hope is looking forward to its finality, when our transformation is completed (Christ's return and judgment).

So we need to celebrate Jesus' resurrection just as much if not more than his death. His death was necessary, but our only hope lies with his life. We are not slaves to sin, and we are new creations with new life. It is then fitting to say (as is often said in scripture) that we need to live a life that reflects this reality. Living a contrary life either points to the illegitimacy of what we proclaim (as in, one has not really experienced new life) or something very dangerous: one has experienced new life, but is choosing to live by his old life. I think it is in this light that we can see a clear application of the message of Hebrews: Jesus is far greater than anything we formerly had, so we need to press on and hold firmly to the faith we profess.
Read more...

LTE review

just gotta say this was the absolute most amazing musical experience I've ever had.. I cannot begin to convey the overwhelming emotions I experienced.... needless to say, my socks have been officially knocked off. It wasn't just the experience of hearing songs I've loved and cherished over the last 10 years live for the first time, but also all those extra little DT moments :) (like the extended ending of Kindred Spirits).

First off, they covered a lot of the LTE 1 and 2 material.
Here is a rough breakdown (not in order) of what they played (best I can remember):

Acid Rain
Kindred Spirits
Biaxident
Freedom of Speech
Hourglass
Universal Mind
When the Water Breaks (you better believe this was amazing)
Another Dimension
Osmosis
Paradigm shift

And all of it was note for note perfect. Including the improvised solos, they covered them perfectly (I really expected them to be a bit more loose on some, but nope). There were only a few very minor rythmic parts that were off (and taht is from somebody who has memorized those albums note for not).

They had a couple of improvised songs that brought in elements of 3 minute warning and chewbacca, but still very improvised and abstract. They were okay, but these were my least favorite part.

Halfway through the jam part of universal mind, Petrucci's rig died. Especially after what happened in Chicago, tensions were high. The timing wasn't that bad, because it was right before Rudess began his piano solo. It was obvious it was going to take some time to fix Petrucci's rig, and Portnoy slipped a note to Rudess which obviously said "keep going".

This was amazing... Rudess just kept going... what an awsome time of improve. Its a bit ironic for albums that were recorded at the speed of improv that they've been forced into long improv sessions on two shows :)

They had a 5+ camera video shoot going on, so I'm really hoping they are going to make a DVD. From the camera's point of view, you never would have known that there were technical difficulties, Jordan just kept the show going. After about 5 minutes, they fixed the guitar rig, and the rest of the band transitioned naturally into the rest of the song.

I think the highlight of the night, and definitely worth the cost of admission, was a version of Rhapsody in Blues LTE style. I really hope there is a DVD, or they jump into the studio for this song. I wasn't too familar with it, but after hearing they were playing it on this tour I listened to the original all afternoon. What a great song, and they definitely owned it. There were just some classic LTE moments with this newer material.

So all in all, no question about it, this was the absolute BEST musical experience I've ever had. The bar of my expectation for musical performance has been raised a lot higher than I care to admit. Part of me is uncontrollably drive to play my guitar, another part is terrified to ever pick it up again.
Read more...

Gratitude

God is really good.

I so rarely spend time reflecting on all the amazing blessings he has brought into my life. This is a brief blog to mention a few.

First, he blessed me with an amazing family. Sure, we have a lot of flaws, but fundamentally I have parents that love me, are godly, and have done their best to cherish me and raise me in a biblical way.

Second, he blessed me with an amazing wife. She is the most patient person I know, and she cares deeply about others. She also has a deep love for God that blows me away. And, although it is a bit shallow of me, she is also beautiful. When I think about the girls in my past that I was enamored with I realize again and again that God definitely knew what was best for me. I am totally undeserving of her.

Third, he has provided for me even in the most difficult of times. When I was a grad student, on many occasions we would make our budget each month against all odds and reason. Further, I have been unemployed for 2 weeks now, but he has been bringing in money to support us.

Fourth, he has blessed me with an amazing church to call a family. The people there love God, love community, love his truth, and love people. And for some reason, despite my failures and inadequacies, they keep asking me to be involved in ministries. I've grown so much in the last few years and have learned so much about God and what it means to minister to others.

Fifth, he has blessed me with safety. There have been a number of situations in my life where I was in danger, but he always brought me through it. We live in a world full of hatred, injustice, and natural disasters. We also live in a neighborhood that has a decent amount of crime, but he continues to keep us safe.

I could list a lot of other things, like being able to have a few really sweet toys, or being blessed with an education that lets me study his Word, or being able to enjoy music and art, or simply being able to eat food that I enjoy.

The real question is, how should I respond? Gratitude yes, but I think more. I think that because he has given so much, the very least I could do is respond by living a life that is pleasing to him. That is not why he blesses me, but I think it is the appropriate response. It is part of living in relationship with him.

I think also that my love for him shouldn't be contingent on these blessings. Sometimes God takes away his blessings for us to grow in our trust of him. I'm afraid I do not know how I would respond to that. I talked to somebody today who is loosing his home, his family has gone through multiple crises over the last several months, and his wife just lost a job. I do not know how I could handle that. I've felt some sense of loss in my struggle to find a job, but that hardly compares. Its easy to love God and be thankful when he gives, but how will I respond when he doesn't? Only time will tell, but I do know this: God is faithful. He will continue to carry me along and provide for needs. When he brings difficulty, he will sustain me as long as I hold on to him and trust him. That is what faith is: trusting God through difficult times. Holding on because you know that he is the only way.
Read more...

