When Bad Books Happen to Good People

Recovering Classic Evangelicalism: Applying the Wisdom and Vision of Carl F. H. Henry

• Gregory Alan Thornbury
• Aug 22, 2013
• Series: Denver Journal Volume 16 - 2013

Gregory Alan Thornbury, Recovering Classic Evangelicalism: Applying the Wisdom and Vision of Carl F. H. Henry. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2013. Paperback. 222 pages with Scripture index. $17.99.  ISBN-10: 1433530627; ISBN-13: 978-1433530623.

A book of this stripe desperately needed to be written, given the intellectually devalued state of so much evangelicalism (if that term retains any determinate meaning).  Given the philosophical, apologetic, and theological decline so evident in postmodern, post-liberal, mystical, and post-rational versions of evangelicalism, a return to Carl Henry’s robust rational account of evangelicalism is a needed tonic. The man is too important to bury in a few footnotes

An author should rise to the accession of the seriousness of the topic engaged.  Some subjects at some times call for serious and even prophetic treatment. The need for evangelicals to reclaim the genius of Dr. Carl F. H. Henry is one such topic, as Professor Thornbury rightly claims. To make my point, please indulge me a few autobiographical comments.

In the summer 1981, while working for a campus ministry, I found that New College, Berkeley (now defunct) was offering a three-week course on Modern Theology taught by Carl Henry. Having read The Remaking of the Modern Mind and part of volume one of his God, Revelation, and Authority (1976), I seized the moment and began to prepare. Having vast quantities of time that summer for intellectual leisure, I purchased the other three volumes then in print (the series ran to six volumes, ending in 1983), and began in earnest a systematic reading of this herculean work. I read slowly, took notes, and was compelled to learn as much as possible from this magnum opus. Henry’s greatness was on clear display: an encyclopedic knowledge of theology, biblical studies, and philosophy combined with a heartfelt love for God and concern for the church’s mission in the world of ideas. It was intoxicating and deeply rewarding. I arrived at New College with these volumes carefully read and richly resonating in my soul. Now I would meet the master philosopher-theologian. I was not disappointed, but thrilled to hear his daily three-hour lectures to be followed by my long study sessions and the writing of a fifty-page paper on process theology. During this hothouse experience, I also heard Dr. Henry preach and give a masterful message on biblical inerrancy to a group of pastors of various theological persuasions. 

Carl Henry made an indelible mark on my soul. Reading the first four volumes of God, Revelation, and Authority, was a theological education in and of itself (and I do not hold any theological degrees). Henry situated historic orthodoxy in relation to all the major contenders, particularly the ponderous thought of Karl Barth. He defended orthodoxy thoroughly, without rancor, but with insistence. After all, God’s truth was on the line. I later read most of volumes five and six as well, and am planning to reread the entire set, some thirty years later. (Great books demand re-reading, as C.S. Lewis sagaciously observed.)

As a long-time professor of philosophy at an evangelical seminary (and an adjunct at secular schools), I cannot but recommend Henry to my students. Further, my immersion in Carl Henry enriched my apologetic engagement in campus ministry from 1981-1984, before I attended graduate school. In time I differed with Dr. Henry’s apologetic method and especially his case against natural theology, which was very similar to that of one of his major mentors, Gordon H. Clark. Especially redolent has been his astutely-argued, meticulously-nuanced, and necessary articulation of the meaning of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. This was a tonic to my mind, given that I had wondered about this doctrine after my exposure to the teachings of Clark Pinnock two years before at New College, Berkeley. Over the years, I found that Christian scholars such as Alister McGrath, Robert Webber, and others rejected much of Dr. Henry work because he was a “rationalist,” whose view of reason was far too high and whose philosophy of biblical revelation was too propositional. (The alternative to the propositional is the non-cognitive.) Henry, they claimed, should be relegated to the status of a learned, but curious, and ultimately irrelevant, relic—a relic fit for a theological museum because of his standing in shaping evangelicalism. Yet he should not be deemed as part of the canon of theological greats of the Twentieth Century. I found these dismissive comments as ignorant, arrogant, and egregious. These ejaculations were akin to deploying a defective pea shooter against a world-class armored tank. The tank stands and advances, even as many ignorantly applaud the underachieving pea shooters.

Now comes Professor Thornbury to set the record straight—to rehabilitate Dr. Henry’s legacy, and to apply Henry’s deepest insights to matters theological today: epistemology, theology proper, inerrancy culture, and evangelicalism in general. I had high hopes for this young college president’s book—hopes that were quickly dashed on rocks of a ragged, sloppy, and, at worst, excruciating book. These are strong words, and may seem out of place for an academic review. But please read on.

Chapter one begins with a sick thud when Thornbury sets an authorial tone (or pathos) that does not befit serious scholarship. His opening anecdote about “glam-rock” attempts to be clever, but fails. It also fails to adroitly advance the thesis of the book. Great (or even good) books may have bad starts, but in this case, the start is the substance.

However, Thornbury correctly laments and decries the near disappearance of Henry’s work and method in contemporary evangelicalism. In particular, he mourns the loss of philosophical prolegomena—including epistemology, theological method, and philosophical theology—in recent theological works by evangelicals. He mentions Wayne Grudem’s popular Systematic Theology as a prime offender. I unhappily noticed this defect when the work first appeared. It is orthodox and biblically-supported. I agree with most of its doctrines; but it does not cognitively situate itself in our pluralistic world of alien ideas. This was one of Dr. Henry’s (and Francis Schaeffer’s) fortes. Both were always concerned with gaining a respectful hearing from the non-Christian world and by comparing biblical revelation and historic orthodoxy with intellectual rivals, both secular and religious. That is, the approach was philosophical. This noble tradition continues in the work of Millard Erickson, who has just released a third edition of his modern classic, Christian Theology (Baker, 2013); and in Integrative Theology (three volumes) by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest (Zondervan, 1996-2002).

