Philosophy

“For your life – Flee!” by Sean Brendan Stewart – Reform & Revive | a Plugfest

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

sorry, no y-axis this time

sorry, no y-axis this time

[Thank you to spectacular photographer and friend David Schrott for inspiring this post]

Okay, due to a few recent articles I’ve written, the number of people visiting my blog has increased by over 4000% in the past week.  It’s pretty nuts.  That’s why everything has seemed to be about Derek Webb and his new album, Stockholm Syndrome.  So, I just wanted to take this chance to put in a few plugs for some of my other projects.

I have web magazine called Reform & Revive.  It looks at the intersection between faith and culture, politics, art, the church, and just life in general.  These Derek Webb posts would perhaps have been more appropriate on that site, but the readership here jumped up so fast (I’m actually on the first page of most Google searches having to do with the album).

Anyway, friend, brother, and fellow impassioned writer, Sean Brendan Stewart, just put up a special article that seems to have a similar message as the new Webb album.  It’s some commentary from him, then a very brief manuscript of some audio from a Carter Conlon message.  After that, feel free to look at our more regular full articles from our Contributors.

Lastly, I have my own personal site, Prodigal Paul, that acts as a hub for organizing other blogs, Bible studies, sermons, and such that I have produced over the years.

That is all.

Wittgenstein, Edwards, & the Substance of Things | Philsophy & Theology {III}

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

I’ve been slowly working my way through Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus Logicus-Philosophicus” and I ran across some ideas that seemed to connect with some of the ideas of Jonathan Edwards I had read in George Marsden’s “Jonathan Edwards: A Life.” This is not a comprehensive look at Wittgenstein’s thought, just how one facet of it can help illuminate Theological metaphysics. I will do my best to put this into normal, down-to-earth language, but metaphysics, by definition, talks about some really heady things. This really is not me just trying to sound smarter. My hope is to give anyone that reads this a bigger grander idea of just beautiful the Reality God has formed actually is, and therefore, a bigger grander idea of how beautiful this God is.

In Wittgenstein’s Tractatus he talks about the nature of possibility, things, being, language, and philosophy. He writes that people are objects of infinite possible properties. Before you’re born, there is an infinite number of various properties you may hold, but none of these properties are inherent to yourself. You have to borrow properties from the substance of this existing world, this realm of existence. So, the substance of the world decides your properties. If this were a world where people flew, one of those infinite possibilities would be that you could maybe fly. This isn’t the case. So, Reality (which Wittgenstein defines as just “the present”) decides your properties.

But (and this is where it gets fun) these properties that you have, in turn, help determine the substance of this world. There being no people in the world that fly helps determine that this world is one where no one flies. This allows for a certain dance between the world and us where each side helps influence the other. This is most readily seen in evolution.

Now, this is where Edwards’ ideas begin to enter in. This whole situation can also work on a bigger level. Before, we were talking about how the substance of the world help determine our properties that help determine the substance of this world. But, how where does the world itself get its substance? Christians would say that the world gets its substance from its relation to God – the Maker and Sustainer of all things. So, now lets start the thinking process over again. The substance of the world has infinite possible properties that are determined by God who upholds all things.

(I know this will sound heretical, but I promise it’s not) God has a a freedom of possibility but not an infinitude of possibility. He has one nature and one set of properties defined by His Own Substance, which is Triune Deity. His substance is the substance that determines the set of properties of the world that in turn help determine the properties of people that in turn helps determine the substance of the world. But, the world doesn’t in turn help determine God. This is where the Creator/creature distinction comes into play. There is a mysterious connection between God and His Creation, but not such that they are the same. Unlike God (as creation and creature), we have infinitude of possibility, but not freedom of possibility. We can be anything (within this world) but we don’t have the freedom to be anything.

Now this next point is important. We see through this process that there a reasonable hierarchy and system of determinants (things that determine the substance of other things). This hierarchy begins with God. Nothing determines His Substance, but he determines the substance of all other things. Therefore, our very being ultimately rests in God Himself. Further, the expressions of our properties ultimately show themselves in our willful choices and actions. When we act, we are expressing our properties. So, our willful actions are actually based on our relation to the substance of this world (remember the connection between these two things from earlier?).

So, in conclusion, who God is in His nature determines the substance of the world that determines our properties that determine our wills. So, when we freely act, we are actually, acting in accordance with our relation to the nature of God. We either love God or hate God. We either act in line with the substance of the world that caused our properties, or we act in line with and are joined to the Substance of the substance of the world, God. This God who, as I said earlier, is the only Being with a true freedom of possibility (but not infinitude of possibility). This means that we can both know who this God actually is while also having full faith He is able to do and accomplish all He sets out to do in us and for us.

We truly serve an awe-some God.

What is Faith? (a call to Atheism)

/ Paul Burkhart / 3 Comments

art by Amy Roberts

art by Amy Roberts (see bottom for link)

My good friend Monica sent me an email with a link to this New York Times blog that had a little weekend competition:

define “Faith”

The post gave the Bible’s definition of faith, a few quotes from others on what faith is and then told other “co-vocabularists” to offer their definitions (the pithier the better).

In a display ad absurdem and ad nauseam of the make-up of NYTimes readers, the vast majority of “definitions” are atheistic rants about how faith is just believing things that are so plainly and clearly not true.  It’s the opiate of the masses.  It’s the crutch that helps weak-minded people get through life.  So on and so forth.

I understand the sentiment.  I do.  And I also see why they think that.  It was just comical seeing post after post after post of people that were so clearly speaking from such bitterness, hurt, and pain that went well beyond “calm, collected reason”.  Even the atheist puts some level of faith in things, even though they feel like this faith is justified by their logical deductions.  Faith isn’t a bad word.  It doesn’t have to be religious at all.  My mac dictionary’s first definition for it is “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.”  The second definition is the religious one!  But in spite of this, that word, for some reason, touches such a deep nerve within those hostile to Christianity that they must do more than simply display a disagreement with a prevailing notion.  It’s not good enough being a-theistic, they must be anti-theistic.

