I wrote this for Calvin in Common
The question of divine guidance in creation doesn’t seems as complex as the question of divine guidance in history. It seems easier however to take divine guidance in history more personally. I’m walking with my adult sunday school class through Isaiah. Assyria shatters the Northern Kingdom and nearly consumes the southern at the invitation of Yhwh. He raises up the Babylonians only to destroy them with the Persians. He claims through all of this to seek not only the good of his people but the renewal of the earth, so that the purpose of the Isaiah 5 vineyard will come to glory. In all of this Isaiah’s ministry will be fruitless and frustrating, not unlike the curse of Adam. All of these themes will of course be picked up by Jesus and the Apocalypse. The children of Israel are required to live in relationship with this God who destroys even as he says he’s blessing. The nations around look for ways to manipulate their gods while Yhwh finds such ploys offensive and punishable. Israel’s faithfulness, like Isaiah’s will not be rewarded in the short term, nor will Christ’s, at least if you doubt the resurrection.
What intervention do you expect to find in science different than what you may find in history? Does Yhwh leave fingerprints in Babylon or Ninevah beyond the words of the prophets? Which prophets will you recognize?
I’ve been making my way through Jenkin’s book on The Great and Holy War and was reminded of the story of the vision of Fatima. Was it God? Was it group psychology? Was it staring at the sun? How can you tell? Who decides “for us” as each decides for themselves?
We sit in the midst of history in the midst of a multitude of voices all declaring what all sorts of gods with all sorts of purposes are doing. Is Putin right? is the Pope right? is the Dalai Lama right? are the Islamists right? The problem doesn’t seem any different than it’s always been. If we can’t vouch for God’s intervention today how can we find it through the thin telescope peering in the past? We can hardly seem to agree on what happened at Calvin College over the last 30 years.
So the Christian church says that in Jesus God comes incarnate, revealing himself. Some love him, but most will abandon him in his crucifixion. Many claim he did miracles but interest in miracles comes and goes as does certainty. After he claims to be raised, some worship and some doubt.
Is the problem of science and divine intervention any different the problem of this guy who appears to the disciples of Jesus claiming to have risen as he eats fish and shows scars? Is it any different from the problem of listening to the likes of Isaiah or his followers who say that Yhwh wants the best for them as he directs Assyria and Babylon? pvk
How We Don’t Live Out Our Confessionality, Why it is Unintelligible and Offensive to Many, and Why We Need to Stop It
How does a Common Cultural North American understand a church “confession”?
Tim Keller in a video on his book Center Church talks about the common baseline assumptions North Americans have with respect to God and religion. He describes it in this way based on the work of Robert Bellah, Christian Smith and Charles Taylor.
How do these therapeutic assumptions play out when it comes to the expectations and demands religious consumers bring to the institutional church?
Anyone reading this with any knowledge of the vows for membership and office holding in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) will see the obvious conflict. These assumptions make church discipline unthinkable for most North Americans. Once the church makes any movement to say even a negative word to someone most North Americans will simply escape and avoid the disciplining church community to the degree they are able.
Unintelligible To the Broader Culture Continue reading →