Dan Phillips wants you to know you're a horrible person, probably not elect, and going to hell if you vote for anyone other than Mitt Romney.

Okay the title is a bit cheeky but bare with me. Dan Phillips, who is generally right on, just told me I am sinning by not voting for Mitt Romney. That is a strong claim I will be posting the relevant portion of his article on why voting 3 party is a vote for Obama and as such the worst sin since Judas betrayed Jesus inline with original formatting. My rebut wont take nearly as long as his article:

I start with the most popular, and yet sadly most foolish and Biblically absurdargument: "lesser of two evils." It never ceases to astonish me that any Christians say this. Don't they have Bibles? They're supposed to. Don't their Bibles have Romans 3:23 and7:14-25 and James 3:2a in them? Do those versesmean anything anymore? Child, every vote for a mere son of Adam is a vote for the lesser of two evils. There are no exceptions! It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is at best a redeemed and finite sinner. He is limitedintellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis. You must never make this argument.

1.) Yes all votes are for the lesser evil, and when granted only two options you always choose the lesser of the two, however when there are four options choosing the lesser of the two evils doesn't work, you must choose the lesser of the four evils. The lesser evil candidates are not running with the GOP (anymore) or the DNC, therefore voting for either of these parties is voting for a greater of the four evils.

Next, when I grew up a little, I wrapped my mind around the fact that politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Barry absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Mitch will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Trevor? He claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Trevor does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Trevor must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A)every player on the field will be trying to take Trevor down; and (B)no player on the field will run defense for Trevor; and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at Trevor  So in the end, he will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.

2.) You are correct, Barry will move in the opposite direction that you desire. "Mitch" will move back and forth but you are incorrect in thinking that the net gain will outweigh the net loss. "Mitch" is identical to Barry on all of two or three issues and is actually worse than him on a few. "Trevor" for the sake of argument will go nowhere he will get crushed, and in 4 years we have not progressed. So keeping the status qua where it is, call it 0 > -10 with "Barry" or -7 with "Mitch." Plus on the off chance that "Trevor" does score he is the only candidate with the ability and desire to put positive points on the board, if we continue with your football analogy. Furthermore this assumes that the third party players are morons that haven't done this before however if I take the records of the President, the former governor of Massachusetts and the former governor of New Mexico and compare their records I am voting for the governor from New Mexico 100% of the time if those are my only options, and I "must" vote.

In fact, all third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of non-comatose people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2) rational people. Look, here's your cup of coffee; now listen: You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and they can't win! Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. You know American civics at all? You know what that means? That means: Nobody will present their legislation.Nobody will craft their bills. Nobody will argue for them. Nobody will in either house of Congress will vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.

3.) The GOP was originally a third party. Furthermore if we look at what Perot did in 92 we have to say that voting third party is about making a difference and not just walking lockstep with the party we think favors life more. The Perot debacle caused    the two "major" parties to think and interact with those issues regardless of their desire to or not, and look at what happened! Clinton, a Democrat, balanced the budget. The Next portion is just a restatement of 2 so I will not interact with it again.

All third-party candidates are immature, and/or they are fools, and/or they are liars. Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities.First: these poseurs know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporters' money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are, to speak mildly, not admirable qualities. The second (and only other) possibility is that they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support. Let's be specific. In this election, third-party fakes know that the two possible candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term, he will appoint viciously pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life. Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But, recklessly and egomaniacally, third-party peacocks mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate (Mitt Romney), and turn it into at best an empty gesture — which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion — which they (supposedly) abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion side. Brilliant. Idiots.

4.) Granting the truth of your opening statement in this point how would that make a third party candidate any different than a GOP or DNC candidate? Second it is false that the candidates differ on abortion, "Mitt" only flip flopped recently to score political points if we look at his record, the fruit by which you judge a politician, there is really no difference between him and Obama on this issue until 2007 when we was going to make a bid for the GOP nod. He is no more against abortion than he is against war. Which is not at all. Paul Ryan has his own problems but even were "Mitt" elected there is nothing in his power that can advance the cause of live without the consent of congress so a vote for president does far less for the cause of abortion than the vote for your congressman/woman and senator, who are often times from third parties. For Mitt to advance the cause of life he would have to, and I do thank you for supplying the terms, be a "dictator or tyrant."

I'm a grownup. I want to make a difference, not a gesture (i.e. "sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert — which we like and want to encourage, right? — and he picked an even more ardently and winsomely pro-life running-mate. The other, Barack Obama, never met an unborn child he wouldn't just as soon see dead, and that even in the most gruesome way imaginable. Obama thinks spreading abortion is the most important thing he can do. As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I abominate Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as simple as that. I've read hundreds of words from third-partyers. While I share many of their goals, I really think it's all about them, and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience." Me? I'll feel better if I keep that monstrous, pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."