Biblical literracy, Christian education, and Life Principles

I haven't been blogging much in the last several months.. and since I am presently unemployed and have a decent amount of free time, I am committing to starting up again.

I feel caught in a tension. Christians seem to be stuck in an "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to biblical education. Either we study grand overarching systematic theology, or we reduce the text to mere life principles.

This has been painfully clear to me in my present quest for finding a new job. I've been researching a lot of high schools, and many seem to have no need for somebody with a Masters degree in New Testament. Their Bible curriculums are so basic and simple that it is no accident that they pass out Bible classes to coaches or teachers with specialties in other fields.

In my mind this is very discouraging. If we believe scripture is God's revealed truth, and if we agree with Paul that God's wisdom makes any mere human wisdom appear foolish, then we must start with a solid understanding of scriptural truth before we can really proceed with any other. It would seem that this simply means that if we're trying to educate our kids to actually think critically and well about issues of truth, then why would we want to simplify their biblical education? I have no problem with other subjects being taught at a high level, but my problem is when Bible is seen as the "easy subject". We should NEED more specialized high school Bible teachers, (and I say this with conviction, not self interest).

Instead, a lot of what I have seen is basic Bible survey, and lots of "Life Principles" classes. In my opinion, at least out of the schools I've seen, many have a Bible program that is just a glorified youth group. This content is what I think is appropriate for parents to teach in the home, and also covered (and then some) in the church. What is the point of repeating this material a third time? If being raised in a Christian family and attending a church is not enough to explain why you should not go out and have sex, or what Christian dating looks like, then I doubt a Bible class at high school will really change your mind. Of course no family or church is perfect, but I do not think that then should shift the focus of Bible classes, especially when the classrom is hardly the place for a mentoring relationship. Instead, Bible classes need to suplement the home and church, building a solid Biblical literate basis with the principle of pursuing Christian excellence.

Its been my experience at Biola that a lot of freshmen already have an established opinion on theology, and many are overwhelmed with Biola's Bible classes. This is really sad, because at least those who came from a solid church, and certainly those who went through a Christian High School should find Biola's Bible classes no more of a challenge than Biola's English or History classes. College is the next step up, and when your finding that instead of a step you have a chasm to cross, something is wrong. And I do not believe it is that Biola's standards are too high.



But here is where my tension lies. On the one hand, I feel like we need more and much better Biblical education. On the other hand, I think we must keep this in balance with the intensions and purposes of scripture. When we read a book like Hebrews, and simply want to teach it as "Doctrine about Christ", or worse, after teaching find ourselves with no application at all, then something is wrong. Just like Paul with Romans, the author of Hebrews had a very specific exhortational purpose for the book of Hebrews. He did not write it just so the audience could have a better understanding of Christology. For the author, the truth's he elaborates on about Christ are supposed to directly impact how the people live. This is clearly seen in his repeated exhortation to living faithfully, and persevering through trials and tempatations, (specifically the tempation to return to Judaism). Because of Christ's surpassing greatness, because of his role as high priest, becasue of the culmination of salvation history in Christ, we need to hold on and continue a life of faith, just like so many heroes of the faith did before us.

But this really gets at the problem. Biblical authors give us theology with the intent that it impact how we live our lives, but it seems like in the church we've divided these two. We'll either teach theology (though usually systematic, so its a bit removed from the text), or watered down life principles. This really hit me when I was teaching on 1 Peter a couple of weeks ago. In my mind, it made a lot of sense. The first half of chapter 1 basically says "see what an amazing salvation we have in Christ", and the latter half says "now live faithfully". For the author, the whole reason of talking about the truth of our great salvation was to motivate his readers to live faithfully. But when I taught it, I was not able to convey this. I felt like the kids were not connecting. This is probably because I'm not a great teacher, but still it really hit me that we're so accustomed to either being bored by "truth", or exhorted by "relevant application". And usually (it seems), the more relevant the application, the less it is tied to the passage. But for the Biblical authors, truth is supposed to impact how we live. If we believe the truth, it impacts our identity, and impacts us so deeply that in order to really believe it, we must live differently. Perhaps I am unable to explain this connection better because I have this mentality of separating truth and application so ingrained.

So I am caught in a tension, on the one hand, I think we desperately need greater biblical literacy, but on the other, I think we need less "theology" and more of the intended message. There is certainly an important role that systematic theology plays, and I do not want to undermine that. There are certainly difficult questions that the message of scripture raises, and I do not think we can really and satisfactorly remain agnostic on issues such as sovereingty and responsibility. But these are secondary. We cannot loose the message of the text. But we also should not water it down in the name of relevancy, or worse, to be more interesting. Of course, the greatest hindrance to this is first learning how to "get at" the message. Learning how to actually read a book rightly, learning to pay attention to historical and literary context, and learning to follow an author's logical and thematic developement can be frustrating. But without it, we're in danger of loosing something precious. We have to maintain that delicate balance between the study of scripture and its application.

That's all for now....
Read more...