One theme that unites all of these theologians is a burden to find the proper method for discerning truth about God, man, the cosmos, salvation, and history/eschatology. They do not merely extract a Christian worldview from Scripture; they defend it apologetically (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). While postmodernists want to bracket epistemology issues (thus insuring their own principled and pious ignorance) and fideists don’t think epistemology matters (or is dangerous as “worldly philosophy”), astute theologians embrace the challenge of epistemology and submit to its rigors. If Jesus Christ came “to make the Father known” (John 1:18; see also Hebrews 1), then the subject of knowledge in general and theological knowledge in particular should not be avoided by anyone passionate about extending the Kingdom of God under the Lordship of Christ Jesus to the whole of life (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17).

Ironically, while Thornbury wants to enlist Dr. Henry to fill the chasm left by theologians who abandon (or vilify) prolegomena, this is exactly what Thornbury himself does in the disappointing second chapter, “Epistemology Matters.” In a paragraph that is, at best, off-putting, he avers that volume one of Dr. Henry’s God, Revelation, and Authority, should be pushed aside, since it is hopelessly esoteric and, consequently, irrelevant. The tone of this one-paragraph dismissal is both arrogant and flippant. Worse yet, it is flatly false and disrespectful to Dr. Henry’s meticulously measured philosophy of knowledge. Before coming back to this offending paragraph in more detail, let me say more about volume one of God, Revelation, and Authority.

Volume One: “God Who Speaks and Shows, Preliminary Considerations,” is foundational to the five long and rich volumes to follow. Again, perhaps the reader will allow some philosophical autobiography. I read the majority of his book in the summer of 1981, while working in campus ministry. My philosophical credential was a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Oregon (Eugene) in 1979, having graduating with a mediocre grade point average. I read the Volume One very carefully, taking copious notes and making comments in the margins. The ponderous volume had small print and no subtitles, charts, or diagrams. As I poured over the text, I was elated to find a philosophically-acute and theologically-informed knowledge of and critique of Kant’s epistemology (which had flummoxed me as an undergraduate). Further, Henry articulated a fine-tuned epistemology of his own, emphasizing a priori knowledge (rationalism, in the technical philosophical sense) and the failure of both empiricism and transcendental idealism (Kant’s view) to avoid skepticism and to deliver knowledge. Henry drew heavily on the earlier work of Gordon H. Clark, but expanded on it impressively. I was riveted by every page and found none of it inaccessible to my modestly-educated mind. Every one of the twenty-four chapters of that 409-page-book was profoundly pertinent to Christian witness and the advance of the Kingdom of God into the crucial world of ideas and arguments. Henry was intellectually fearless without being cocky. He dug deep, thought widely, but wrote intelligibly. After all, he began his professional career as a journalist. He assumed some rudimentary philosophical the theological knowledge, but never wrote merely to display his arcane academic assets—as many sadly do.

Now brace yourself for what Thornbury writes about this august and learned volume, that which establishes the underpinning and sets the appropriately exacting conceptual tone for all the volumes that follow.

Volume 1 (Preliminary Considerations) was a terrible leadoff batter. Esoteric and turgid, the book was extremely difficult to get through, and it reads more like a Windows computer manual of insider theological and philosophical agenda than an introduction into the defining convictions of evangelical theology. What a shame. The best approach is to set aside volume 1 and dive right into volume 2… (60).

When flippancy meets profundity the result is often absurdity. Consider five issues:

First, the metaphor of “leadoff batter” is inept and silly. Volume one was the epistemic and methodological foundation for what was to come. Leadoff batters bat first, but they in no way serve the same purpose in baseball as a prolegomena does for a major theological-philosophical work. But the garish glibness continues.

Second, even if the book was “difficult to get through” (which it was not for me), this is irrelevant to its purpose. Significant topics often require demanding treatments. The Book of Hebrews is difficult reading in places, and it is Holy Scripture. Every discipline—from philosophy to sociology to plumbing—requires and employs its own terminology and conventions. Dr. Henry, unlike many murky philosophers and theologians, did not use terms idiosyncratically or imprecisely. He does not show off his learning ostentatiously; nor is his writing redundant or cumbersome. His arguments are well-stated and well-documented (even when I disagree with him). He astutely addresses a long tradition of theology, philosophy, biblical studies, and cultural analysis (see chapter one, “The Crisis of Truth and Word”). The work is lucid, not turgid; it is expository, not esoteric.

Third, Thornbury’s simile that volume one reads like “a Windows computer manual of insider theological and philosophical agenda…” is not even grammatical. How can there be a “computer manual of…agenda”? We can here blame both the writer and editor for this misstep. But, worse yet, Volume One was written to insiders in the sense that it is addressed to serious students of theology, philosophy, biblical studies, and apologetics. It is not a graphic novel; it needs no graphs or charts; and it is not Theology for Dummies.

Fourth, it is insulting to Henry’s erudition and the gravity of the issues addressed to say that Volume One is “a shame.” One may have neither the learning nor the stamina to read volume one with the comprehension and appreciation that it is entitled to, but that imputes no shame to Dr. Henry. Rather, the shame resides closer to home. (It is remarkable that Thornbury, writing an entire book on Carl Henry, confesses his own inability to fathom one of Henry’s pivotal volumes.)

Fifth, if we take the author’s advice and “set aside volume one,” we commit two more errors: (1) We insult the author himself, who never intended the foundational material to be swept aside with a shrug. (2) Further, why try to climb Henry’s theological ladder without benefit of the first several rungs? Perhaps some can accomplish this, but why try? Why erroneously edit the lifelong labor of an encyclopedic Christian mind?

For these five reasons, Thornbury’s proposed redaction of God, Revelation, and Authority borders on bathos. Given this methodological maltreatment of Henry’s logical system, it is difficult to summon the desire to go on. I am tempted to end the review here. But a few more paragraphs may be in order.

