Thoughts on Worship for Easter

I was reading chapter 2 of John Owen's Communion with the Triune God this evening, and came across the following quote (p. 97):

Faith, love, trust, joy, etc., are the natural or moral worship of God, whereby those in whom they are have communion with him.

I remember sitting in a Sunday morning service as a young believer (less than 2 years after the Father had drawn me to His Son) listening to a sermon where worship was mentioned. Not having grown up in church, it was a word I knew, but not a word with which I had wrestled. I made a note to myself: "What is worship?"

I'm not so young a believer anymore, that sermon being over 20 years in the past. But sometimes I still wonder how well I understand what worship is. It does, I believe, occur when we gather together and sing praises to God and offer up our prayers to Him and listen to the proclamation of His word.

But Owen has written what I have long struggled to formulate in my own mind. Worship of God is in large part a display of His image within us. That image being things like faith, love, trust, joy, hope, peace, etc. It is in this worship that we have the deepest communion with God.

Here the sun has set on Good Friday. In the time we are honoring and remembering, Jesus is in the tomb, and the disciples are scattered and hiding. But hope was not gone, just hidden, wrapped in a veil of death. So also hope may seem to be gone from some of our lives.

May we in those darkest nights worship God by believing, by loving, by trusting, by rejoicing and by hoping even though all reason for hope seems gone. Gazing not only at the cross but also at the empty tomb and knowing that our greatest enemies have been defeated by Jesus, who has promised to never leave us or forsake us.

Happy Easter. The Lord has risen!

Speaking of Hermenuetics

There's a great post on Sola Scriptura over at the Pilgrim People blog by Michael Brown (HT: R. Scott Clark). One of the struggles I've had is how to approach the Scriptures recognizing both that the Holy Spirit is my greatest teacher, but that there is a rich history of His having taught others. I think to divorce ourselves from 2000 years of Church history is a categorical mistake.

If we make this mistake, we will pay a steep price. Brown notes:

Oddly enough, this kind of dismissal of historic theology actually does violence to Christ’s promise to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn 16.13) and bring to their remembrance all things (Jn 14.26) in order that Scripture would be preserved for the instruction of the church until the end of the age (Mt 24.35; 28.20). The early-American biblicists seemed to give no credit at all to the Holy Spirit’s work in history of gifting Christ’s church with pastors and teachers; rather, the early-American biblicists see the Spirit’s true work in ministry being that of immediate revelation and privatized religion. Ironically, the biblicists’ seeking of direct revelation and a “tabula rasa” illumination compromises their claim of “no creed but the Bible,” as one's personal experience is inevitably elevated to the place of Scripture.

Tragically, however, things have not changed for the better. As Hatch chillingly points out, “Americans continue to maintain their right to shape their own faith and to submit to leaders they have chosen.” The result of eighteenth and nineteenth century biblicism has been a church that increasingly looks less like New Testament Christianity and more like the egalitarian culture in which she lives. Populist hermeneutics and privatized, experiential religion has continuously had wide appeal to the American individualistic ethos. The “chronological arrogance,” to borrow C.S. Lewis’ maxim, of disparaging tradition and centuries of theologizing persists with cavalier vigor.

Hebrews 11 reminds us that we stand in a long line of those who have walked with God. That line does not stop with the closing of the canon but continues on even today. The Bible makes it clear that none of these are without fault, and therefore are not the primary resource. But they are faithful men who have passed truth on to other faithful men, eventually down to us. So while the Bible is always the final authority, my interpretation is not. I must always check my own biases by testing my interpretation against those who have come before and are contemporary with me.

What say you?

Civility

I've always benefited from reading Os Guinness. The Call is one of the best books I've read and I've given out several copies. According to the Discerning Reader review of A Case for Civility it is a must read for me as well. In this election year, it might just be a good read for all of us. A brief blurb from the review:

Much of the answer to whether or not we’ll learn to live with our deepest differences depends on rejecting two erroneous responses to the culture wars. First, we must say no to a “sacred public square”—a situation where one religion has a position of privilege or prominence that is denied to others. As he refutes the sacred public square, Guinness laments the state of the Religious Right and the damage it has done to faith in America. We must also say no to a “naked public square”—the situation where public life is left devoid of any religion. This is what is advocated by the new atheists. Both of these responses to the culture war are in contradiction to the Constitution.

The alternative to both is a “civil public square.” “The vision of a civil public square is one in which everyone—peoples of all faiths, whether religious or naturalistic—are equally free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faiths, as a matter of ‘free exercise’ and as dictated by their own reason and conscience; but always within the double framework, first of the Constitution, and second, of a freely and mutually agreed covenant, or common vision for the common good, of what each person understands to be just and free for everyone else, and therefore of the duties involved in living with the deep differences of others.” If we are to have a civil society, we must first have a civil public square.