And that, I find, is very interesting.  It implies that atheism is more than a lack of belief.  It can’t stay at that merely reasoned philosophical place.  It is at its core a most outward expression of the rebellion of the heart, and the antagonism of that rebellion must and will come out.

Don’t get me wrong, I love atheists! I do!  But it looks like Atheism is becoming the new radical fundamentalism of the urban United States.  Now I know how absurd all us Christians probably looked for the past 50+ years with all of our political activism, ad hominem attacks on dissenters, made-up “culture wars” to agitate our base, over-excessive vitriol against “opponents” of our system, a circling of the wagons to maintain a false sense of security for “us” and ease of insult towards “them”, and a childish fanatical assent to a few tired (fundamental) tenets with a few tired (apologetic) defenses made by a few tired (hyperbolic, caricatured) leaders that are already irrelevant.

I guess its Atheism’s turn to take the wheel.  Try not to mess up the country in the same ways we did.  Neither you guys nor us have history on our side when it comes to our particular systems reigning supreme.  Things just don’t seem to go well.  Have fun.

As far as my contribution to the discussion?  Here was the little definition I gave:

FAITH: trusting that another has accomplished on your behalf what you ought to have done but can’t.

Grace and peace.

and Faith.

[more artwork by Amy Roberts can be found here]

Philosophy & Theology {II} | “Christian” Existentialism [2]

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

A couple of days ago, I laid out some reasons why “Christian” Existentialism was not the end-all-be-all philosophical orientation for the Christian. But, as I explained in my first post in this series, Philosophy is not the enemy of theology. Rather, it can help us understand other finer points of theology by giving us new categories to think in. So, I proceeded to give three ways that Existentialism can inform our theology. The first way was that it helps us see sin in regard to our personal orientation to God. This post continues with two more ways:

Secondly, a big discussion in Existentialism the relationship between our “existence” and our “essence”.  I pointed out in the previous post that when god was asked by Moses “what’s your essence?” God answered “I exist”. This is the way it is with God. His nature and being are equated with His existence. He simply “is”. The big question concerning these two things in Existentialism is “which comes first?”. Classic Existentialism holds that our existence comes first and our essence is formed and shaped by our existence. This brings up some problems for the Christian. The Bible talks about our essences being known by God before we ever existed, but it also says that there’s something of our essence that is corrupt at its core. When God “knows” us before we exist, does he know our corrupted selves? Does God create us depraved? The Bible seems fairly clear in its representation of the nature of God that He doesn’t create and form our essences as corrupt, so it look likes the question is a bit more complicated than just “which comes first”.

Best I can figure, it looks like both essence and existence have narrative frameworks and are seen as whole things that are shaped through eternity past and future. In short, the story goes like this: God knows and forms our essence-1 (S1), which is pure and good in his sight. He then creates the world of existence-1 (X1) which is made good but then falls and gives way to a different realm of existence, existence-2 (X2).  At the moment this essence-1 enters into existence-1 (X1), it comes into the fallen world and becomes essence-2 (S2) which is corrupt. Christians, then, at conversion are changed at the very level of their essence such that they then become pure in essence (essence-3) living in a corrupt existence (existence-1 still). The rest of the life of the Christian is a slow work by God and others to bring more and more of this Christian’s life and existence in line with their now pure essence-3 (s3), to prepare them for existence-3 (X3). Existence-3 is when this created world/realm within which we exist is restored and glorified and finally our pure essences-3 are able to live in freedom and peace in pure existence-2 in glorified eternity.  Here’s what it looks like graphically:

__________

screen-capture

__________

Lastly, there is a very important service that Existentialism lends to the spirituality of the Christian life. In Existentialism, there is a loss of the objectivity of knowledge. All we know is our existence, and that is a very small sphere of knowledge indeed. What this tenet of the philosophy does is create a very strong sense of angst. Existentialists carry the reputation for being very depressed people, seeing as they can know nothing more than (1) they exist, and (2) they can’t know more than that. We can be sure of no other knowledge. This makes you feel very small in a world of chaos that you can do nothing to change. This sort of worldview should make people very despairing, and it has for people such as Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus. But for others, like Jean-Paul Sarte and Soren Kierkegaard, Existentialism seemed to create a humble sobriety that actually allowed these men to enjoy life in a way many Christians could learn to do.

The Christian life is angst. It’s messy. It’s sloppy. That’s why it’s lived by faith – i.e. “trust”. Reality is such that we will be forced to have to trust our Creator to save us, because there really are no objective grounds (that we can know) upon which His salvation is based. This is because God knows He is the greatest of all things and our tendency is to drift from Him. It’s His love that makes us need to draw near. But, when we do, it shows us even more where we fall short and we cry out to God more. He draws even nearer and we are able to experience that One for whom our soul was made. Faith is not neat. Faith is not tidy. Faith is not naive. Faith is not imbecilic. Faith is having the courage to admit your finitude and inadequacy in order to be joined to and in communion with the Joy of joys, Peace of peaces, King of kings, and Lord of lords.

As one friend put it: “I will not resolve to embody that kind of [naive] faith ever again. So, I will read Scripture, asking God to communicate to me what in me is broken, what is unreconciled, what needs restoration, liberation, salvation. And I will sit at the foot of the cross, in the pain of who I am. And I will ask God for reconciliation, restoration, liberation, salvation. On the other side of it all, I will trust Christ more deeply. This is sanctification. This is working out my salvation in fear and trembling. And then, hopefully I will have caught my breath, and it will all begin again.”