Thornbury further exhibits philosophical imprudence in his discussion of Henry’s philosophy in relation to foundationalism, a term Thornbury never defines (but which I will below). After stating a very clear passage where Henry grounds all knowledge in God’s revelation, Thornbury issues the follow jumble of words:

In this sense, then, Henry defies the foundationalist level that some have recently attempted to place upon him by, a trend that began with Hans Frei’s response to Henry’s critique of narrative theology. Unfortunately for Henry’s legacy, the impression stuck and has been repeated by…postliberal writers such as George Hunsinger. Certainly, evangelical neo-Thomists such as Norman Geisler and R.C. Sproul might be surprised, to say the least, at the notion that Henry is somehow a cobelligerent with them in the realm of foundationalist apologetics and epistemology. For Henry, there is no neutral, antiseptic path to knowledge. Knowledge properly defined, is permitted, made accessible, and circumscribed by God himself (55; and the discussions on pages 100 and 154 do not help).

It is hard to know where to begin detangling this convoluted, poorly written, and just plain wrong passage.

First, foundationalism claims that our knowledge is divided into two categories, foundational and non-foundational (or inferential) knowledge. Philosophers dispute what knowledge should be put in the foundations, but these foundational items need no justification based on other beliefs. That is, they are self-evident, logically necessary, incorrigible, evident to the senses, and so on (depending on which formulation of foundationalism one adopts). Other beliefs are based on foundational beliefs in various ways (deduction, induction, or abduction).

Second, Dr. Henry was a foundationalist. Without entering the contested terrain of which (if any) version of foundationalism is true—or even spelling out all the specifics of Henry’s view—let us consider one principal part of Henry’s approach. Like his mentor, Gordon Clark, Henry believed that the laws of logic—his primary focus was on the law of non-contradiction—were foundational to all knowledge. One cannot arguefrom X to the law of non-contradiction, since the law of non-contradiction is required for all thought, meaning, argument, and communication. That is, all truth-claims to knowledge must be tested by foundational logic. Put yet another way, the law of contradiction is a necessary and negative test for all truth-claims. This means that if any truth claim or set of truth claims contains one contradiction or more, it cannot be true. However, logical coherence is not a sufficient test for the truth of any given claim. (For another compelling and clear treatment of noncontradiction, see Ronald Nash, “The Law of Noncontradiction” in Life’s Ultimate Questions [Zondervan, 1999].)

Third, these foundational (and a priori) truths are not independent of God’s being; and a foundationalist need not be autonomous in his reasoning. This, by the way, includes the much-vilified Rene Descartes. On the contrary, Henry grounds logic in the Logos, the eternal second person of the Trinity (John 1:1). He develops a masterful account of Logos Christology in Volume Three. God, as Logos, is the infinite archetype of logic who creates finite human beings in his image and likeness who have the ability to use logic. God, as Logos, cannot contradict himself; nor can his revelation contain contradictions. Thus, logic is neither the creation of man, nor can it be placed posterior to the being of the Logos. Sadly, Thornbury does not seem to fathom any of this—or, at best, he wrongfully ignores it. The word “Logos” does not appear in the index.

Thornbury does his best to marshal Dr. Henry’s insights in the chapters that follow and to defend him against charges made by evangelical theologians. That is to be commended, and Thornbury knows his way around the basic issues of the discussion.  But again, we find a major miscue. In the chapter “Culture Matters,” Thornbury rightly exposits Henry’s groundbreaking short work, The Uneasy Conscience of American Fundamentalism, but neglects the crucial first chapter of Henry’s supposedly “esoteric” Volume One of God, Revelation, and Authority, “The Crisis of Word and Truth,” which exegetes technological culture in relation to epistemology and biblical revelation. If “culture matters,” then Henry’s chapter matters; but Thornbury has already jettisoned it, as mentioned above. What a shame.

He extols, “Carson, Erickson, and Groothuis” as part of “a formidable host of scholars” who, like Henry, “understand that the gospel necessarily rests upon an articulable theory of truth” (41). I will leave myself out of the assessment, but agree with Thornbury’s judgment on Carson and Erickson. Thornbury says something similar on page 97, and rightly includes Albert Mohler. It is strange that Thornbury does not document the works to which he refers, and that he presumes his readers will recognize the authors by their last names only. He does not write D.A. Carson, MillardErickson, or Douglas Groothuis. Many readers will infer this, but not all. The first names of Erickson and myself are given on page 97; but D.A. Carson, one of evangelicalism’s most distinguished contemporary New Testament scholars, is never properly identified, nor does his name appear in the index. In addition, Thornbury fails to give any footnotes to document what works he has in mind by these authors. Millard Erickson wrote a fine book called Truth or Consequences [Crossway, 2001] pertaining to postmodernism and D.A. Carson wrote a similar book called Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church [Crossway, 2005]—to mention only two works of these prolific and insightful authors. This is simply careless scholarship. 

Despite Thornbury’s noble intent, given his overly jocular tone, his lack of documentation, and his omission or dismissal of essential epistemological concerns, we must look elsewhere for a work rightly commending Dr. Carl F. H. Henry’s pertinence to the renewal of evangelical theology. However, if this book manages to stimulate readers to take up Henry’s work for themselves and to critically heed his insights, it will serve at least an instrumental purpose.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Denver Seminary
August 2013

The State Knows Best

The state must regulate music listening for the common good. Music stirs the passions and guides action. Given the unsavory elements in society, the Controllers must filter this for people's own good and for the Party. So be it.

Wood, Wonder

Siren sounds
of worldly wonder.

Lash me to the masts,
Sailors.
The churning sea
Has is allure, when
Voices raise their
Fleshly plea.

It is a whipping post,
Tied to it. No escape--
yet.

Not the axis mundi,
Not the stairway to the gods,
but a pike of wood and
Wonder.