Wise Counsel on Politics and Christianity

From Dr. Mohler's blog:

The rhetoric of the race -- and the rhetoric of many evangelicals -- is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord -- and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

This presidential race offers evangelical Christians an opportunity to mature and rethink our model of political engagement. We are likely to confront developments and choices that will require significant intellectual effort among American Christians.

Americans should give thanks today, mindful of the fact that our democratic process is evidence of national stability and constitutional order. The U.S. Constitution is the world's longest-surviving political charter. For a contrast, just think of the political turmoil and tragedy seen in Pakistan and Kenya in just the last week. Our political process may be only rarely graceful or predictable -- but it is still one of the wonders of the world. Stay tuned.

10 Resolutions for Mental Health

John Piper has posted 10 resolutions for mental health from a message by Clyde Kilby. I'm not much for New Year's resolutions, but these look helpful to me. Maybe they will to you too.

1. At least once every day I shall look steadily up at the sky and remember that I, a consciousness with a conscience, am on a planet traveling in space with wonderfully mysterious things above and about me.

2. Instead of the accustomed idea of a mindless and endless evolutionary change to which we can neither add nor subtract, I shall suppose the universe guided by an Intelligence which, as Aristotle said of Greek drama, requires a beginning, a middle, and an end. I think this will save me from the cynicism expressed by Bertrand Russell before his death when he said: "There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing."

3. I shall not fall into the falsehood that this day, or any day, is merely another ambiguous and plodding twenty-four hours, but rather a unique event, filled, if I so wish, with worthy potentialities. I shall not be fool enough to suppose that trouble and pain are wholly evil parentheses in my existence, but just as likely ladders to be
climbed toward moral and spiritual manhood.

4. I shall not turn my life into a thin, straight line which prefers abstractions to reality. I shall know what I am doing when I abstract, which of course I shall often have to do.

5. I shall not demean my own uniqueness by envy of others. I shall stop boring into
myself to discover what psychological or social categories I might belong to. Mostly I shall simply forget about myself and do my work.

6. I shall open my eyes and ears. Once every day I shall simply stare at a tree, a flower, a cloud, or a person. I shall not then be concerned at all to ask what they are but simply be glad that they are. I shall joyfully allow them the mystery of what
Lewis calls their "divine, magical, terrifying and ecstatic" existence.

7. I shall sometimes look back at the freshness of vision I had in childhood and try,
at least for a little while, to be, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the "child of the pure unclouded brow, and dreaming eyes of wonder."

8. I shall follow Darwin's advice and turn frequently to imaginative things such as good literature and good music, preferably, as Lewis suggests, an old book and
timeless music.

9. I shall not allow the devilish onrush of this century to usurp all my energies but will instead, as Charles Williams suggested, "fulfill the moment as the moment." I shall try to live well just now because the only time that exists is now.

10. Even if I turn out to be wrong, I shall bet my life on the assumption that this world is not idiotic, neither run by an absentee landlord, but that today, this very day, some stroke is being added to the cosmic canvas that in due course I shall understand with joy as a stroke made by the architect who calls himself Alpha and Omega.

It Is Worth It

I've started re-reading Bob Benson's See You at the House. Then tonight Pastor Williams started a series on Abraham beginning with God calling him to leave everything he knew to go somewhere. God didn't say where, or how long it would take, just that Abraham would be blessed and be a blessing.

That reminded me of how the first section of See You at the House - "Looking for the Threads" - starts:

The quest -

Wherever it takes you - go;

Whichever the task - do it;

Whatever the burden - accept it;

Whenever it calls - answer it;

Whichever the lesson - learn it;

However dark the path - follow him;

Because wherever he takes you,

It is worth it.

--Bob Benson--

Let's Race

A race is one of the metaphors the Apostle Paul uses to describe the Christian life. This metaphor is picked up by Steve Taylor in his song "The Finish Line" from Squint. If you have never heard of Steve Taylor, it probably means you were not listening to Christian music in the late 1980's. Steve is probably best known for "I Want to Be a Clone" (though my personal favorites are "Drive, He Said" and "Cash Cow") and having a sarcastic sense of humor that did not always endear him with more fundementalist Christians. I, however, have a great affection for his music.

"The Finish Line" is something of a modern day Pilgrim's Progress, admittedly in much shortened form. It follows a prototypical Christian from conversion to death. If you listen closely, you may find something of your own journey in the song. The confident to arrogant beginning. The stumbling that causes you to eventually buy "the party line." The questions as to how so many good things become idols. Then, hopefully, that return to relying on Jesus, as we emerge "bloody but wise." The title of the album is taken from this song, "You squint with the light of the truth in your eyes."

Enjoy.

Fundementalists, Antithesis and Common Grace

Updated Below

While I have been blogging on Harry Potter, there has been a rather interesting discussion going on over at Reformation 21. This has been between Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman on fundementalism and it's merits and dangers. I'm not planning on commenting a lot, I just want to provide some quotes that maybe will encourage you to read the entire discussion. As I think about it I may have more to say later.