Existentialism helps us recapture the “fear and trembling” part of working out our salvation (hence the title of Kierkegaard’s famous work).

I’ll end with perhaps my favorite set of quotes I have ever read. These have had such a profound impact on me and so reflect how I understand these things to be. These words are from the poet Joe Weil in an interview with Patrol Magazine. I leave you with these words that could have been written by the most quintessential existentialist:

“I once described faith as something I got on my shoe and can’t kick or wash off. I’m stuck with it. My poems are the trespasses and blasphemies of a malpracticing Christian, one who can’t stop ogling an attractive leg, or wanting to be first, who is venial, foolish, seldom at peace, horny and lonely, and so far from the kingdom of God that his whole life becomes the theme of that distance, someone knowing he is in deep shit. It’s the perfect place to be, where you can’t fool yourself into thinking you’re on the right track…The only thing I have to offer God is my sins. I am interested in mercy when it appears in places where you would never expect it. I am interested in love that shovels shit against the tide. I am interested in grace…It is better to be annihilated and crushed by God, if you are in love with God, then it is to have no relationship at all. Better God smite you then merely be absent. God does not ‘tolerate’ me. God loves me.”

Philosophy & Theology {II} | “Christian” Existentialism [1]

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

In the past few days, the idea of Christian Existentialism has been brought up to me as some sort of viable marriage between philosophy and theology. As I said in my previous post, I think this is a bit misguided.

I think there is a slight danger in the concept of Christian Existentialism. The entire point of Existentialism is that we look inside ourselves for ultimate truth and meaning for existence. Starting at this place causes a lot of problems. I’ll mention three here: sin and Scripture (briefly), and the nature of Christianity itself. “Christian” Existentialism has to define sin in two incorrect ways. First, it would have to say that what makes a sin a sin is the action itself evaluated in light of its consequences. This flies in the face of the Bible which screams that it is in the heart where sin dwells and shows itself, not the actions; and, most sins committed by humans never reach the will anyway, much less have evaluative “consequences”. Second and more Existentially unique, is the idea that sin is anything done that results in the losing of the “true authentic self” of Existentialism (I’ll say the fault in this shortly). And lastly, when it comes to the Bible, Scripture is seen more as something to submit to our experiences rather than to submit our experiences to.

The ultimate fallacy (and what I see to be the most frustrating) in all this is the idea that all things pertaining to God find their meaning, purpose, truth, righteousness, and value in how they relate to us humans. Existentialism would say that we only know anything by seeing where it lies relative to us. I’m sorry, but this whole Christianity thing is not about us. It never has been, nor will it be. It is about Christ and His glory. The more we dive inside of ourselves, all we will see is our depravity and darkness. Any other finding is due to inauthentic searching and subsequent blindness to the true state of one’s soul. Self esteem and self knowledge is not the root of mental health, soul value, and practical empowerment, in spite of what the gurus of our age tell us. It is by looking to Christ, not ourselves, and esteeming and delighting in Him alone that we are made into His likeness at every level, and find meaning, purpose, value, and insight into how this whole thing is supposed to be worked out.

But yet . . .

as I said in my previous post, Philosophies can help provide us with answers to theological dilemmas and categories. Existentialism helps us in questions of sin (in spite of what I said earlier, ironically enough), the relationship between ontology and the Sovereignty of God (our nature vs. God’s providence), and the nature of Christian spirituality.

The most famous “Christian Existentialist” is probably Soren Kierkegaard. But more precisely, though, he probably laid the foundation for what later became full blown Existentialism. Nevertheless, his fingerprints are all over Existentialist though, Christian or otherwise. In his work, “The Sickness Unto Death”, Kierkegaard defines sin as primarily about one’s position in relation to God. This is the difference between “error” and “sin”. Sin is against God and affects our relation to him. He argues against the view of Socrates that sin is merely an act stemming from ignorance. Kierkegaard vehemently denies this because this turns “sin” into a negation – merely a lack. Kierkegaard points out that sin isn’t just negation but it’s a position and posture towards God. How is this still Existentialism? Well, sin is still defined in terms of our position before God – it’s necessarily tied to and defined in terms of our existence before Him. But what makes this Orthodox is that it is not an existence divorced from the backdrop of God Himself. It is intricately linked and fused together as one. Our existence is only existence insofar God Himself is exists. As Paul would say (quoting Greek poets): “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

I wrote out the other two points, and they made this article far too long. I really think these next two points are of utmost importance for the Christian to understand, so rather than just putting them at the end of a post and people not really reading it, I’m going to make them their own post tomorrow. In the last two points, I try and use existentialism to help come up with a Christian answer to the age-old question of Existentialism: which comes first: your essence or existence? You’ll see that because of the Fall, these things become quote complicated. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Existentialism helps the Christian see that all of life (especially the Christian life) is anything but neat, orderly, nice, and naive. It is full of uncertainty, angst, frustration, and doubt. But, more on those tomorrow.

Philosophy & Theology {1} | The Basics

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

Photo 56bOver the next few posts, I want to share some brief elementary thoughts and philosophy and theology. In this post, I just want to flesh out a basic worldview I have concerning philosophies and how they fit into a Christian perspective. All posts in this series will then be various applications of these ideas. Looking at things this way has certainly helped me wade through the waters of philosophies that all seem to be right in some respect and the confusion that follows. I hope this helps others out there.

My basic thought is this: as humans made in the image of God, the true parts of any “worldview” or “philosophy” will resonate with us. We are made to resonate with the truth of the Gospel, therefore any worldview we construct tat is appealing to us in any way must touch on some thing we know to be true and long for. I just don’t think that humans are able to come up with a worldview that in some point isn’t actually true. We can only work with what there actually is in the world. Sure we can pervert and distort true things, but they will still be based on true things.