Some philosophical points about the Zimmerman-Martin case

Some philosophical points about the Zimmerman-Martin case

1. Juries know more than the common person about the case and the laws of legal evidence. The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
2. One's race (which is often difficult to classify) has nothing to do with truth or knowledge (justified true belief). Members of any race may be right or wrong, justified or unjustified about any given proposition. Race is not, in itself,  the issue in epistemology, but, rather, competence in judgment given a particular circumstance.
3. To say that one race (or several) cannot rightly evaluate a controversy is to undermine democracy and to demean strangers (and friends) simply because of their race. This is wrong. Moreover, many are mixed race, such as Barack Obama and George Zimmerman. Where do they fit in?
4. America is not a systematically racist society. Consider who was elected president-- twice. Look back at the Civil Rights Act. Consider the canonization of Dr. Martin Luther King. To say so is rank ignorance or worse.
5. Outrage is not a good indicator of knowledge. One may be wrongly outraged or rightly outraged. But outrage does not determine the truth of the matter. Remember the crowd that condemned Jesus to death. One's emotions are easily untethered from good judgment and concern for proper reasoning.
6. If an injustice has been done in a trial, punishing and terrifying innocent people is no way to rectify or ameliorate the situation. If you think all members of one race are to blame, you have undermined the Western and American and Christian heritage individual responsibility. If so, you are wrong.
7. If you think that boycotting products from the state in which a verdict was rendered with which you disagree is just or even helpful, you are wrong. State's do not give sentences. Juries do that.
8. If you try to reveal the details of personal identities of witnesses in important trials, you are endangering them and undermining the entire legal system. If you think our system needs a total overhaul, find a better country. You are also harming the individuals in question, who are innocent. They, the jurors, are not on trial.

Robert George on Marriage

Robert George in his new book Conscience and Its Enemies.

A fundamental error some supporters of conjugal marriage have made is to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: “We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any kind. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.”

There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted. Perhaps liberal forces would accept parts of such a bargain temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined. But guarantees of religious liberty and nondiscrimination for people who cannot in consciences accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed.

There is, in my opinion, no chance–no chance–of persuading champions of sexual liberation (and it should be clear by now that this is the cause they serve) that they should respect, or permit the law to respect, the conscience rights of those with whom they disagree. Look at it from their point of view: Why should we permit “full equality” to be trumped by bigotry? Why should we respect religions and religious institutions that are “incubators of homophobia”? Bigotry, religiously based or not, must be smashed and eradicated. The law should not give it recognition or lend it any standing or dignity.

The lesson for those of us who believe that the conjugal conception of marriage is true and good, and who wish to protect the rights of our faithful and of our institutions to honor that belief in carrying out their vocations and missions, is that there is no alternative to winning the battle in the public square over the legal definition of marriage. The “grand bargain” is an illusion we should dismiss from our minds. (144-45)

Truth Decay

"Without a thorough and deeply rooted understanding of the biblical view of truth as revealed, objective, absolute, universal, eternally engaging, antithetical and exclusive, unified and systematic, and as an end in itself, the Christian response to postmodernism will be muted by the surrounding culture or will make illicit compromises with the truth-impoverished spirit of the age. The good news is that truth is still truth, that it provides a backbone for witness and ministry in postmodern times, and that God's truth will never fail." Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, p. 81-82.

Sneak Preview: The Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought

Denver Seminary is currently developing the new Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought and Culture, led by Dr. Douglas Groothuis.

In light of Denver Seminary’s calling to teach in order “to engage the needs of the world with the redemptive power of the gospel and the life-changing truth of Scripture,” the Lewis Center will serve as a vehicle for this mission. The Center will focus on serving the greater-Denver community by using the disciplines of theology, philosophy, and apologetics to explore the question of what it means to be a Christian in our world. Driven by the Mission of God, the Center will serve as both an outreach to those who do not believe as well as to Christians in need of bolstering their faith. This means that we will seek to engage our community in ways that emphasize the objectively true and subjectively transformational nature of Christianity. 

We will kick off the Lewis Center with two lectures open to the public in September.  These will be held in room 119 of Denver Seminary's classroom building. The first lecture will be on Monday night, September 23rd, at 7pm, when Doug Groothuis will speak on the relationship of faith and reason. On Tuesday night, September 24th at 7pm, Mark Mittelberg will join us to speak on "Understanding the Secular Landscape," which will cover the relationship between apologetics and evangelism. There will be a special question/answer session after the September 24th talk, which will include both Mark Mittelberg and Doug Groothuis.

Among other things, the Lewis Center will continue to offer lectures and longer community courses to the public.

If you would like to be put an email list for updates, please send an email to DenverSeminaryApologetics@gmail.com, and put "Lewis Center Updates" in the subject line.

Verdicts and Mob Violence

If anyone--red, yellow, black, or white--threatens mob violence if a high-profile trial does not go their way, then:

1. They think they can adjudicate the evidence between than the better-informed jury, who are held to strict standards of evaluation. This is absurd.
2. They think that by retaliating against those who had nothing to do with the trial they can make a moral point. This is immoral.
3. If the threat of mob violence is racially-based, they hold all members of the supposedly guilty race responsible and worthy of violence or intimidation. This is immoral. 

How, would anyone want to claim 1, 2, or 3 as a consequence of their threats of mob violence?

Providence on the Cheap

The Bible's teaching on providence is that an infinite-personal and triune being governs the cosmos. This being, God, is never outwitted or surprised. He is Lord of heaven and earth. His purposes will be achieved, despite the turpitude of humans east of Eden.

Providence on the cheap appeals to an historically-ungrounded and perverse notion of "karma." The teaching of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism claims that an impersonal mechanism punishes and rewards humans according to their actions. But karmic effects on only obtain between one's lifetimes (reincarnation), not within one. That is, everything one experiences in one incarnation is the result of previous incarnations. What one does in this incarnation will have its effects in the next lifetime. Further, this system is impersonal; it functions automatically and without moral evaluation or moral agency. (This itself is a philosophically problematic idea, which I have addressed in Christian Apologetics, chapter 25.)

However, Americans apply karma to one lifetime. One author even writes of "instant karma," to explain a good circumstance following a good deed of his. This is nonsense and contradictory, given the rigors of karma and reincarnation in the Eastern systems of thought. Worse yet, Americans, by combining loosely Christian ideas with Eastern doctrines, imagine that karma is administered by some personal and knowing being. But this is alien to Hinduism and Buddhism. Moreover, Christianity denies karma and reincarnation, but affirms the resurrection of the dead--for punishment or redemption (Daniel 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15).