5.) I'm a grownup? Really? That's your argument? If you really believe there is a substantial difference between "Barry" and "Mitt" perhaps you need to go back and look at the records of each man. But please go on and tell me how you're going to make a difference with your statistically insignificant vote in a winner take all state that will 100% of the time go to the DNC? Who is being childish now? Continue to elect the same people and assume something is going to change. That's a brilliant plan. Seriously if you think Mitt is pro-life for any reason other than your vote or will actually do something to advance the cause of the unborn you must not have a very good memory. He made a similar "conversion" when running for office in Massachusetts. Also as I stated before Perot's 18% of the vote caused Democrats, the openly Keynesian, openly in love with deficit spending, Democratic President balanced the budget. Now imagine if a truly pro-life Austrian libertarian ran in a similar manner and got 18% of the vote what would happen to the GOP, especially if he was running against a soft (which is the best one can say for Mitt) pro-lifer. The party would grow in a real way or show it is no longer fit for support and be dissolved.

As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. As has been richly documented, Obama is the most viciously merciless and doctrinaire President candidate in history, when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have squeaked by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 900 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SC and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And, to be blunt, if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

6.) If I recall correctly the most recent big SCOTUS case was decided in favor of the liberal agenda by a man appointed by Bush. It is unlikely "Mitt" will do any better, especially with a democratic senate. Finally a vote for someone is just that a vote for someone and against everyone else. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote against Barack Obama and a vote against Mitt Romney. As such it can indeed be a vote against abortion, or even a truly pro-life vote since both the Republican and Democratic Candidates want continue to wage pointless wars at home and abroad that do nothing but consume dollars and American lives while making the rest of the world hate us because we are killing their sons, daughters, friends, and family. Mitt Romeny is not pro-live, not by long shot.

---

My response to his "I have no respect for the "just don't vote" position whatever" portion of the article will come at a later date.

Muslim Questions to a Calvinist

Bassam Zawadi over at The Muslim Debate Initiative posted 5 questions for Calvinists.  I have included the questions and my answers below. May they be edifying. 

---

Question 1: How does God determine the elect? I understand that it is His sovereign will, but is it arbitrary? If not, then how and why not?

Answer 1: The purpose of election is the glory of God. Therefore he chooses based not upon arbitrary pointing but upon his own good pleasure. I am sure you have done things that often appeared arbitrary to those who did not understand or know what you were doing, until the purpose was complete. Read Romans 9:18-23 for more on this.

---

Question 2: Isn’t it unfair and unjust for God to create some human beings as totally depraved (despite them having free will, He purposely created them totally depraved) and then abandon them by not electing them and turning them into reprobates?

Answer 2: This commits what is known as the equal-ultimacy fallacy and is also covered in Romans 9:18-23.

---

Question 3: Isn’t election and not Jesus dying for the sins of people the ultimate cause and foundation of salvation? If yes, then doesn’t that demote the importance of Jesus dying for our sins and shouldn’t the main message of the gospel be figuring out how to know you were elected?

Answer 3: How do you know if you are elected? By looking to Christ. You must remember that we were chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. God ordained that our election be by the means of Christ and him Crucified. The only way to be sure of our election is to repent and believe in Christ as our savior, and by faith look to him as the assurance of your calling. The only way to be elect is if Christ saved you, the only way to know is faith, which is a gift of God. How you know you're elected, and how God knows you are elected are two different things.

---

Question 4: Could the elect in reality be thought of as having sought forgiveness? I ask this because it appears that they weren’t really doing any “seeking”, but were themselves sought out and chosen by God to be forgiven. Please comment.

Answer 4: No, none of us were seeking God when he found us. John teaches us that we cannot even see the kingdom of God before we are born again from above. Paul tells us we were dead men whom God made alive in Christ Jesus. It is hard for a dead man to seek anything, but once made alive that man can repent and seek forgiveness.

---

Question 5: How would you respond to this Arminian argument: Calvinism is built upon the premise that fallen man is “too far gone for even God to be able to reach him [thus necessitating an Irresistible Grace].” However, ask the Calvinist, “Is it simply too difficult for God to enable an unregenerate sinner to receive Him, without using an Irresistible Grace?” If Calvinists answer, “no,” then the Total Depravity argument becomes moot, and then it’s no longer a matter of man’s depravity, but man’s accountability, when enabled by God’s prevenient grace. However, most Calvinists reluctantly answer, “yes,” thus making God to be the one who has Total Inability, that is, the total inability to reach fallen man without resorting to an Irresistible Grace, and thus it is the Calvinist who is shown to be the one denigrating God’s power.

Answer 5: This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of irresistible grace, probably brought about by the name of the tulip loving Dutch. Irresistible grace does not mean that it cannot be resisted but that it can overcome all resistances. Once we settle this we realize the absurdity of this question. Allow me to rephrase: 'Is it simply too difficult for God to overcome an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him, without overcoming an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him?'  Proverbs 18:17

---

Soli Deo Gloria

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy"

Do I have your attention? Good Recently Yashar Ali wrote an article by the same title. In this article he states that men are conditioned to "gaslight" women. "Gaslighting," he explains, finds its origins in the 1944 film Gaslight where the main character tries to convince his wife she is crazy by causing his gaslight to flicker. Or something. He then boldly claims this is what men do when they disregard a woman's emotions by saying "you're over reacting" or the like.