Anyway, what this means is that any particular philosophy can help us recast the Gospel and talk of it in different terms that may increase our worship. For example, with existentialism (where the big question is what comes first, essence or existence?), when Moses is talking to God at the burning bush, Moses pretty much asks Him “what’s your essence?” God answers “I exist” (“I AM”). Existentialism can give us new categories to plum even more depths within this one encounter and ultimately lead to more worship of God. The Bible helps answer the questions of philosophy and philosophy can help us see greater truths in Scripture.

[More on existentialism in an upcoming post . . .]

Orthodox Christianity does not hold (and never has) that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge about God. It says that the Bible is the ultimate and authoritative source of knowledge about God under which all other sources are submitted. The brief example above (hopefully) showed a benefit of bringing existentialism under the authority and clarity of the Bible in order to help us answer (or better understand) questions that the Bible is silent about. Problems in this area arise when people try to submit the Bible to existentialism. It just doesn’t work. The Bible just isn’t the Bible apart from it being the authority and rule of faith in all theology.

I have found the study of secular philosophy very helpful to birthing in me greater worship of our God. But (going back to my first point), though that is the case, I don’t think any one philosophy has the market cornered on theology. All philosophies (from Platonism to Aristotelianism to Humanism to Atheism) have some bit of truth in them. Lower things really are corrupt versions of purer forms; we really do understand history by looking at its final purpose; God really does love humans such that he acts for their benefit; and there really is a freedom and autonomy that man enjoys when they give way fully to their innate rebellion and deny the very existence of God. That’s why I don’t find it helpful (or biblical) to say that “I’m a Christian _________” (fill in the blank with whatever philosophy or worldview you like). To me it’s like saying “I’m a Christian chocolate cake eater”. Uh, okay. I just don’t think that says much and it forces me to ask “Really? That’s how you ultimately define your worldview?” Don’t get me wrong, a good chocolate cake can make me worship God (in all seriousness), but that’s not a useful designation.

In summary: Philosophy is the study of all that is most fundamental about us. Therefore, those that have been thought to have great wisdom in this area should be studied and read because they may in fact be whispering insights to us from within the mind of God that is in seed form within His image in us. C.S. Lewis once said that it is impossible to contemplate and enjoy at the same time. We go first the the Bible to get the material for our contemplation. But then we must look up from the text to the world and reality around us and enjoy the God that has revealed Himself in those Scriptures. A fruitful place I have experienced this is in my brief, elementary study of Philosophy. Hopefully you can see it as well. Enjoy the ride.

I can’t let this not be shared

/ Paul Burkhart / 5 Comments

On my new favorite website, Patrol Magazine, I stumbled upon this amazing interview with poet and professor of Creative Writing at State University of New York, Joe Weil.  He talk to Patrol magazine about poetry, his relationship with God, art, and his other variosu thoughts on life.  As I’ve read the article, I keep finding more and mroe quotes that I am throwing all over my facebook profile, blogs, and such.  Well, it got to be so many, I’m just going to put them all here.  This man is amazing, and I intend to buy as many of his books of poetry as I can.  I resonate so much with all that he says.  Please read the entire interview if you can.  Finally, also bookmark Patrol Magazine.  It really is incredible.  Here are my favorite highlights:

Art is self-indulgence that, if done well, with a good grasp of the craft, and with a sense of constructive dread, ends up serving others. Of course, you can’t predict how it will serve them. . . A poet must be faithful to his or her obsessions. . . The wrong kind of self indulgence is that which puts the artist or his cause ahead of the work. Poets must be both supremely arrogant and humble. Arrogant enough to commit an act of creation. Humble enough to get out of the way of their own work, and let it be whatever it really is.

I once described faith as something I got on my shoe and can’t kick or wash off. I’m stuck with it. My poems are the trespasses and blasphemies of a malpracticing Christian, one who can’t stop ogling an attractive leg, or wanting to be first, who is venial, foolish, seldom at peace, horny and lonely, and so far from the kingdom of God that his whole life becomes the theme of that distance, someone knowing he is in deep shit. It’s the perfect place to be, where you can’t fool yourself into thinking you’re on the right track

I love God, not the idea of God. I hate the idea of God. Ideas are pretty, and neat, and well-formed, and my poems insist that I love God only by my pratfalls and mistakes. The only thing I have to offer God is my sins. I am interested in mercy when it appears in places where you would never expect it. I am interested in love that shovels shit against the tide. I am interested in grace.

I am wrestling with God because I consider God a worthy opponent. . . We have to remember God has the gravitas. God is the dignity. We’re the comic relief. Piety must be challenged. Purity must be tested, or it becomes smugness, and we start to think we have it all figured out. It’s like a marriage where you know exactly how the weekly sex is going to start. It both comforts and kills love in the worst way. My faith informs my confusions. My confusions lead to discoveries in poems my certainties could never find. Faith is not certainty. Certainty is the death of thought.

It is better to be annihilated and crushed by God, if you are in love with God, then it is to have no relationship at all. Better God smite you then merely be absent. God does not “tolerate” me. God loves me. . . A man may call God out and test all purity because it is better than the ultimate hell of complete disengagement.

God allows us to kick and scream in our tantrums and pains until we fall exhausted at the foot of our cross. And then God picks us up and we realize this was all we wanted to begin with, to be held by, and bound fast to him: “Bind me Lord, lest I resist. We resist because we are bound. Our resistance becomes the first sign of our birth pain. . . The peace of a Christian must be a sort of ongoing ferocity—a refusal to let go until the birthright has been truly won, until the blessing has been given. Brokeness is the first condition for receiving grace. Light can’t penetrate an unbroken surface. God enters through the broken heart, not the smug one.

A poem that can be reduced to its ideas is probably not a very good poem. It must be uttered fully. It must be lived on its own terms, the language must be forgiven for being language, then it must be language with all its might. Meaning, content are not the aim but the reward, the grace of a poem being faithful to its own organic process.