God's providential governance of all history and eternity is that of a moral administration, judge, and savior, through Jesus Christ. No one can build up good karma to merit anything before God. God demands perfection. There is only one life available to get right with a holy God (Hebrews 9:27). It was only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ that makes atonement and brings reconciliation between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Whatever good works are wrought by the Christian are not the basis of salvation, but rather the fruit of salvation.

Let us give up providence on the cheap, which is an illicit blending of Eastern doctrines and the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16). Herein is truth, peace, and meaning.

Technology

This was quoted in The NY Times today in the obituary for James Martin, 79:

"A naive view of the past is that technology gives us mastery over nature. A more appropriate view is that advanced technology causes us to need even more advanced technology in order to survive."

Orwell

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell Today

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Marriage is what Big Brother says it is.

Homosexuality

The biblical position on homosexuality is rooted in Genesis 1-3; where foundational principles for religion and relationships are laid out. God's designed order for human sexuality is heterosexual monogamy. Male and female are equally called to serve God, love each other, and to develop and cultivate the good earth (Genesis 1-2). But through the fall, humans are alienated from God, from themselves, from each other, and from nature (Genesis 3). It is because of the fall that homosexuality exists; it has no root in creation. The Hebrew theocracy required the death penalty for those convicted of homosexual behavior (and for many other crimes as well). In the New Covenant, the civil laws of Israel are transcended, yet Paul teaches that homosexual activities are the result of sin and rebellion against God (Romans 1:18-32), and warns that those who persist in such activity will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Thus, the theological categories are clear cut. The Bible gives no positive examples of homosexual activity. Rather, homosexual activity is something to repent of, and repentance cannot be subtracted from the Gospel (Matthew 4:17).

Because of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, any sinner can be justified and forgiven through the atonement of Jesus Christ. (While Jesus did not directly speak about homosexuality [he did not need to, since no loyal Jew would defend it], he did ratify the Genesis pattern of marriage inMatthew 19:1-4.) All guilt, homosexual or otherwise, can be taken away through Christ's finished work on the Cross. As Francis Schaeffer taught in True Spirituality, the justified person can hope to experience "substantial healing" through sanctification. This includes the dimension of sexual sin. Some homosexuals have experienced total deliverance from this orientation through God's healing; others experience more gradual restoration. But in a fallen world, some regenerate people will not find themselves restored to a heterosexual set of desires. In that case, the Christ-follower must submit himself or herself to a life of celibacy for the sake of conscience and in obedience to God and his Word.

While these moral guidelines are clear cut, they do not warrant hatred or bitterness to those affected by homosexuality. The gospel goes out to all sinners, homosexual or otherwise (Acts 17:30). Yet we cannot twist the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) to make them endorse homosexuality or same-sex marriage. Christians, in the power of the Holy Spirit, should show compassion toward homosexuals, but this does not include supporting same-sex marriage, which is a violation of the most basic institution ordained by God at creation: heterosexual marriage. Further, in our pluralistic and largely post-Christian culture, the case for heterosexual monogamy can appeal to natural law (Romans 1:24-23; 2:14-15) as well as to special revelation, since heterosexual monogamy is deeply rooted in human nature, as Robert George and others have argued. But if relativism prevails in our culture, even this appeal will become increasingly difficult to make.

Groothuis on Yoga

Tomorrow (Wednesday) at 12:15, we will be meeting for our study onYou Will Be Like God?.  Dr. Douglas Groothuis, chairperson of the Philosophy Department at Denver Seminary, will be teaching on Second Thoughts on Yoga.  Doug is world renown as the author of 12 books including Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith(InterVarsity, 2011).  We will take a special love offering to help pay for Dr. Groothuis’ expenses.

 

Please bring your Bibles and a lunch if you wish.  We will have coffee and water for you ~ along with a study notebook. 

 

We are meeting at Front Range Christian Fellowship, 10667 Parkridge Avenue (Parkridge and Main), in the auxiliary house located across Parkridge from the church.  The church is easily found as it is across Main Street from the North Super WalMart.  Instead of turning right at the light on Parkridge into WalMart, turn left.  Front Range is on your immediate right.  You can park in the church parking lot and walk across the street to the ministry house.

 

We will see you there!

 

Glennis J. Henry

Legal Assistant

The Sonnesyn Law Firm

655 4th Ave. Suite B

Longmont, CO  80501

303.776.5077

sonnesyn@qwestoffice.net

Doug Groothuis Sermon

Here is my sermon from June 16, 2013, "How to be a Sinner."

From "The Best of A. W. Tozer"

The Use and Abuse of Humor

by A.W. Tozer

Few things are as useful in the Christian life as a gentle sense of humor and few things are as deadly as a sense of humor out of control.

Many lose the race of life through frivolity. Paul is careful to warn us. He says plainly that the Christian’s characteristic mood should not be one of jesting and foolish talking but rather one of thanksgiving (Eph. 5:1-5). It is significant that in this passage the apostle classifies levity along with uncleanness, covetousness and idolatry.
Now obviously an appreciation of the humorous is not an evil in itself. When God made us He included a sense of humor as a built-in feature, and the normal human being will possess this gift in some degree at least. The source of humor is ability to perceive the incongruous. Things out of focus appear funny to us and may stir within us a feeling of amusement that will break into laughter.

Dictators and fanatics have no sense of humor. Hitler never knew how funny he looked, nor did Mussolini know how ridiculous he sounded as he solemnly mouthed his bombastic phrases. The religious fanatic will look upon situations so comical as to excite uncontrollable mirth in normal persons and see nothing amusing in them. This blind spot in his make-up prevents him from seeing how badly his own life and beliefs are out of focus. And just so far as he is blind to the incongruous he is abnormal; he is not quite as God meant him to be.

Humor is one thing, but frivolity is quite another. Cultivation of a spirit that can take nothing seriously is one of the great curses of society, and within the church it has worked to prevent much spiritual blessing that otherwise would have descended upon us. We have all met those people who will not be serious. They meet everything with a laugh and a funny remark.
This is bad enough in the world, but positively intolerable among Christians.