It starts with Rev. Phillips' move to Greenville and his decision of which school to enroll his children. The final decision was Bob Jones elementary, an arm of Bob Jones university. Rev. Phillips writes:

But the fourth reason is the one I really want to talk about. The fundamentalists get the idea of antithesis. . . . I find in general that the fundamentalists get the idea that the Bible really is the Word of God and that our only salvation is in the blood of Christ. There is no talk about postmodern hermeneutics among the fundamentalists. They believe the Bible is the Word of God because it says so, and so do I. They believe that men, women, and children are sinners who must believe in the cross in order to be saved. There is no talk of alternative theories of the atonement with them. They understand that the church must stand out against the world, that holiness is our calling, and that Christians are to witness to the lost. Amen, amen, and amen. They get the Christian antithesis, that light has shined in the darkness and that we are to walk in the light and shine the light into the darkness.

Frankly, because of the big idea of antithesis, I am more comfortable with the fundamentalists than I am with the broad evangelicals. More and more, broad evangelicals do not get the idea of antithesis, and for this reason even when they have a pretty good formal doctrinal statement, they seldom really stand up for it.

Rev. Phillips goes on in other posts to discuss price as a factor in the decision and the reformed leanings of Bob Jones. But the discussion is taken up in earnest by Dr. Trueman. Dr. Trueman makes four points about antithesis, all of which are interesting, but the last two are the most significant. From the third:

3. An overwhelming emphasis on antithesis creates a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction. That's cultic and it's Gnosticism, and the Reformed world currently contains a couple of scary examples of exactly this kind of thinking and church life. . . . It can in fact be used in such a way as to justify a form of Gnostic empiricism and in effect to say 'everyone else has tradition, we just have the truth' is a problem. It could be better translated as `We have a tradition like everyone else, but we're not going to write it down so that it cannot be critiqued by you or anybody else.'

And from the fourth:

4. Charity of spirit (not compromise of doctrine) is a Christian virtue. This involves the ability to relate to those who are different, to treat with respect as made in the image of God those from whom we differ. An overwhelming emphasis on the intellectual/cultural antithesis does not, in my experience, foster the kind of appreciation for others, the self-deprecating humour, and the ability to see the absurdities of one's own positions, which enable this. . . . My point is simply that the antithesis can be abused in the name of Christ to subvert these very Christian imperatives, not that it always does so.

Rev. Phillips responded to Dr. Trueman and makes points worth considering. I want to move on though to comments from Sean Michael Lucas who joined in with two posts (part 1 and part 2) on his blog. In part 1, Dr. Lucas notes:

[M]y primary identity is a believer of Jesus and I'm called to love other believers in Jesus regardless of their spiritual maturity or theological perspective (even, shudder, Arminians). I live out this identity as a Presbyterian, committed to the wholeness of the Reformed faith as the best explanation of the Bible and eager for others to embrace the same perspective that I hold. I affirm catholicity while holding personally to the Reformed faith.

In part 2 Dr. Lucas discusses the concepts of antithesis and common grace and how these have created two streams in the reformed tradition. He refers to this split as the "Kuyperian legacy" in honor of Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. He discusses both the positive and negative tendencies of both. Dr. Lucas says there is no way to meld the two together and admits to having fundementalist/antithesis leanings. I think there is a lot of value in reading and thinking about this. Regardless of where you stand, I think we should all heed Dr. Lucas' conclusion:

Finally, above all, we need to exercise the judgment of charity toward each other. By recognizing the dangers in our position, we are freed to recognize the value of the other--I can affirm my brothers and sisters who in common grace run coffee houses and line their churches with their art in order to engage in conversations with others. They bring something to the body of Christ that I don't bring; they are "jazz" to my "three-chords and a chorus" (1 Cor 12:12-27). I need those who emphasis common grace; and they, frankly, need me.

Update: Rev. Phillips has posted some additional thoughts based on Dr. Lucas' thoughts

Harry Potter - Concluding Thoughts

As a follow-up to the series looking at the themes in Harry Potter, I wanted to make just a few additional comments, in part as a result of the post by Joshua Harris' "Harry Lives, God Dies" this past week at Between Two Worlds. Justin's post was a reflection on an article written by Lev Grossman.

In that article, Mr. Grossman claims that the world created by J. K. Rowling is signficantly different than the worlds created by J. R. R. Tolkein and C. S. Lewis. I want to look at two statements from that article and show why I think Mr. Grossman has grossly missed the point.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Quote 1: Harry Potter and religion

Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind. He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.