Now I am not a feminist, mainly because I believe there are biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women, go figure. The most obvious one is women can bare children and men cannot. Now if you ask me that is a pretty big difference between the sexes. However in an effort of fairness, not wanting to stereo-type all women as being able to bare children, we must ask ourselves why it is that when a heterosexual man shows up to meet another heterosexual man say half an hour late for a dinner, say beer and wings at B-Dubs, it is no big deal to either party. However when the same man shows up to meet a lady friend, girlfriend, spouse, 30 minutes late, it is a huge deal to the woman and not a big deal to the man? Different wiring. She has invested time, effort, etc, into this meal the two were going to spend together, she is emotionally attached to it. He is running late from work and it is just an average Tuesday to him. They both have different emotional wiring for what this meal means. Her reaction is different than the friends, thus his response is different. Lets look at another example, one more stark in contrast.

A man in a bar is pissing you off, then smashes your beer to the ground in the heat of the argument. (Probably over who's football team is better. See men can be emotional.) The man who had his beer smashed promptly punches the other in the face. Now if what Yashar is trying to say is that we should treat men and women identically. In a heated emotional argument about why Joe isn't home at 5:30 for dinner, Joe should pop Judy in the face, the same way he would any man that got in his face for being home half an hour late. I am sure this is not what Yashar is intending to have happen, however this is the problem with many forms of feminism, (of course those that hold that men are inferior to women would also say is is wrong for an inferior being to strike a superior one), the logical trajectory leads to a point where it will eventually decay into misogyny. Women will be treated by men as men treat men, which is barbaric at times.

An alternative is of course the biblical modal of man and woman, where though both are equally human beings, they are functionally different, (hence they, generally speaking, have different biology, physiology, and psychology). This would mean that men treat women differently than men. Back to our first example, the man is treating the man and the woman the same, if the late man to dinner was given flack about being late from the early man, I dare say he would "gaslight" the early man too. "Dude, quit being such a whiny little ..." Or something to that effect. The problem is not that men treat men differently than women, it is that men treat women the same. The solution is a return to treating men and women differently, not pressing men to treat women even more like men.

The Human Condition - or I'm a Hipster and I Know It.

It's unfortunate that these days I seem to be almost entirely unable to find stimulating intellectual discussions. Now I understand that saying such is not only arrogant but also offensive to a majority of the people I converse with on a daily basis; even so, I don't think it is untrue or that many of them would disagree. Talk about nothing often fills my days and nights. It's quite silly when I think about it. However this concept kept coming up over and over and over. It was this subject of the human experience. Well (insert something bad or good here) is all part of being human. We know that X is part of the human condition. Now I have come to expect such talk from non-Christians, they come from a different set of presuppositions and a different understanding of the world. Yet it is Christians who are spouting off this nonsense.

Now before you all get on me for being harsh, insensitive, or just a jerk allow me to explain. Most of the comments I am talking about stem from that old adage, "to err is human." Let me be frank here. No. To err is not human. It is not human to make mistakes. It is not human to screw up. It is not human to fail. It is in losing our humanity that these things happen. Do I have your attention? Good. You see the problem with the idea "to err is human" it must be universally true for all humanity. Now before you jump in and say Matt everyone makes mistakes! Let me remind you of the one man, one Human, that never made a mistake. never erred. Jesus.

Unless we have a very weak Christology every statement we make about all of humanity we must also make about Christ when concerning what it is to be essentially human. Something that is part of the human condition, say a body, can be said of Christ. Jesus did have a body. Go figure he was fully human. So then we must ask did Jesus sin? No. So being sinful isn't essentially part of the human condition. Making mistakes isn't essentially part of the human condition. Failing isn't essentially part of the human condition. Jesus never failed. Some might look to the cross as a failure. A great guru died nailed to some Roman lumber, but if that was the plan from before the foundation of the world can we really say he failed? Let's be real people.

So what about this less than human bit. The adage should read "to err is less than human." The essential nature of man is to be image bearers of God. The one man, Jesus Christ, did this perfectly, he was the True man, as it were. Now if we are to reflect God, be His image in this world, then whenever we deviate from, or obscure that image, by erring, making mistakes, failing, we in a very real sense, become less human. Put another way our essential nature is marred by our fallen nature. I'm not so mean as to say there is nothing called grace in the omnibenevolent God of scripture, I am merely pointing out that, "to err is less than human," or as Peter put it "Men, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

The Dan Phillips and His Witty One Liners!