Let us not allow a perverted sense of humor to ruin us. Some things are funny, and we may well laugh sometimes. But sin isn’t funny; death isn’t funny. There is nothing funny about a world tottering upon the brink of destruction; nothing funny about war and the sight of boys dying in blood upon the field of battle; nothing funny about the millions who perish each year without ever having heard the gospel of love.

It is time that we draw a line between the false and the true, between the things that are incidental and the things that are vital. Lots of things we can afford to let pass with a smile. But when humor takes religion as the object of its fun it is no longer natural—it is sinful and should be denounced for what it is and avoided by everyone who desires to walk with God.

Innumerable lectures have been delivered, songs sung and books written exhorting us to meet life with a grin and to laugh so the world can laugh with us; but let us remember that however jolly we Christians may become, the devil is not fooling. He is cold-faced and serious, and we shall find at last that he was playing for keeps. If we who claim to be followers of the Lamb will not take things seriously, Satan will, and he is wise enough to use our levity to destroy us.

I am not arguing for unnatural solemnity; I see no value in gloom and no harm in a good laugh. My plea is for a great seriousness which will put us in mood with the Son of Man and with the prophets and apostles of the Scriptures. The joy of the Lord can become the music of our hearts and the cheerfulness of the Holy Spirit will tune the harps within us. Then we may attain that moral happiness which is one of the marks of true spirituality, and also escape the evil effects of unseemly humor.

You, Robot

Your robotic future
Digital standard
Software in your hardware
Hardware in your software
Drones above
Cameras below
Camera above
Camera within

Who will monitor the
Monitors?

Groothuis Radio Interview

I did a two-part interview on Christian Apologetics for KUFO.

Book Review: He Was Wrong

Duchamp & Picasso: He Was Wrong

• Ronald Jones
• Jun 4, 2013
• Series: Denver Journal Volume 16 - 2013

Ronald Jones (Author), Daniel Birnbaum (Editor), Annika Gunnarsson. Duchamp & Picasso: He Was Wrong. Paperback. Walther König, Köln; Bilingual edition, 2013. 140 pages.

This and another recent book have made much of the rivalry and antipathy between Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) and Marcel Duchamp, (1887-1968), two of the most influential, iconoclastic, and controversial artists of the twentieth century, although Picasso was immeasurably more popular and wealthy. (See also Larry Witham, Picasso and the Chess Player: Pablo Picasso, Marcel Duchamp, and the Battle for the Soul of Modern Art [2013].) Picasso and Duchamp did not like each other; neither did they share a philosophy of art (if Picasso even had one). Hence, when Picasso heard that Duchamp had died, he promptly and laconically said, “He was wrong.” Had Duchamp outlived Picasso, the epithet (or something like it) probably would have been repeated. There was no meeting of minds (or paints or sculptures) to be found here between the Spaniard (who settled in France) and the Frenchman (who settled in America). This volume was published on the basis of an exhibit at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm, Sweden (as are many art books).

But before exploring the ideas and images of this book, I must explain its eccentric, if winning, format. It is structurally two books in one, with two black-and-white photographic front covers of equal prominence. There is no back cover and there are two spines, neither of which is labeled—making it difficult to find on a book shelf (and I write as someone always losing my books). One finds a cover with Picasso’s face, a close up, with hand on head—and those eyes. Within this part of the book is a short essay on Picasso (in both Swedish and English), a short essay on the works included, and a concluding set of images of his paintings. One can then turn the book over, find another front page with a photograph of Duchamp; this, too, features an essay (in Swedish and English), a short essay on the works included, and a concluding section of his paintings and other works (such as the famous “ready-mades”).  Or as the book advertisement more concisely says, “The book is appropriately divided in two halves separated by a reverse binding.”  The book does have a continuous pagination, starting with the Picasso side. The unique form of the book fits the content nicely, since Picasso and Duchamp opposed one another in many ways.

There is no real linear or thematic connection between their thoughts, lives, or art—apart from Duchamp’s early and short-lived association with cubist painting, a form that Picasso developed more fully. (Whatever it really meant is hard to ascertain). Hence, the book causes the antipodes to face each other only through opposition. But what was this classic conflict about? One may easily surmise that these denizens of modern art had affinities, given their general rejection of tradition and willingness to experiment with new forms of expression. But they did not.

The essence of the feud centered on the respective artists’ views of art itself. To use classical categories (made famous by Friedrich Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy), Picasso was Dionysian, celebrating the untutored eye beholding expression of his unfettered artistic self.  He painted voluminously, likely painted more than any painter before or since. He bragged, “Give me a museum, and I will fill it.” He did not want people to think much about his paintings, but simply to experience them (and buy them for vast sums). Ironically, of course, as of 2003, there are about four hundred books on Picasso’s art, according to historian Paul Johnson. This is to be expected given his prodigious productivity, radical shifts in style (the blue period, the pink period, the different iterations of cubism, and much more), his relation to other artists, how his outrageous, perverse, misogynistic, and narcissistic life related to his art, and so on. Duchamp taunted Picasso as “retinal”—all image and no thought. He leveled the same judgment about Impressionism. His conception or art was more cerebral, however off-putting and bizarre it may have been. (Duchamp is famous for, among other things, his submitting a urinal for an art show—which was not juried—and calling it “fountain.” This was one of only twelve ready-mades he ever produced—if that is the right word.) His later passion for chess only embellished this ethos. Duchamp would not even acknowledge the greatness of Picasso, and, in fact, snubbed him in an interview, saying he was more interested in a lesser known painter.

Duchamp’s most well-known painting is “Nude Descending a Staircase,” which was recently represented on a US “forever” stamp. This was originally shown at the epical Armory Show in New York in 1913, where avant-garde works were prominently displayed to the delight, disgust, and bewilderment of the art world. Duchamp sought to disarm and deconstruct the very idea of art as a special realm for the master who produces privileged art works. In that, he rejected the concept of “fine art,” which Paul Johnson understands as the felicitous paring of skill and innovation, worked out by a craftsmen over a lifetime (Art: A New History of Art [2003]). He, like Picasso was an amoral nihilist, an atheist who thought that man-made objects had no fixed or determinative meaning. He was deeply ironic and opaque in expression, thus finally thwarting any intellectual approach to art. This is distressingly obvious in the recently released book of interviews with Calvin Tompkins called Marcel Duchamp: The Afternoon Interviews (Badlands Unlimited, 2013).