Thank you for reading all this (if you have) and I hope it has benefited you.

Sacrificing Worship on the Altar of Relationship?

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

I was grabbing an amazing beer at the amazing Lancaster Brewing Company in beautiful Amish-country Lancaster, Pennsylvania with one of my best friends, David Schrott this past was weekend. Randomly, he turns to me and says something along the lines of “do you think we’ve sacrificed worship for the sake of relationship?” Brilliant. This got my wheels turning . . .

Surely we’ve all heard that wonderful phrase “Christianity’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.” A brief survey of various facebook “Religious Views” statements can find many rearticulations of this principle. But, I think we’re just now starting to see where this principle has perhaps been misleading the church a bit. Now, I have to fight two well-known urges in addressing this. First, an urge in church history to ride a giant philosophical pendulum from one extreme to another. I don’t just want to criticize this because the cycle has run its course and now its time to move back to the other extreme. The other urge is in myself. It is the tendency I have always had to rebel against the current cultural trends of the day just to be novel. Ten years ago, we really needed to hear that phrase, and it would be too typical of an up-and-coming twenty-something theologian as myself to try and cast the whole thing off. All that being said, let’s get going.

I’m in the process of writing this up as a sermon so some feedback would be wonderfully helpful. Here’s my current thought process. Posed David’s question, I think most of us would say something that involved the phrase “both/and”; attempting to merge these two principles (worship and relationship) into the same idea. May I suggest that one of the damning effects of post-modernity has been this love affair in the past ten to fifteen years with the “both/and” in all things. The first person to throw that out in conversation feels both wise and perceptive, and is generally treated as such. Thinking about this, I was reminded that God works and reveals not so much through philosophical exposé but through narrative. This means that things work progressively. Elements used or expressed earlier in the narrative don’t exist later in the story in the same way they existed before. Let me use the current conversation as an example.

I’m wondering if preaching relationship, relationship, relationship has been putting the cart before the horse and has contributed to the shallow and impotent culture we see far too often in the American church. We seem to preach relationship first, expecting (or hoping) worship to flow from it. I don’t see the beauty or the truth in this. It looks like relationship should flow from worship. Is this not the Gospel? The message that there is a huge God through whom and from whom all things receive life, and that this God not merely desires or demands worship, but deserves it. We have not given it, and so the full wrath if this huge God is prepared to be poured out upon us. In view of this, we then feel the weight of our inadequacy to change our estate before this God that deserves our honor and worship. We look up to to feel the indiscriminate fog of anger hanging so perilously above our heads . . .

but . . .

from this fog extends a hand. The hand of that King we have offended, offering clemency and pardon in the name of His Son for the treason we have so callously pursued. It is against the backdrop of all that makes Him worthy of that worship we don’t/can’t give him that this offer for relationship becomes real, beautiful, and romantic.

“Religion” comes from the Latin words “re” meaning “again” and “ligo” meaning “to unite” (as in “ligament”). Religion, then simply means something that unites once more that which was connected, but now is broken. (I know, I know, we’ve turned “religion” into something more than this, but I’m just trying to say that the word itself is not bad, so let’s not stop using it. Just try to use it rightly.)  Jesus really did die to establish religion.  The Gospel is religion. It is a means outside of ourselves by which God reunites us to Himself. But it starts with who He is which then overflows into what He’s done to join us to Him once more. We need to see and preach a God worth worshiping before our relationship with Him can mean anything of any sort of significance.

As I write all this, I’m starting to wonder if our stress of relationship over reverence has actually caused the problem to worsen.  We started doing it because of how people were abusing the beauty of the religion Christ died for, but I wonder if we remove all the weight of this religion under the banner of relationship does it really change anything? Or will people just have new reasons to take this Christianity thing lightly now that they “have the relationship” that apparently this whole thing centers around?  Will this not continue to create people that do not understand the standard of holiness, reverence, and awe we really are called and commanded to strive for? Will this not then force us to create more clever cliches to explain why those people don’t act like the Christians they claim to be?

Maybe. I don’t know. But ultimately, I hope we can see the Gospel for what it is: a God-centered means by which God can proclaim His worthiness and still redeem us for Himself. It begins with His worship, then our inability, then His redemption, then our salvation, and it culminates finally in our worship of Him for now and eternity, proclaiming the Glorious perfections and beauties of God, His Son, His Spirit, and His Gospel.

Happy worshipping.

Severe Mercy

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

This song has been my obsession this past couple of weeks as I round out my first semester in seminary.  I hope it stirs you as well.

The Cut by Jason Gray

My heart is laid
Under Your blade
As you carve out Your image in me
You cut to the core
But still you want more
As you carefully, tenderly ravage me

And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
They say the cut makes me whole

Mingling here
Your blood and my tears
As You whittle my kingdom away
But I see that you suffer, too
In making me new
For the blade of Love, it cuts both ways

And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
They say the cut makes me whole

Hidden inside the grain
Beneath the pride and pain
Is the shape of the man
You meant me to be
Who with every cut now you try to set free

CHORUS…
…With everyday
You strip more away
And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
The blade must take it’s toll
So God give me strength to know
That the cut makes me whole

If it weren’t for God, I’d be an Atheist

/ Paul Burkhart / 5 Comments

Forgive how disconnected my thoughts are. I’m taking a break from all my reading for Grad school to write this and I’m really tired. Anyway, I’m really frustrated right now.

For all those still in Richmond, the United Secular Alliance (U.S.A.) of VCU (the atheist “campus ministry”) is bringing in Christopher Hitchens, one of the “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism (as many evangelicals lovingly call them; the other three main evangelical atheists Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris), on Tuesday to debate a Christian apologist who I think they had to find after no campus ministry answered their call for a debater.