So it's been a while what wanna fight about it? So, now that that is behind us, Today I was rolling through my feedburner and came across a short one sentence post directed at continuationist's by Dan Phillips. Continuationists are those who believe that the spiritual gifts exist to the present age and were not simply signs for the early Church. I rarely weigh in on such topics as my own theology in such places isn't entirely set. That being said Dan Phillips over at team pyro ought to be more careful with his words. Here allow me to quote the entire post for you.

"The very fact that "continuationists" acknowledge the need to make their case to Christians by argument is, itself, a devastating and sufficient refutation of the position." - Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs (Emphesis Original)

Did you catch the problem there? Now I don't think Dan is intending to slam argumentation, he is a Calvinistic Dispensationalist after all. Two things that are argued pretty widely in the Christian tradition. Rather I think he is saying, "If continuationists actually had these spiritual gifts then why don't they simply demonstrate them. If they did wouldn't the argument be over? I don't think so, honestly. The bible is clear in its teaching on other hotly debated topics. Lets choose one Dan and I, for the most part would agree on. The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. Now scripture is quite clear on this point. John 6 being a classic text in this regard; however, when showing such a text to someone, even someone in the church, who cannot or will not believe this. Case and point. The second reason this concept must be rejected is that it would limit God to a toy used to show off to other Christians.

Perhaps the toughest thing to do here is admit that one group is less sanctified in this specific understanding of scripture than the other. Note I did not say one group was less sanctified in general, but just as a consistent Calvinist would say in the area of Soteriology my Arminian brother or sister is less sanctified than my Calvinistic one, so too both the Continuationists and Cessationists must view their brothers and sisters in Christ this way, as siblings needing help.

P.S. I rank this topic way way way lower on my list of importance than Soteriology, so don't slam me for the comparison.

So you wanna be a rock star?

It is interesting how often we, as young Christians, rationalize our sin with the sins of others especially the sins of older Christians. We can plainly see their hypocrisy yet our own escapes our eyes. I am the chief sinner among this younger generation in this respect. Partly because I have a strong background in theology, and mostly because I am evil. Just to use an example, we as younger believers often don't fellowship with other believers in a corporate (aka going a building where believers gather on Sundays) setting because, "they gossip," "I don't have to be part of a church to be a Christian," "They are too judgmental," etc. However we so often fail to realize that we by making these excuses we are also being very judgmental. We don't like their sins, they don't like ours but neither of us are willing to examine ourselves first. We find it much easier to point out the sins of others. It also gives us this wonderful satisfaction, makes us feel morally superior. I'm a better person because I do this and not that. In a word bullshit. You're a prideful person who is substituting one sin for another. Get over yourself and shame those other, older Christians by your good works so they will see them and glorify your Father who is in heaven. I'm not a rock star, You're not a rock star, there is only one, the Rock Himself, Jesus Christ.

---

P.S. A buddy of mine and I came up with this analogy for post-modern philosophy but it also seems to work for post-modern off the cuff theology. Post-modern off the cuff theology is like midgets standing on the shoulders of giants punching them in the head. Lets try not to be these midgets.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 5)

Conclusions

Some of us fall by the wayside, and some of us soar to the stars, and

some of us sail through our troubles, and some have to live with the scars.

- The Circle of Life - Elton John Version.

The philosophy behind and expressed Disneyʼs The Lion King is expressed in a ways that not only explore the different elements of many different philosophical views, but also answers the questions as to which are better. On the philosophy of religion level of the film, while there is a clash of eastern verses western ideas, the film replies that the western religion is more correct than the eastern; however eastern religion does have its place in the world. The making of this pluralistic society is expressed in the final scene where Timon and Pumbaa are seen on Pride Rock with Simba and Rafiki. All of these views come together in a climactic moment, the baptism of Kiara. Though Simbaʼs responsibility has beaten out Timonʼs “Hakunah Matata” there is still a place for Hakunah Matata, just not in itʼs pure form. The reason the film resonates with the soul so well is because of this melding of worlds. It provides a catalyst for the discussion of religion in a pluralistic world.

Furthermore the film itself asks a number of questions of the audience before giving the aforementioned answers. Questions such, is it okay to simply run from the past or leave it behind? Such a question assumes much however the philosophy behind such an idea is quite important. It presupposes a past, and in doing so argues that the past can and does affect us. This is perhaps a linchpin in the entire philosophy of Hakuna Matata.

Finally the film encourages discussion with regards to the values of a society. What sort of ethic does a society seek to promote in the children of its age? What does
being a good father look like? Ought we be a care-free society as long as its not hurting anyone? While the film does provide answers to many of these questions within, it brings these ideas to the the minds of the viewers and in some sense helps them think through the issues.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 4)

Value Theory

There's a calm surrender to the rush of day, when the heat of the rolling world can be turned away. An enchanted moment, and it sees me through, it's enough for this restless warrior just to be with you.