Duchamp was hopeless opacity. This is simply because the intellect requires concepts and propositions to assess, if knowledge is to be won. It also demands intellectual virtues, the chief of which is the search for truth. Duchamp’s endless turgidity without lucidity makes for insanity at worst and inanity (however gnomic) at best. One can find a certain brilliance in “Nude Descending a Staircase,” given its originality and skill in execution. Yet it was intended to destabilize meaning and subvert traditions without offering anything solid in their absence. Duchamp also violated sexual norms with abandon in many of his works; in paintings, photographs, and installations. He hinted at his own bisexuality as well. For him, the past was only prologue for perversity, in life and in art.

Picasso was known as a painter, although he also made sculptures and engaged in just about every other form of visual art-making.  He produced paintings from a very early age and continued to paint at a rapid rate (about one per day) the rest of his life, painting up till his death at age ninety-two. Picasso wanted his viewer to see his work as visual, graphic, sensorial. He despised theorizing, since he believed that it undermined the painting as a painting.

This disagreement between two mavens of modern art has profound consequences for the pursuit of truth and beauty. Neither held a coherent, rationally defensible worldview. Picasso openly turned on God after the death of his young sister and never looked back. Art historian and critic, Hans Rookmaaker, in Modern Art and the Death of a Culture [InterVarsity, 1970], calls him a nihilist, and with good reason. Duchamp was elusive to the point of obscurantism, but we can know that he, too, rejected any God-given meaning in life or art. While Picasso rejected analysis in the quest for meaning, Duchamp championed the mind, but at the expense of knowledge. Both, thus, end up in the same philosophical ditch; neither can, on the basis of their worldviews, give art or the human condition any meaning or direction. Nevertheless, as humans, they seek some manner of meaning in their thoughts and lives. This, in God’s world, is inescapable, since all humans are made in the image and likeness of their Creator. But, as Francis Schaeffer said, “Man is a rebel” against God, and, therefore, is a rebel against both the external and internal world (see Proverbs 8:36). Yet these rebels, in art or elsewhere, continue to be meaning-seeking beings. One hopes that more of these rebels (however celebrated in their rebellion and nihilism) end up submitting to reality and respond accordingly, in art and in all other areas of culture.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Denver Seminary
June 2013

"Koyaanisqatsi," DVD (1983 film)

Ancient as I am (56), I first beheld this genre-bending film when it came out in 1983. It was shown in a small, alternative theater in Eugene, Oregon. This was when, in days of deep yore, one trekked to a location, sat with others, and saw a film. When the film's run was done it was gone. One could not put it into a device or view it on line. So, one tended to forget.

Now thirty years later, with more degrees, more knowledge, and more weariness about life under the sun, I watch Koyaanisqatsi anew with a discerning young friend who is the same age as I was when I first watched it. This lends itself to some reflection. The title means "life out of balance" in the Hopi language.

There is no narration, and voices only are heard as the credits run. The cinematography is everything and is impressive in its variety, depth, and scope. The theme is the relation of nature to culture, of the wild to the human and the domesticated, so to speak. We behold vistas of creation's grandeur and sublimity. The film begins very slowly with ulta-slow-motion footage of a rocket launch. Then scenes of dry mountains and deep ponds appear. There are no scenes from forests or jungles or icecaps.

Something is then blown up. A mountain falls--and we move into civilization, where humans touch nature. There is little emphasis on the achievements of man, but on his failures and miscalculations. All is overcrowded, much is ugly, workers are mere drones on assembly lines, and more.

Hopi "prophecies" are shown at the end of the film, giving the viewer the idea that they knew. They knew what would be lost. They knew what would come...

But these prophecies are quite vague and offer no hope. In this, the film is romantic about nature, forgetting about its redness in tooth and claw; in fact, animals are scarcely seen. Man is not measured by both his majesty and misery (Pascal), but by how he as despoiled nature.

The credits reveal that several social critics, such as the Christian sociologist, Jacques Ellul and the Catholic priest, Ivan Illich, have helped in inspire this documentary with no words. The score is by Phillip Glass, and is, of course, very repetitive, both in its slow scenes and in its speeded-up scenes of humans driving and bustling about. This waxes cloying after a few moments.

The technology, which is generally vilified in this film, is, to the contemporary eye, rather antiquated. People play huge, public video games, such as Pack-man. They stare at bulky and non-digitized television sets. There is not a laptop or cell phone in sight. Thus, the gap, as it were, between nature and culture has widened. Have we become "tools of our tools," as Thoreau said?

Living a Thoughtful Life for Christ and His Kingdom

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

Doug.Groothuis@gmail.com

Spiritual formation, becoming more like Jesus Christ in thought and deed, requires a renewed mind (Romans 12:2) that avoids worldliness (1 John 2:15-17) and pursues godliness (Matthew 5:1-18). Our sanctification through the Holy Spirit requires an ongoing dependency on God wherein we grow in the knowledge of God, how his Kingdom operates (Matthew 6:33), ourselves (James 1:25), and our place in the church (1 Corinthians 12-14) and broader culture (1 Chronicles 12:32).

To this end, here are some principles and recommendations in how to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

1.      Remain faithful in the reading and study of the Holy Scriptures, which are God’s cognitive revelation of himself and the ways of salvation (2 Timothy 3:15-16). Acquire and use study aids such as one or more study Bibles. I recommend The Apologetics Study Bible, The Reformation Study Bible, The NET Bible, and The NIV Study Bible. Of course, there are many other tools such as commentaries and other helps. The excellent commentaries of John Calvin and Matthew Henry are available on line for no charge.

2.      Discern your unique calling as a Christian. No one can do everything, so we must concentrate our energies where we are gifted and in accordance to God’s leading in our day. I highly recommend Os Guinness’s book on this vital topic, The Call. See also John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life.