Several weeks ago, I was inspired by this news to watch some videos with this apologist, Frank Turek, and then watch a bunch of videos from Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens online (including a fascinating discussion between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath at Oxford). Anyway, like I said, I’m really frustrated.

As I hope the leaders I know and love of the U.S.A. read this, I have one main take way from this post. If no one gets anything else out of this, just take this:

Christian conversion is first and fundamentally a spiritual event with intellectual implications, rather than the more outspoken model out there that it is an intellectual event with spiritual implications.

All the tenets of the Christian faith as encapsulated in what the Bible refers to as “the Gospel” are the highest of all Divine wisdom. They are. The Gospel is the highest of all possible “storylines” this world could go through. The Bible over and over again places this Gospel against human wisdom and shows the futility and hopelessness of a non-Christian, non-theistic worldview.But here’s the key: this is only truly seen from the inside.

I look at Hitchens and am reaffirmed in my belief that conversion is and must be a spiritual act initiated and accomplished by God, and not by man. Apart from God, I really would be a rational atheist. For someone not converted by God, Atheism really is the only logically consistent worldview.

“Conversion” is an act by God by which he changes the very nature of the individual so their entire perceptual framework is changed. Many Christians seem to act like every non-Christian out there is just miserable as they perpetually and willfully suppress the faith they secretly know is true; that they can’t have any healthy relationships, raise any good children, and their worldview necessitates a holocaust and wonton anarchy of bloodthirsty violence and debauchery.

This certainly is not the case, because it is not giddy emotionalism, healthy relationships, good kids, or the social benefits of any given worldview that defines its “truth”. Many Christians act like this is the case. This is the “christianity” that is often offered to the Hitchens’ of the world. The nice, perfectly packaged, logically superior worldview that makes everything better.

One need not look long at the world to see the absurdity and repulsion this profession must evoke. Christians often try to appeal to the same standard of rationalism to undergird their faith that Atheists do to form theirs. This can be helpful I suppose to a point, as long as the Christian knows that this is the standard of truth the Bible spends its entire time mocking, so none of our faith can rest in it.

Ultimately, it was not archaeology, philosophy, pragmatism, or logic that drew us to the realities of this “Christianity thing”. It was the effectual and Sovereign work of God that changed us so we then saw the evil of our hearts, the beauty of Christ, and the wisdom of this “storyline” of the Gospel.

What is this highest of all Divine wisdom, so far above human minds that it cannot be comprehended naturally but must be revealed to us? That God, being the source of all life, has a justifiable claim on those that use this gift of life, and He has so desired we use this life to be joined to the source of it and in that find our ultimate rest, joy, and peace. But humanity, seeking to find that rest, joy, and peace in lower things he can manipulate, control, and take responsibility for, left union with this source of life for lower things and in that allowed sin to weaken and corrupt every part of themselves – mind, will, and emotions.

And then, while we were the rightful repositories for the full wrath of God, He rescued us. For humanity committed these acts of treason, so humanity must be the one to pay for them. But weakened and corrupted, humanity has not the ability to do this fully and live.

So God came in the form of a human and lived the life of righteousness we were meant to live, and died the death we were supposed to die, taking the cup of God’s wrath that hung perilously over the heads of those that would be saved and pouring it fully upon Himself, suffering more than any sinner ever will in Hell, that he might bring his people to Him, to be joined once more with that source of life. And all he asks is that we would but trust that what he lived and died was adequate to do for us what we were not able to do for ourselves, and that we cannot add to it, nor take from it.

Does this answer “all the questions”? No. But no Christian becomes a Christian because all their questions are answered or because the flow of the propositional statements lined up. I don’t believe in Christianity because it makes sense; I know I have and will encounter things in life that will challenge that.

In short, I can’t not believe in God, because Christianity ultimately is self-verifying. This is so important. It’s ultimate validity and truth does not lie in history, philosophy, facts, human experience, logic, or reason. It lies in the within the Source of all Truth, God Himself. Can I use all the grounds listed above to show the superiority of the Christian worldview and the beauty of its wisdom? Yes, but that is not what converts people or changes their mind.

To the unconverted mind, this highest of all wisdom is foolishness. But this realization of the necessity of revelation should not be something that brings self-righteousness as if we Christians were able “figure out” and discern this highest of Divine Wisdom while those foolish Atheists just aren’t astute enough. No, this show of our absolute dependence on God to know anything about God should bring us to our knees in humility and praise.

That a God this good would still reveal Himself and change us when it would be absolutely just for Him to let us continue to wallow in our weakness and corruption, forever disconnected from this source of all true life, peace, and deep transcendent joy.

So, even though after my little bit of movie-watching I think Turek is going to embarrass himself and the other Christians in the room by reinforcing every bad stereotype, know that no one’s conversion depends upon Turek or anyone else, but it depends on God who can stop the mouth of Hitchens or Turek at any moment He pleases and change the hearts of anyone in that room to see the wonders and beauty of His Glorious, Wise, and Beautiful Self.

I pray He might.

The Purposeful God of Eternity

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

Tonight on a midnight ride to Williamsburg, God changed my life yet again. How? With this realization: God does all things in us primarily for an eternal purpose before he ever does them for a temporal one.

The “things” God does “in us” refers to pretty much everything: How we feel in a given situation, what we think, what we desire, our temptations, our struggles, our blessings, our joys, our pains, our purification, everything.

I realized tonight that this means that when anyone asks God, “Why?” about anything, there is a possibility of three responses from God; two for the non-Christian and one for the Christian. To the non-Christian he answers either (1) to draw you closer to me, or (2) to further condemn you so your eventual condemnation is just. To the Christian God’s answer is always (3) “to make you holy.”