- Can You Feel The Love Tonight? - Elton John Version

There are many teachable moments throughout the story. While it does not have a systematic view or expression of ethics there are certain inferences that can be drawn from the film. Each of these ideas has an ethical element to them.¹ The story gives great value to the transcendental idea that there is something greater than oneself. That may be the idea of a kingdom, or even the spiritual life as seen with Mufasaʼs appearance in the clouds. This idea is of great consequence in a modern world that has all but lost the appreciation of the mysterious other. The film, through the use of different spiritualities, restores seeks to restore an appreciation for the other, or at least bring the other back into the philosophical conversation of the day. One might suggest that in some sense it has succeeded since the generation that would have seen this film as children are now embracing the transcendental more readily.

The idea of a father is very important in The Lion King. This is especially true considering the age in which the film was created. Mufasa, while representing God, also represents a good father that is not distant, as was the case in other Disney classics such as Bambi. The importance of the eminent father brings up a discussion of family. Mufasa is intimately involved in the life of Simba, teaching him, protecting him, caring for him. The film opened the discussion of the value of fatherhood and not just masculinity for the sake of masculinity. Interestingly enough, this film promotes an idea many christians sympathize with. That the father is the head of the home, he rules while the mother tends the children and cares for the den. Also interesting is the emphasis on obedience. Simba is disciplined when he disobeys Mufasa and suffers the consequences. This brings the concept of punishment back to the table in a psychology of family discussion.

The film also insists that families have both good and bad members, but they are still family. Even when confronted with the truth of Mufasa murder at the paws of Scar, Simba does not take vengeance, choosing to exile Scar rather than kill him. Simba shows mercy to his family, because family is family no matter how they wrong you. While on the topic of family it would be remiss to leave out the idea that friendship is a good basis for marriage. Simba and Nala are best friends, they are also married at the end of the film.

Perhaps the most important idea in the film to be expressed is the idea that good and evil are real and do not depend upon prospective. Minkoff uses light and dark to draw a clear contrast between good and evil. Scar is the only lion with a black mane. The elephant graveyard is very dark. Pride Rock is only seen at night when Scar is ruler, yet when Mufasa rules it is covered in light. This light returns when Simba regains the throne from Scar; beauty returns to the land.

Everyone dies. In the film both the good father and the bad uncle face the same fate. This seems to show the value of life, and that death is not understandable. Simba shows that he does not understand death when he curls up under the paw of Mufasa after the stampede. Again he is filled with grief at the death of Scar though not to the same extent. However after the death of Scar, Simba knows life goes on. After the death of his father he ran into a life of no worry living. The movie also emphasizes that Hakuna Matata does not work. If it did Simba would not have returned to Pride Rock. Unfortunately the upbeat nature of the song “Hakuna Matata” might detract from this point, for though it was just a stage for Simba, it is a favored song of those who see this film.²

Guilt and dishonesty will keep one from achieving who they ought to be. Simbaʼs guilt and hiding what he thought he had done to Mufasa caused him to go into exile. Furthermore it kept him from his relationship with Nala, at first. It was only after he faced his guilt and was honest about his past that the truth of Scarʼs treachery came to light. There is a great value in honesty and the moralism of the story would say that sometimes shadowy words might appear dishonest at times but they are not necessarily. Simba all but accuses Mufasa of lying because he is not always with him, however Mufasa, with the help of Rafiki shows this as merely a wrong view, not a lie.

---

1.) Christine Evely and Murray Evely. "The Lion King." Australian Screen Education 30 (2003): 143+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 May 2011
2.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 30-32

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 3)

Lyrical Philosophy

Let me get this straight. You know her, and she knows you, but she wants to eat him. And everyone's okay with that? DID I MISS SOMETHING?

- Timon

The score of the film adds a great amount of insight to the understanding of the film as it is classified as both an Animated Feature and a Musical. “Nants ingonyama agithi Baba Sithi uhm ingonyama Siyo Nqoba Ingonyama nengw' enamabala” the opening lines to the film are Swahili meaning “Here comes a lion, Father. Oh yes itʼs a lion. Weʼre going to conquer, a lion and a leopard come to this open place.” This chant is repeated for more than a four minutes as the sun rises and Simba is christened. This opening song informs the view as to what the story is going to be about. It also displays an idea that the earth is one, there is some spiritual other that directs life but persons walk in. This form of compatabilism is evidenced by the later lyrics “It's the Circle of Life and it moves us all, through despair and hope, through faith and love, till we find our place on the path unwinding.” Through the film Simba is moved by the circle of life, yet he must “take his place in the circle of life.” There is indeed room for some Hakuna Matata, but not to the extent that apathy wins the day. One can see where Pinski gets the idea that Hinduism influenced this film. Life is cyclical in this film, however the Hindu concept of reincarnation is not found interestingly enough. Instead there is a concept of disembodied immortality found in the later portion of the film which seems to draw more on a neo-platonism than Hindu concepts. Mufasa has escaped the body and is “guiding” his son Simba. One can see a link to the Star Wars series where though apart from the body Obi-wan Kenobi guides Luke Skywalker.