3.      Be involved in a Bible-believing and Bible-teaching local church and seek to serve through what you have learned. Biblically, we are responsible to use what we know wisely and for the glory of God. We should not hide our gifts under a table, but employ them to build up the church and witness to the world (Matthew 5; Ephesians 4:15). Specifically:

A.    Develop adult education classes on the Christian worldview, biblical interpretation, theology, apologetics, and social issues.

B.    Make sure your church has some way of preparing high-school students for college. Many churched teenagers either put aside their Christian convictions or lose them during this time. For how high-school students in the church tend to think, see Christian Smith, Soul Searching. Also consult the essay “Faithful Christianity in College” by Douglas Groothuis and Sarah Geis at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/04/09/faithful-christianity-in-college/

C.    Be involved as a mentor to those who can benefit from your gifts and what you have learned through The Centurion program. Try to find a suitable mentor for yourself as well (Proverbs 27:17; 2 Timothy 2:2).

4.      Develop your skills at speaking and teaching and conversation. American linguistic culture is ugly, sloppy, and lazy. Instead of blending with the inarticulate herd, broaden your vocabulary, work on articulation, and listen to the people with which you are speaking. On writing see the classic Elements of Style by Stunk and White. On public speaking see Stand Like Lincoln, Speak Like Churchill by James Humes. Consider joining a Toastmasters club to refine your speaking skills.

5.      Read thoughtful Christian books, both classic and contemporary. While we often emphasize popular books, we should not forget time-tested classics written by Augustine, Calvin, Pascal, and Jonathan Edwards. Twentieth-century writers such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, John Stott, J.I. Packer,  Francis Schaeffer, and Os Guinness make for hearty and rewarding reading as well.

6.      Certain periodicals are edifying as well. For keeping the pulse of contemporary evangelicalism, see Christianity Today. Political and cultural issues are carefully addressed in First Things, which now has a rather strong Catholic focus. To stay abreast of cults, religious movements, apologetics, and ethics read The Christian Research Journal.

7.      Be aware of secular culture and non-Christian religious expressions through your reading of periodicals and books. I also read the Sunday New York Times and The New Yorker for sophisticated secular views—in, in the latter case, for their superb cartoons. Commentary is excellent for conservative Jewish views. Books and Culture reviews significant Christian and other books. This is a resource for discerning what non-Christian books you should read, as is The New York Times book review. I also check Harpers, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, Time Magazine, and Wired to look for significant articles. I find browsing at bookstores especially helpful, if you can find a brick and mortar bookstore left. We should be grateful that the Denver area has three locations of The Tattered Cover.

8.      Carefully and prayerfully consider your use of all electronic communications media. These often sap our knowledge and divert us from godly habits of the heart. Consider engaging in a protracted media abstention in which you eliminate a commonly-used electronic system for a week to ten days. It will profoundly change your view of technology. See my book, The Soul in Cyberspace. For my more recent thoughts see my interview with Tim Challies at: http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/challies/the-soul-in-cyberspace-an-interview-with-douglas-groothuis-11603254.html  Consider also the thoughtful, secular book, Hamlet’s Blackberry. For a broader historical and culture critique read Neil Postman’s magisterial work, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. The best book on television is Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death. See also my article in The Christian Research Journal, “Understanding Social Media” at: http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF2333.pdf. For a more scholarly paper, see Douglas Groothuis, “Christian Scholarship and the Philosophical Analysis of Cyberspace Technologies,” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 4 14 (December 1998): 631-640. This is on line at: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/41/41-4/41-4-pp631-640-JETS.pdf.

9.      Listen to thoughtful radio programs and podcasts. Many gifted Christian teachers and preachers can be heard in this manner. Redeem the time by listening to them in your car or while exercising or when you cannot do anything else, such as when you are ill. Of the talk radio, hosts, Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew, is probably the most civil and intelligent. He is refreshing in that he addresses more than just politics. Another excellent source of cultural criticism from a Christian or Christian-friendly viewpoint is Mars Hill audio, hosted by Ken Myers, author of All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture. Some audio books of thoughtful books are available for purchase or from a library.

10. Take periodic times of silence, for either short or long periods of time. Our culture is too noisy and over-stimulated. We need quiet to compose our bodies and souls before God in cognitive meditation, prayer, and rest. As Ecclesiastes says, there is

a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak (3:7; see also Habakkuk 2:20).

11. Consider Denver Seminary for further education. I head the MA in Apologetics and Ethics. We also offer a Certificate in Apologetics and Ethics (10 semester hours). See: www.denverseminary.edu

Smart

How to get smarter:

1. Make and listen to distinctions such as "all," "some," "most," "always," "never," and others. This keeps you from noetic nuttiness.
2. Realize that ideas have logical implications. They do not stand alone.
3. Know that a true statement must agree with every other true statement.
4. Learn the basic deductive arguments and formal fallacies.
5. Take times of silence regularly in which you can think about things that matter most.
6. Try to discern the worldview of authors, speakers, and friends. If you don't know what a worldview is, then read James Sire, The Universe Next Door, and dozens of other books.
7. Go on a media abstention. You stop using one or more electronic media and note the effect this has on you. And, please, do not say I am a hypocrite for saying this on an electronic medium. That would show you really need to get smarter.
8. Read and study the Bible regularly.
9. Read books and magazines over your head. Then, try to reach up and grab them.
10. Learn new words you come across.

Awful Book

Steve Goodman, Sonic Warfare, MIT Press, 2012.

How any editor let his by is a dark mystery I do not want to explore.

Cultural criticism can be written clear. Consider Neil Postman. This, however, is replete with:

1. Convoluted sentences, some of which approach comedy in their pretentiousness.
2. Adjectival overload
3. Adjectival meaninglessness
4. Over use of adjectives such as "deployed," which is also misused.
5. Compound words without hyphens, most of which are unintelligible.
6. Over use of other sources. The author seems to have no original ideas. Or, if he does, I have no idea what they are, given the maddening opacity of the writing.

One could go on, but why bother with this execrable exercise in ugliness?