Mr. Grossman is correct that we do not see Harry going to church or praying. However, the Christian calendar is followed, including Christmas break. One could argue that many of these holidays are now cultural and not religious in signficance. But what cannot be escaped (and, to Mr. Grossman's defense this was in book 7, released after his article) is that both Dumbledore's family and Harry's family had Bible verses on their tombstones. That Harry does not recognize them as such I see more as commentary on the general lack of Biblical knowledge in our society than a denial of Christianity. Hermione, even if she does not know where it comes from, at least understands that "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" on the marker for Harry's parents is not a death eater idea, but an affirmation of life after death.

In terms of the spells Harry uses, none is more powerful than the patronus charm. This spell is used most frequently against dementors, the presence of which causes despair. In her list of influences, I have not seen Rowling mention John Bunyan, but the wizard prison Azkaban, which is under the oversight of the dementors, would be something akin to Giant Despair's Doubting Castle Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

To use the patronus charm, one thinks of a happy memory and utters, "expecto patronum." The "happy memory" can be interpreted as having faith in the midst of despair. The charm itself, in translated latin, is a call for a protector or guardian. In similar manner, a "patron" saint is one who protects those under his charge - e.g. St. Christopher is the patron saint of travelers.

In classical latin "pater" (from which "patronus" is derived) means father. "Expecto patronum" is a call for aid, therefore, to a guardian or father, or a prayer. One receives the aid when one has faith and does not despair. Some are surpised that Harry can create a patronus because of his youth. This calls to mind those who would keep the children from Jesus or Paul telling Timothy not to let others despise his youth.

How much of this is intentional with Rowling I cannot say. But I certainly think we cannot, as Mr. Grossman does, easily dismiss the possibility that there are signficant religious elements in the Harry Potter series.

Quote 2: Harry Potter and love

What does Harry have instead of God? Rowling's answer, at once glib and profound, is that Harry's power comes from love. This charming notion represents a cultural sea change. In the new millennium, magic comes not from God or nature or anything grander or more mystical than a mere human emotion.

In my post on Love and Harry Potter, I deal with the theme of love more fully. Here, I just want to place a reminder that the love that is powerful magic in Harry Potter is much more than "mere human emotion." It is self-sacrificial love. The love required to be powerful magic is anything but a "charming notion." It is a love that dies that another may live. While some may point to Harry's sacrifice in book seven - a good reference - this has been clear since book one when Lily dies to save Harry. Painting the love in Harry Potter as a "charming notion" and "a mere human emotion" does injustice to one of the main themes in the novels.

Are the Harry Potter Novels Christian?

I think that is a mistaken question, not just with Harry Potter but nearly all fiction. How would one define whether a novel is Christian or not? The question is whether or not a novel is consistent with a Christian worldview. Some might say that Harry Potter is not because there is no mention of God. As others have noted there is also no mention of God in the book of Esther, yet it is in the Bible. Like Esther, I could argue for God's providence being a signficant presence in the Harry Potter books. Just one example is Hermione's having the "Time-Turner" in The Prisoner of Azkaban.

As I hope I've shown over the last several posts, major themes in the series are consistent with a Christian worldview. Views of community, the afterlife, power, death, and love in the novels are in alignment with Biblical views of the same. These are novels, and they are not as explicit on many of the topics as the Bible is, but what is there has substantial agreement.

And while thinking about and looking at these themes is profitable, let us not lose Alan Jacobs' final note on the series in his essay "Harry Potter's Magic." The books are "a great deal of fun."

Death in Harry Potter

Shortly after starting the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling's mother died. Rowling admits that it had a significant impact on the seriers and told Meredith Vieira in an interview for Dateline that how the characters in the Harry Potter's novels viewed death defined them. Aside from the theme of love, death is the most significant theme in the book. Some might even argue it is the most signficant theme. As such, I'm only skimming the surface of what Rowling says about death in Harry Potter.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Death is present from the start of the series, and controls events that transpire in the stories past. The death of Harry's parents, James and Lily Potter, starts the series off. But the cause of that death, Voldemort, kills them in an attempt to get to Harry. Why?

Voldemort fears death. This fear leads him, in the backstory of the books and not revealed until book 6, to create horcruxes. Horcruxes are places where pieces of a soul can be stored so that a person need not fear death. The horcrux can be used to revive the person who has died. Voldemort has his horcruxes in place to protect against his demise. Interestingly, to create a horcrux, Voldemort has to kill - an exchange, if you will. To protect his own life, Voldemort must sacrifice another.

Also in the backstory, there is a prophecy, revealed in book 5, that a boy will battle Voldemort to the death. Voldemort attempts to kill Harry as an infant to prevent the prophecy. This is an act reminiscent of Herod's killing of all the children under two after the wise men do not return from visiting Jesus. Herod wants to kill Jesus, the Messiah, who Herod expects to be an earthly king and would therefore end his dynasty. But, while he is surrounded by death, Harry is "the boy who lived" (the reason why will be discussed in the following post, if the Lord should will).