“I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” captures the ideal of absolute independence, even though it is used as a distraction in the film. “No one saying do this... No one saying be there... No one saying stop that... No one saying see here... Free to run around all day... Free to do it all my way.” This is the childish idea of complete independence; actions without consequences. It is important that this song is placed just before Simba and Nala enter the Elephant graveyard. Minkoff brings Simbaʼs idea of a life without consequences and independence to a state of complete dependence on Mufasa for salvation. Also Simba is forced to face the consequences of placing not only his own life in danger but also Nalaʼs. He must face his disappointed father and learn his small paws are not ready to fill Mufasaʼs prints. Unfortunately for Simba this lesson must be learned over and over. It takes the death of Mufasa, years in exile, a stern word from Nala, and the advice of Rafiki to allow Simba to finally understand what it means to be King. That with that greater independence he so longed for, come greater responsibilities. This harkens back to the words of Christ, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”¹

All great films have a villain and The Lion King does not disappoint in this respect. Scar is a pinnacle of treachery and villainy. The song “Be Prepared” shows the depths of evil the human (or lion) heart can attain. Arrogance, cunning, and deceit are all displayed in the lyrical philosophy of this song. Scar sets himself above the Hyenas, calling their minds “warthog's backsides.” He continues to display cunning and deceit when he states he is planning “the coup of the century.” This of course he fulfills when he kills Mufasa in the gorge scene. While Simba in “I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” was seeking independence, Scar represents blind, cut throat ambition. While the two songs have much in common, their starting points are different.

Another philosophical song is “Hakuna Matata.” Indeed Hakuna Matata “means no worries” and is a “problem-free philosophy.” This is the philosophical outlook of Timon and Pumbaa which can basically be summarized as “Stuff Happens.” After the death of his father Simba seems to try to deal with the pain of that death by avoiding life. Here Minkoff seems to be delving into the psychology of loss. Simba grows up, literally and figuratively to the tune of this song. This is a very common way for many people to deal with loss. Unfortunately if the story of The Lion King teaches us anything, it is that the philosophy of Hakuna Matata does not work and is not fulfilling. It is merely the band-aid placed over the soul. It lacks the power to be lived. It is for this reason that Simba returns to Pride Rock. In this sense, in the aformentioned clash between the east and the west the west comes out ahead.

The final lyrical song of this film is a piece called “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” This is the only lyrical song that takes place when during Simbaʼs adult life.² Exploring the nature of what can be expressed in a relationship this song deals with brotherhood, the past, and coming of age. The song is less of a love song that one might expect for a song with that title. Nala is seeking to see Simba become great, but Simba is unable get over his past. The song asks the question why lies, or omissions of truth are acceptable in a relationship? There is also some verbal irony in the lyrics Timon opens the song with a statement about disaster being in the air, Nala and Simba are in a silent fight yet the song continues “Can you feel the love tonight? The peace the evening brings. The world, for once, in perfect harmony, with all its living things.” All the characters at this time are in conflict, even if it is only a minor one. Minkoffʼs inclusion of this song suggests that in the course of interpersonal relationships persons often view them with rose colored glasses on.

---

1.) Luke 12:48 (English Standard Version)
2.) The Circle of Life is repeated at the end but only the chorus and no new lyrics are added.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 2)

Plot View Points

I'm gonna be the ruler of most everything around, from the grandest of the

mountains to the humble common ground, my reign will be a superawesome thing. Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

- I Just Canʼt Wait to be King - Elton John Version

While many films may seek to expand philosophy or show different philosophical views The Lion King touches the soul in a way that these other films can only hope to do. This seems to be due to its ability to connect to an audience on different layers. The first layer is, of course, the basic story outlined above with fun little lion cubs instead of people. This layer appears to be made to resinate with children, yet it is this layer that allows the film to grasp the depth needed. A smooth lake often hides its true depth from its viewers until the waves begin to crash. The second level of understanding is where the film gets interesting. Annalee R. Ward suggests that much of the story resembles the Creation, Fall, Redemption paradigm of the Christian Tradition.¹ She believes that there are several places indicating this the first of which is the opening scene where the good king Mufasa, representing God, having a son and ruling over a beautiful land where everything appears to be at peace. The second motif is when Simba is told where he can go, “everything the light touches is our kingdom,” however Scar, representing the tempting serpent, twists Mufasaʼs words stating that “only the bravest lions” go to the “shadowy place.” A place expressly forbidden to Simba by Mufasa. In a step away from the biblical narrative, likely for feminist reasons, Simba tempts Nala to go to the “shadow places,” a reversal of the biblical story. Yet true to the bible, both Simba and Nala know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyways, much like Adam and Eve. This is the beginning of Scarʼs plot to kill Mufasa and Simba, taking his place as king.² Indeed, Simba is exiled from Pride Rock and Scar does become the King, much like Adamʼs exile and Satanʼs reign as the God of this world.³