(1) is pretty obvious. God will put people through a lot of crap sometimes and cause feelings and desires to both come and fall away in order to bring them to him.

(2) is a little harder to swallow, but true nonetheless. God is determined to be just. He will not condemn those not worthy to be condemned, and he has committed himself to showing those not his elect that their condemnation is just (Romans 1:20 , 1: 26-27, 3:5-8). My primary Biblical support for this is in Genesis 15:16. In the context, God is laying out the conditions of his covenant with Abraham. He will punish so-and-so people and give him so-and-so land, and so on and so forth. But at the very end of these covenant promises, God makes a very interesting statement. He says that the final fulfillment of these promises will be delayed. He says, “And they [Abraham’s descendants] shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” God delayed the destruction of the people occupying the promised land and delayed His people entering it because the Amorite’s iniquity had not reached the level of deserving that wrath, thus he refrained so that their condemnation was just and He was justified in their destruction. So he does with some non-believers in Christ.

Anyway, (3) is what changed my entire perspective on God, me, and sanctification. We are generally presented with a certain situation that has pain and we begin to do what? Worry about the future and how it will resolve itself. God told me tonight that the resolution in the temporal to that situation is not the point. He gives (or allows us to feel [but if he’s all powerful, then “allowing” is just the same as “willing]) emotions both good and bad to us, and their effect in the temporal is not the point. God is preparing all of us for Eternity! No matter where we will end up in eternity, His every act toward us is to prepare us further for that end. I’ll repeat that:

No matter where we will end up in eternity, His every act toward us is to prepare us further for that end, both Christians and non-Christians.

So what does this process look like? I ask God “why do I feel this way?” He says, “to make you holy.” I say, “well, how will it end up?” He says, “It doesn’t matter. This all has eternal ramifications to it before it ever has temporal ones – THAT’S the primary point; don’t worry about the temporal – worry about how this is preparing you and those around you for eternity after these temporal things fall away.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but this gives me the key to entering into God’s rest in this life, no matter what comes your way. Being able to step back and see things from an eternal perspective rather than zooming in a focusing on the temporal creates a peace and a rest from faith that can only come from God.

No more worrying necessary, for the things I go through now are to prepare me and make me worthy for His Coming; to make sure He fulfills His commitment to me to make me His spotless Bride. Whatever temporal things that come about are merely part of the ride.

in Him,

–paul

p.s. – I’m still processing all this and have yet to actually spend a day with this perspective and see how this practically works out. I don’t really know what will happen outwardly if anything. We’ll see. I’ll keep you up to date. Now I’m off to slumber into my said first day with new perspective.

A Confession

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

” But you, O my love, for whom I faint with longing that I may be strong, you are not those material objects we can see, in heaven though they are, nor are you the beings which we do not see there, for you have created them and do not even count them as your highest works. How much more distant are you, then, from mere figments of my imagination, fantasy-bodies that have no reality at all! More real are the memory-pictures we form of objects which at least do exist, and more real again than these are the physical beings themselves; yet none of these are you. Better and more certain than the bodies of material creatures if the soul that gives life to their bodies, yet you are not the soul either. You are the life of souls, the life of all lives, the life who are yourself living and unchanging, the life of my own soul.”

— St. Augustine

Discourse on Desire & Darwinism: an Apologetic

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

I was at home typing all this out about two months ago. As I was nearing the end, my foot hit the power strip the computer was connected to and I lost it all. It was structured so much better than this and explained everything so much clearer. So after a couple months of being bummed out over it, I am now re-typing this out. Or rather, attempting to.

Proposition 1: All humans seek happiness.
Regardless of culture, gender, time in history, or even religion, this desire is universal. Even the Buddhist who spends his life trying to remove the desire for happiness can never remove the desire to have no desire, thus showing the cyclical nature of that philosophy. Even the Ascetic receives happiness for his casting off of earthly things, no matter the biblical warrant, or lack thereof.

Proposition 2: Every action of every human being is to this end.
The motive behind every action of every human is to this end, even those who kill themselves. I would argue that the drive to reduce misery (even through suicide) is very akin to that drive for happiness.

Proposition 3: This drive is unique to humans.
No animal acts in a natural environment for the pure sake of the pursuit of happiness. Every action of every animal is for a definite cause of some biological interest. Every animal action has a real purpose with tangible results beyond some emotional response.

Proposition 4: This desire is never really fulfilled.
As has been duly noted by men greater than me, Thomas Jefferson noted that we can attain many things, but “happiness” we can only “pursue.” He never says we can actually attain it. No one in history (except Jesus) could have said honestly they had actually fully satisfied one’s inner desire for happiness. Sure, we experience it in great measures, but a desire such as hunger can be fully satisfied; the desire for happiness cannot.

Proposition 5: Darwinism has no answer to this.
Here’s the meat of the discourse. Long story short: Darwinism implies no previous purposeful design within human beings apart from what has been gained generationally by the experiences of our ancestors. Their experiences have learned what enables us to survive, and thus adaptations to this end or passed down and show themselves in our present physical, cultural, and psychological features. If this is true, then no desire humans have could have ever developed prior to the ability to fulfill it. To use the example above: Humans didn’t acquire this universal desire for food known as hunger, until (a) a lack or deficit was noticed, and (b) a way to fully satisfy it was found. I’m arguing that every desire or drive in humans testifies to the existence of a full satisfaction thereof somewhere in the world. If Proposition 4 is true, then, that means Darwinism’s only answer to the desire for happiness is that the desire itself preceded the object of that desire, because a full satisfaction of it cannot be found on earth, so how were our ancestors to know they were without it? The idea that the existence of a desire precedes it’s object is very intellectually dishonest, and thus Darwinism is inadequate in accounting for this universal human drive.