Death is so significant because it is final. While, as I discussed in the post on the afterlife, something of the person continues on after death, you cannot really come back from death. Harry's parents, despite his hopes after seeing their forms at the end of Goblet of Fire, will never return to him. He has to live with the deaths of those that he loves.

And death visits Harry repeatedly throughout the series, but especially starting in book 4 with Cedric. Then Sirius dies, Dumbledore dies, Moody dies, Dobby dies, Snape dies, Fred dies, Lupin dies, Tonks dies, . . . All the deaths are to a greater or a lesser degree sacrifices to save Harry. Until Harry must decide whether he will follow their examples.

Harry has committed himself, after much wrestling, to Dumbledore's path of destroying the horcruxes. What happens, then, when you discover that Nagini is not the last horcrux, but that you yourself are a horcrux. Harry walks to his death, willing to sacrifice himself for others. For Voldemort to be defeated, the piece of Voldemort's soul that is within Harry must die. The horcrux must be destroyed.

So Harry responds to Voldemort's call, and walks out alone, under the invisibility cloak, to meet him. Harry does not attempt to defend himself when Voldemort again uses the killing curse on Harry. The first time Harry survived because of his mother's intervention. Now, there is no one to intercede.

After his sacrifice, Harry awakes in King's Cross. He is whole, not even needing his glasses. But he is not alone:

[Harry] had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath.

In King's Cross we see the contrast between what Voldemort's fear of death and Harry's acceptance of death has made of them. Voldemort is beyond help, while Harry is healthy.

It would be easy to mistake the Harry Potter series as embracing death. Is Snape's killing of Dumbleore and assisted suicide?

First, Harry did not run from death, but neither did he embrace it. The walk to Voldemort was difficult, particularly as he reflected on what would be lost. He required the support of those who had sacrificed themselves for him.

Second, Snape does kill Dumbledore knowing that Dumbledore is dying anyway. But the act is not to relieve Dumbledore's suffering, but to protect Draco. Had Draco been forced to kill Dumbledore, irreversible damage would have been done to Draco. I'm not saying that I agree with Snape's actions; I don't think they are justifiable. But the scene is not, I don't think, an argument for mercy killing.

Third, and most telling, is the graveyard scene on Christmas Eve. Harry and Hermione are searching for Harry's parent's grave. When they find the grave, on the marker are these words: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." The words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 26) where he is defending the resurrection. It contains (v. 3-4) Paul's wonderful summary of the gospel: "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Whatever else Rowling may mean by using this quote, death is defined as an enemy, and one day it will end. I hope and pray that it also means that Rowling has the hope of the resurrection. That this quote is more than something in a book, but is a rock on which she can stand. I hope this is true for you as well.

Power in Harry Potter

By now you know: WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Horcruxes or the Deathly Hallows? The choice was anything but simple for Harry. It was a choice analogous to the choice to use or to destroy the ring of power. What Dumbledore had wanted was more or less clear, so trusting him would send Harry after horcruxes. But Harry knew now that Dumbledore had a past which he had been unwilling to share (trust to) Harry.

How do you handle power? Is it to be sought and used for your own benefit, or is it to be taken only with the outmost care and diligence?

For Voldemort and the Death Eaters that is a silly question. Power is meant to be wielded, otherwise it is wasted. Power means having the ability to get what you want when you want it. For Voldemort, it was a way to overcome death and to get "respect" that he had not gotten any other way. This is community committed to the principle of survival of the fittest. You either rule the pack by force, or you walk around with your tail between your legs.

One of the big surprises in book seven is the past of Albus Dumbledore. We learn in the book that his history included a desire for power and a scheming about how this might be done. While this might have been "for the greater good," it was a vain (both in the sense of proud and in the sense of worthless) pursuit. His scheming led, however indirectly, to the death of his sister and marked him for life.

Dumbledore becomes one then who shuns power. Many wondered why he never tried to become the Minister of Magic. Some, like Dolores Umbridge, assumed he was trying to take the position. But the reality was that Dumbledore feared what he might do in that position of power. When Harry tells Dumbledore in King's Cross that he would have been a great minister, Dumbledore responds (DH p. 718):

Would I? . . . I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it.

Dumbledore's wisdom in this matter is evident by two incidents signficant to Harry. The first was when Dumbledore realized that James Potter, Harry's father, had not just any invisibility cloak, but THE invisibility cloak. One third of the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore had to examine it, and it was in his possession on the night Voldemort killed Harry's parents. Likely having the cloak would have made no difference, but the question remains, particularly for Dumbledore knowing his own motives for wanting the cloak.