The third motif is Simbaʼs flight, he is in the desert wandering and is saved by Timon and Pumbaa, much like Mosesʼ flight from Pharaoh in Exodus 2. However the story would not be complete without a return of the King. After years of carefree living, Simba, like Moses, receives a vision from God, that is Mufasa, telling him to “take his place in the circle of life.” So Simba journeys back to Pride Rock to claim his throne. He finds that the beautiful world he loved was destroyed, however he must fight for it because if he doesnʼt “fight for it who will?” Simba finally defeats Scar, but does not deal the killing blow, rather the hyaena hordes betray Scar. The story ends with Simba returning from the dead, metaphorically speaking, as the hero and warrior savior of the Pride Lands and a new creation of Pride Rock, much like the new Jerusalem of
revelation.⁴

Yet there is also an eastern element to the story. This element is represented by the lifestyle of Timon and Pumbaa. Their way draws upon the Taoist idea of Wu Wei, or living at harmony with nature.⁵ Timon and Pumbaaʼs philosophy takes over Simbaʼs life from the time he is very small until he is all but fully grown. This lifestyle, epitomized in the song “Hakuna Matata” shows a real and working philosophy of apathy. That is a philosophy that will not go contrary to nature but rather much like Wu Wei go with the flow of lifeʼs river.⁶

Moreover, Rafiki the wise shaman is the bridge bringing these eastern and western ideas together. He is the priest who preforms the “baptism” of Simba, but also teaches Simba that his fatherʼs spirit lives within. Rafikiʼs major scenes seem to involve the combining of these two worlds into a more pluralistic world. The “baptism⁷” of Simba occurs while the “Circle of Life” is playing in the background. When Simba meets Rafiki before his vision of Mufasa, Simba is engaged in a crisis of existential proportions. He is at a moment where he cannot simply “Hakuna Matata” away his past. Rafiki from the Lotus position begins to explain to Simba who those touching the lives of others live within. This image seeks to combine the western idea of God living within, with the eastern idea of ancestor worship. Finally at the end of the film, Rafiki once again dons the mantle of priest to preform the “baptism” of Simbaʼs daughter Kiara again to the tune, the circle of life.

Still the religious east-west reading of the film is only the second of many levels within the film. There is a different east-west reading that some critics find attractive. This reading see the film as one of conquest. Mufasa was the good king reigning over Africa. He and his ancestors represent many years of unadulterated reign over the African continent. Scar symbolizes western nations ruining this unspoiled land. Simbaʼs journey is then to be understood as Africaʼs struggle to find itself and his return as the regaining of Africa by Africans. This may be seen most clearly in the election of Nelson Mandela, who was of African Royalty and elected in the same year as The Lion Kingʼs release.⁸ While this is an interesting reading it does leave certain portions of the film unexplained. There is also a LGBT reading of the film emphasizing the relationship between Timon and Pumbaa is not one of mere friends.⁹ Others believe there is a large element of racism being promoted through this film, due to the casting of the hyenas.¹⁰ This seems rather strange as James Earl Jones was cast to play Mufasa.

Mark Pinskiʼs view on the story is much different from that of Ward. Pinski sees the story as much less influenced by the Christian tradition; instead his view is that Minkoff is drawing on the Hindu tradition, citing the lyrics of the opening song, “The Circle of Life.”¹¹ He also sees certain aspects of the of Scar and Mufasa as economic ideas. Scar is viewed as a welfare state, promising free meat to the hyenas. Scarʼs rule is symbolic of the Soviet Russian state, with the hyenas as the proletariat and the lions as the bourgeoisie.¹² This view is quite interesting as it ultimately condemns communism as a bad system that will cause ruin to the land. The emphasis on strong and wise authority is shown to be of the utmost importance since Scarʼs state falls to pieces in the few short years of his rule. Accordingly many Marxists would suggest that Scarʼs reign was not a pure communism, rather a Stalinism.

---

1.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 14-17.

2.) Ibid.

3.) Genesis 3:23-24 cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4

4.) Ward, 17.

5.) Jennifer Moore, Understanding Taoism Origins*beliefs*practices*holy Texts*sacred Places (London: Watkins Publishing, 2011), 34.

6.) Ibid.

7.) This “baptism” appears similar to those seen the the Anglican, Roman Catholic, or certain Presbyterian churches. However rather than crossing Simba, Rafiki simply creates as single line across his head.

8.) Mark I. Pinski, The Gospel According to Disney, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 159.

9.) Ibid., 157.

10.) Henry A. Giroux, The Mouse That Roared, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999), 105.

11.) Pinski, 154.

12.) Ibid., 154-55.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 1)

Introduction

From the day we arrive on the planet and blinking, step into the sun.

There's more to see than can ever be seen, more to do than can ever be

done. There's far too much to take in here, more to find than can ever be

found. But the sun rolling high through the sapphire sky keeps great and

small on the endless round.