Conclusion: Only Christianity has the adequate, satisfactory answer to it.
Christianity teaches that we have been created with a desire for happiness that testifies to the existence of that happiness, namely God Himself. He is what our hearts were made for and thus our hearts are never fully satisfied until they rest in Him. Christianity also teaches that this world has fallen from its original glory and is in a process of redemption wherein one can experience a certain measure of that happiness in the here and now that is merely a shadow of the full satisfaction to come. This is the idea popularly known as “the Already but Not Yet.” Christ’s Kingdom has already been established in the world, but it’s full consummation has not yet happened, thus certain degrees of eternal realities we can experience now in the form of spiritual gifts, worship, a change in nature and will, and an ever decreasing dominion of the power of sin in one’s life. These are all things that our being was created to find its utmost delight in and thus when our soul does that, it is more itself than it ever could be.

After coming up with this a while ago, I was surprised, impressed with myself, and humbled all at once when I found out that C.S. Lewis had these exact thoughts over sixty years ago. I stumbled upon this quote I’d like to finish with to sum up my entire point in this here treatise. He said:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this earth can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world”

Amen, brother.

Please, send rebuttals, criticisms, or arguments over any of the above propositions my way. I feel like there are some things I haven’t adequately addressed, but I can’t seem to find the holes in the arguments. Please find them and tell me, as I eager to develop this properly.

–paul

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, Pt. II

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

I’m in the process of writing why Christians take joy in suffering. In this post I hope to explain the second reason why suffering, tribulation, and even evil are the joy and delight of the Christian. The first reason was that all evil, suffering and calamity reveal the Glory of God, which is the delight of the Christian; and must be, for a Christian to be a Christian (See my last post, Part I)

This second reason is a little more difficult to explain. In my life, God revealed these truths to me in a very peculiar way that led to these truths becoming some of the most precious that my mind has ever grasped. It was a night of confusion and not comprehending the words of a great sister, only to finally understand it all the next morning as the Holy Spirit fell in my shower. This post is the fruits of that night I am so indebted to. I pray the Holy Spirit communicates through me these truths, and that they may lead you to a deeper joy for God.

After the aforementioned shower, I went to Starbucks to do my Bible study for the morning and ran across John 9:39, which reads: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.'” If you click the link, you can get more context from Scripture, but Jesus goes on to tell the Pharisees that sight is metaphorical for salvation, obviously. Why is this verse, so profound?

Jesus is pretty much saying that his “judgment” is the greatest benefit of all to some, because it brings them nearer to God; for others, it is to cast them as far from his presence as can be done. His judgment is the greatest gift to those who believe in Him, but is the greatest curse for those who don’t. It’s a foreign concept in the church to worship God for his judgment. Who wants to rejoice in the sending of sinners to Hell? Romans 9:22-24 tells us that God’s Glory is revealed to those saved by the sending of sinners to Hell. His judgment reveals the Glory of God and opens our eyes to see it. Praise God!

[DISCLAIMERS: We can take comfort in the knowledge that this condemnation of sinners is just and righteous. Also, we can have no absolute knowledge as to who those people are that are condemned eternally, thus our preaching is not in vain, it brings about the expansion of the kingdom of God. So, PREACH, but take comfort that it is not based on you, your words, or even your motives whether someone is converted or not, and, remember that even if they are not, you can still praise God.]

In Romans 8:28-39, this principle is carried further. For sake of space, I won’t provide the text, just the exegesis, but please click the link and read it all. The main points are this: v.28 is the most precious and famous of all Bible promises. “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” That’s great, but what is the foundation of this? Why and how can we possibly believe this when we live in this world of suffering and pain? Verse 29 says that our assurance of this promise comes from our assurance of our election and salvation, but Paul doesn’t stop there. He knows this simple trust in God’s choosing and keeping of us doesn’t fully explain the foundation of v.28. I think that’s why he says next: “What, then, shall we say in response to this?” He answers with some of the most glorious truths in the Bible.

He tells us, because God is on our side, the usual system of fear and worry in suffering is destroyed in Christ. He says in verse 32 (this is the key verse for our purposes): “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” His grace will also give us all things. What did this grace first give us? It gave us a death, a suffering, a tribulation. The first and foundational gift of God’s Grace was a pain. Paul continues speaking of the foundation of this great promise by appealing to (of all things) the judgment of Christ – He is the one who condemns, which secures the power by which he can bring about that promise in our lives. The application of Romans 8:28 which is foremost in Paul’s mind as he is writing is then found in vv.35-39, and it is persecution, death, and tribulation! When Paul says that God will “give us all things,” he means all things – including suffering, tribulation, persecution, and even death. Not only that, that is what He gives “graciously.”

You see, just like we saw in John, all things that normally cause fear and heartache for all, for the Christian, are actually their greatest joy. This is because, just as in Christ’s judgment, all things good and bad are now merely our servants to bring us closer to God – even death. Whereas death is the greatest fear of man, after conversion, it is the things that propels him the deepest into the bosom of God he will ever be. Praise God!

So, in summary, all suffering, tribulation, pain, heartache, loss, judgment, and death we go through in this life is for the purposes of (1) revealing God’s Glory in this world, which believers so delight in, it is their joy, no matter the earthly cost; and (2) bringing us closer to Him, now that He has destroyed the system of fear and heartache in tribulation by making those “fearful” things our servants now to bring us to our Father.

I’ll end with this Psalm of Praise I found. I’ll just put selections up (the link has the whole thing), but pay attention to why it is all of Creation is rejoicing so much. I think you’ll find it “glorious.”

Psalm 96
Sing to the LORD a new song;
sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Sing to the LORD, praise his name;
proclaim his salvation day after day.
Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous deeds among all peoples.
Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
bring an offering and come into his courts.
Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth.
Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy;
they will sing before the LORD, for he comes,
he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
and the peoples in his truth.

ahh, Selah

–paul<