Second, Dumbledore kills himself, effectively, by putting on the ring that contained the resurrection stone. Voldemort had cursed the ring (similar to the poison protecting the locket) and while he continued to live with Snape's aid, Dumbledore's days were numbered. The black hand was a reminder that death was upon him and that soon he would die. This is the reason drinking the poison was an easy choice for Dumbledore. He was dying already. Power is frequently the weakness of the great. (I'm tempted to get on a soapbox about term limits for elected officials, but I'll let you work it out.)

So, Harry's choice in book seven (and at other times as well) is the choice to pursue power, or trust his friends. When Dobby dies while saving Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, and others, Harry realizes what he has to do. Even though he knows Voldemort has discovered the location of the elder wand. Even though Voldemort will get that wand which could make him nearly invincible, Harry chooses to pursue the horcruxes and not the Deathly Hallows. To take the path that Frodo takes, not the path to power but the path of sacrifice. The path that will require him to depend on Ron, Hermione, and, eventually, Neville instead of the path where he could be the next great wizard.

As believers, we are called to humility. Jesus is much more than an example and much more than a teacher, but He is both. His example is that we do not grasp for power and authority in this life. The least shall be greatest. The meek will inherit. We are sheep in the midst of wolves. And as Harry finally trusts Dumbledore, we must trust our great Teacher who calls us to die.

The Afterlife in Harry Potter

What would a school of witchcraft and wizardry be without a few ghosts?

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead! (Seriously big time spoilers)

Hogwarts is indeed haunted. Nearless Headless Nick, Moaning Myrtle, and other ghosts haunt the school's halls and, well, bathrooms. As in much modern popular fiction, though, not everyone becomes a ghost when they die, most just go on. Ghosts are those who linger and do not move on to whatever waits, as in The Sixth Sense or Medium. In interviews, Rowling has said this the result of the person fearing death.

The moving portraits are not really ghosts, or even living. Harry's visit by the departed in the Goblet of Fire is not a return from the dead either. The closest one comes to this is when Harry uses the resurrection stone near the end of the Deathly Hallows. But even the stone does not truly "resurrect" the loved one(s). It merely brings them to a point where the living can converse with them. Xenophilius Lovegood, in his description of the stone's effects when used by its original owner, says:

[T]he figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him. Yet she was said and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.

When Harry uses the stone, we are told that those who return to comfort him are "neither ghost nor truly flesh . . . Less substantial than living bodies, but much more than ghosts." In returning it is noted that Sirius is younger than when Harry knew him, apparently returned to the prime of his life.

The closest we get to the the actual afterlife in Harry Potter's universe is in the chapter "Kings Cross." There Harry has a final (presumably) conversation with Dumbledore. This is some kind of limbo, where Harry is given the choice to go on or to go back. In the book one could take this as all occurring in Harry's own mind, but interviews with Rowling indicate something "real" is happening. The figure on the floor is what remains of Voldemort and she calls it "a kind of limbo."

But Rowling does not touch on what the afterlife is like. Apparently the soul continues (otherwise, Harry could not call them back even partially) but little else is known. This is fairly typical in fiction. There are ghosts in Tolkien's works, and little is said about what happens when someone dies. Writers of fiction, with a few notable exceptions like Dante, have tended to avoid attempts at describing the afterlife. It is the great mystery that they cannot reveal. It is beyond a veil they dare not cross.

This stands out in the Harry Potter series in part because death and dealing with death is such a major theme. But as in real life, death is a wall that cannot be breached. Even in Bunyan's great Pilgrim's Progress, little is said about what life is like across the river.

But there is an affirmation of the afterlife. This occurs at Godric Hollow when Hermione tells Harry, regarding the inscription on his parents' grave ("The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" - 1 Corinthians 15:26), "It means . . . you know . . . living beyond death. Living after death." Harry's parents, and those who knew them, have a hope beyond this life.

Whether it is like the hope of the Christian we are not told. For believers, there is not only life beyond this, but life where every tear is dried and joy ever blossoms. Those who have gone on before Harry seem to this settled peace. But even the Bible tells us that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard what God has for us in heaven. Maybe, therefore, it is for the best that writers of fiction do not try to peer through the veil.

Gospel Passion

Recently a group of pastors and theologians met as part of The Gospel Coalition. From my vantage point (not being at the conference) it appears that the driving person behind this group is Dr. Donald (D. A.) Carson. Dr. Carson opened the conference with the message "What Is the Gospel?" from 1 Corinthians 15 (audio or video is available at the website). Dr. Carson states at the start of his message that the Bible

understands the gospel to be the embracing category that holds much of the whole Bible together and takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

Shortly after that Dr. Carson says:

Perhaps more common yet today is the tendency to assume the gospel, whatever that is, while devoting creative energy and passion to other issues - marriage, happiness, prosperity, evangelism, the poor, wrestling with Islam, bioethics, pressures of secularization, dangers on the left, dangers on the right - the list is endless. But this overlooks the fact that our hearers inevitably are drawn toward that about which we are most passionate. Every teacher knows that. My students are unlikely to learn all that I teach them. I've resigned myself to that for a long time. They are most likely to learn what I am excited about. If the gospel is merely assumed, while relatively peripherial issues ignite our passion, we will train a new generation to downplay the gospel and focus on the periphery. It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center. What is to be feared, in the famous words of T.S. Eliot, is that the center does not hold. Moreover if in fact we do focus on the gospel and understand it aright we shall soon see how this gospel, rightly understood, directs us how to think about and what to do about a vast array of other kinds of issues.

What then, about this blog? What do I focus on and what am I passionate about? I struggle at times to be passionate about the gospel (per Dr. Carson's definition above) and not just jumping into the latest intramural battles that seem so popular in the conservative church today.

What I want, using Dr. Carson's words, is to not get caught up in the periphery, but to speak from the center of our faith. If successful, then there will be nothing new here on this blog. This will be a relay station for a message that has been transmitted for millennia. I'm not the best relay station and I may not have the best range, but I want the signal to be clear. I want to encourage believers, bear witness to the lost, and defend the gospel when necessary.

I acknowledge that I have not always done so in the past, getting caught up in debates over matters about which we should not be expending much effort (matters of conscience). That is to say that I have been passionate about the periphery.

If your faith like my faith is in Jesus who died, was buried, and was raised on the third day, in Jesus who told His disciples that Scriptures speak of Him, then I encourage you by God's grace to reflect on those Scriptures and in doing so to make as much of Jesus as can. Then let us bear witness to Him with as an irenic spirit as possible in a ministry of reconciliaton.

Let Another Speak

Think about it, the best religion would be the one which places the most value in its god, and the one who derives the value of everything else based on the worth of its god, it would base all its morals and standards on that. It isn’t just about which supposed god is the most powerful, but which is the most pure, the most perfect. Not just in claim but in demonstration.

Read the rest on Voice of Vision.

Independence Day

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - The Declaration of Independence

When I was in high school, I read Robert J Ringer's Restoring the American Dream. I was not yet old enough to vote, but I was interested in the political process (a child of Watergate, I guess - "Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth."). Ringer's ideas gripped me, and I became a Libertarian (not a libertine - which is a moral, not political, category). While I still have some sympathy for the party, I have some issues with it as well. Perhaps more significantly, I have less "faith" that the most significant problems of human existence can be solved by political means.

Libertarians view themselves, I think correctly, as true Jeffersonians. They reflect most clearly the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's greatest work. As a teenager, this is what made me a member of the party. Surely connecting back to the founding document of this country was a good thing, right? I was proudly American and saw the Revolution as one of the great events of history.

I don't think, even now, that we can dismiss the American Revolution as not being one of the most significant events in history. Besides founding this country it inspired other revolutions. But this "holy day" seems odd to me these days. I can no longer embrace Jefferson's basic premise in the Declaration. Primarily because I cannot reconcile it with these words:

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. - Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

Realize that Paul writes this to believers in Rome, under the subject of the Roman Emperor. The same government that would put him to death a few years later.

I really don't want to spoil your holiday and if you can reconcile Paul and Jefferson, then consider me one of the confused. Whatever the case, I do hope you have a good time with friends and family today. I just want us to be Christians first and Americans somewhere else down the list.

PS - My view of God's sovereignty and providence are such that I have no doubt God ordained the American Revolution. I also have no doubt He is using it for His glory. I am also thankful for the freedom we enjoy, particularly our right to worship openly. I pray for the safety and success of our troops. But none of this means, in and of itself, that the American Revolution was a just war. As Joseph told his brothers, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." Great is the mystery of how these two work together, but know that they do.

Calvinism and Arminianism

As I mentioned in the previous post, we do not wade in the shallows when we think about election (or the Trinity or how Jesus can be fully man and fully divine). So if we go out into deep waters, how should that affect our relationships with those that disagree with us. For example, how should a "Calvinist" relate to an "Arminian"?

First, let's acknowledge that there is a danger in being in deep water. One risk is that we become overly rigid and exclusionary. This, it seems to me, is especially true about those who have just discovered these truths. The danger of becoming too exclusionary is present in part because some of these truths are exclusionary. Christians are the only theists who believe in the Trinity. It has been a dividing line between us and Jews and Muslims for centuries. Therefore it is not always easy to know what truths are worth dividing over. The other risk, which seems common in our day, is that the depth of the water makes us despair of being able to know anything.

But I believe that deeper studies, especially if done prayerfully and always with a dependence on the Scriptures, are corrective to each of these risks. Why? Because we will come, with Paul, to understand that we cannot fully grasp who God is or what He has done. We are left with only doxology about how great God is. I am finite and fallen, so I can never comprehend the infinite, holy God fully. But through these studies we will also see that God has revealed Himself, so there are truths about God that we can know and understand.

Second, let us realize we are not called to a war to eradicate Arminianism. Do I think election is important? Definitely. Do I think the Reformed understanding of election as outlined by Luther, Calvin, and the men who follow in their footsteps is the correct understanding? Definitely. Do I think Arminians are lesser Christians? Definitely not. Charles Spurgeon, a far more capable proponent of election than I, noted that two men he held in highest esteem were George Whitefield, a Calvinist, and John Wesley, an Arminian.

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. C. H. Spurgeon "A Defense of Calvinism" (middle of 3rd paragraph from the bottom)

For a similar perspective on this topic, I would commend to you a post by Mark Dever on the Together for the Gospel blog. In part he writes (emphasis his):

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals. It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Third, this doesn't mean we don't discuss, debate, and contend for our beliefs. But it is the kind of contention that allowed George Whitefield to rebuke John Wesley for Wesley's Arminianism, but then say that he did not expect to see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to the throne of God than Whitefield that Whitefield would not be able to see him.

Election is neither an essential doctrine, like justification by faith alone, nor is it a personal conviction issue, like whether Christians are allowed to partake of alcohol in moderation. Election and other doctrines which fall into this middle ground are doctrines which should be discussed. Therefore, the (admittedly difficult) task is to contend for our understanding of truth with a humble, irenic spirit.

Cyberspace and Blogs

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is one of the better (the best?) cultural critiques I've read (don't take my word for it - check out the review on Discerning Reader). This video is worth listening to the whole thing (it's an interview, the video portion isn't really needed), even if you don't agree with everything he says. I like the concluding question he says we need to ask, "Am I using this technology or is it using me?"

If 10 minutes is longer than you want to spend, then let the video load and watch from about 6:00 minutes remaining to 3:40 minutes remaining (however, by doing this you'll miss some thought provoking ideas).



I also like a related comment made by Os Guinness in a recent interview conducted on the White Horse Inn.

But it comes down in the rain or it comes from your mother's milk in this country. . . You take something as irrational currently as the blogs. Now the blogs are partly a useful counter check on the public media. But if you ever want an explosion, an orgy of irrationality and emotionality, look at the blogs. This is our world. A world of television, image, makeovers, blogs, impression management, and so on. We are living in a world that undermines truth at almost - every time you turn around.

If you do not know who Os Guinness is, or have never read any of his books, I highly recommend The Call. Others are equally good, like Prophetic Untimeliness or A Time for Truth.

Both of these come back to my love/hate relationship with technology. It provided the opportunity to hear the interviews with these two men, but it also demands so much time and attention. In Neil Postman's words, it is a Faustian bargain.

What Is Worship?

My temptation is not to tell you who is in this video (though some, I presume would know) because for some who says it might ruin what is said. From what I know of Brian McLaren's theology, I disagree with some with him on what I would consider core doctrines. With that said:

As a new believer, I remember listening to a sermon about worship and righting a question in the notes I was taking, "What is worship?" I did not come up with a great answer then, and now over 20 years later I'm still not sure I can give a great answer. I'm also convinced I'm not alone. Part of the reason, I think, is what McLaren is addressing. Worship in many churches is as much about putting on the right face, if you know what I mean, as it is about declaring the glory of God.

So, given that, whatever you think of Brian McLaren, watch the following and answer this: What do you agree and/or disagree with? Also, what is true worship?

Easter Truth

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on." Winston S. Churchill

Churchill knew this about as well as anyone in recent history, seeing the west deny what Hitler was really trying to accomplish until it was almost too late despite his persistent warnings. I don't know Churchill's religious convictions, but as we approach Good Friday and Easter, I'm reminded that Jesus told us that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." Because of our sin, as a result of the fall, we stumble over Him, but too often pick ourselves up and carry on as if nothing at all happened. Again, the Spirit knew we would, and inspired the Biblical writers to tell us that Jesus would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."

This Easter weekend, there is one question that matters - did Jesus rise from the grave? Is the resurrection a literal, physical reality, or just the imaginations of some men roughly 2000 years ago. If it is the latter, then Paul the Apostle says Christians are of all men the most to be pitied.

But if it is real, then Jesus the Christ has conquered death and is putting all enemies under His feet. If it is real, then there is a life and a kingdom beyond this world that has broken into this world. If it is real, then we can suffer and endure tribulation in this life because, as Bob Benson said, we are going to a celebration. Instead of eating, drinking, and being merry in this life, we have a joy and a peace that passes all understanding, because we will feast (whatever that may mean for perfected saints) eternally when the Bridegroom returns for His bride.

The resurrection is God's promise to us that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover our sins. It is the new rainbow. When the Father looks at the Son seated at His right hand there is an eternal reminder that sin's debt has been paid, that sin's penalty has been meted out. Easter reminds us that Jesus is the first fruit from the dead, and one day death itself will be destroyed.

Happy Easter!