- The Circle of Life

“Oh I just canʼt wait to be King!” proclaims Simba, the young lion prince of the “Pride Lands” in Disneyʼs The Lion King.¹ This Disney classic has captured the hearts and minds of millions of children and adults around the world. Yet at its core this film is filled with deep philosophical truths that everyone wrestles with in their daily lives. Issues such as pride, our relationship to the world, a sense of community and duty, vengeance, love, it even contains a philosophy of apathy. These ideas are conveyed through the dialogue, imagery, and especially the music of the film. The score is wonderful and adds such depth to the story and the ideas being expressed that not mentioning it first would be remiss.²

The story sightly resembles a tale we might hear of in Shakespearean theater, the greedy uncle kills the king, and appears to have killed the prince, blaming a disaster. Years after assuming the throne, the self-exiled prince returns with some encouragement of a mystical guide. After showing mercy to his uncle, the uncle turns once again on the prince only to be killed at the hands of his own minions. The prince reclaims the throne and reigns as a good king. Indeed the story is rather boring on its own merits, yet the movie grossed over seven hundred seventy-five million dollars worldwide³ and took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical.⁴

There must be something more to this story than the simple plot, and while it was well animated, the animation alone would not be enough to captivate the millions it has. The film does not fall into the what Film-Philosopher Slavoj Zizek would call “Pornography” therefore the question as to the captivation is of the utmost importance. This is where the philosophical resonance that other films seek to achieve comes in.

---

1.) The Lion King. Theater viewing. Directed by Rob Minkoff. Burbank: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 1994.

2.) The Lion King won the Academy Award for best score in 1994 as well as the Golden Globe. See: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org


3.) "The Lion King (1994)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/ (accessed May 10, 2011). It is also the highest grossing Animated Disney film world wide to this day.

4.) "HFPA - Awards Search." OFFICIAL WEBSITE of the HFPA and the GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS. http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25384 (accessed May 10, 2011)

This seems appropriate for this blog.

Is Grape Juice for Communion a Sin? from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Love Et Cetera.

Through my current situation and changes in my life I have been contemplating the difficult concept of love. Moreover while there are 18 inches between the head and the heart this idea has captivated both. Through it all I remain convinced that true love is eternal and unconditional. Love is a commitment not merely an emotion. Some commitments are forced. We often love our family not because of a physiological imbalance of chemicals in our brains, but because they are the ones who we must deal with, we must talk to. We develop a desire to love these people for their own sake and not what they can do for us over time. When a father loves his son it is not out a need of the father for the son, however when the son is young he needs his father. It is only later in life that children begin to love their parents not for what mommy and daddy can do for them but because of who they are. Don’t get me wrong it is not that the children are not still grateful for all their parents have given them and will continue to give, but they do move past this contractual form of love to something greater.

There are really only two types of love, though each has certain subcategories. The first type is that contractual form of love. I dare say this is not love at all, it is more of a business arrangement. The two people involved in the relationship get something from one another and thus only love each other in so far as their end of the deal has been met. You could perhaps fit all human relationships into this category though many will strive to be free of it.

When it comes to the relationships between two members of the opposite sex the most basic form of contractual love is chemistry as love. Chemistry is not love. Chemistry will come an go throughout any relationship. However when chemistry is strong and confused with love the relationship becomes very, very contractual. It is as if each partner is saying to the other, “I will continue to love you so long as I have these urges.” People who can move from one relationship to another very quickly often view simple chemistry as love. This is the lowest form of love and does not even deserve the title. It is lust. While no one can deny in a truly loving relationship there will be chemistry to define the entire relationship by it is to doom it from the start. Also it is not clear to the one who holds this view that this is the view he or she holds, we often flatter ourselves into thinking we are far nobler or loving than we actually are.

The next pitfall people face when entering a contractually loving relationship is that they are forced into love or feel like they should fall in love. They want to fall in love. To quote Anberlin “you’re in love with love.” This understanding of love is the idealist view of love. I love the idea of being in love you with you as the cliche goes. This version of love again is simply a modified view of lust. It breaks down to chemistry. Love should feel like this or that. The idea of the person in the mind of one who holds this view regarding love is often that the other is a princess in a castle or a white knight ready to rescue her. It is more difficult to break off this form of love because while the idea and reality clash, the one who holds this view, will see the ideal as the reality. They will fight with their entire being to hold on to the ideal which was never there in the first place, or they will throw the relationship away because their partner cannot live up to the ideal. This form generally starts when a partner chooses the things about the other they like and views them as the entirety of the partner.

The next view of love is what i would call the truest form of human love. This form loves the other person for who they are. This love is as unconditional as a human can get. They love the other for their sake. The best example we have of this type of love is Christ and his Church. Christ’s particular redemption of sinners shows us the great depths of this love. This love is self sacrificing and always seeking to bring the beloved into a closer relationship with the lover. This is the love that according to Paul never fails. This tricky statement does not mean that the lover will always succeed in bringing the beloved into a closer relationship with them. We are not God and do not know perfectly what will bring specific people into a closer relationship with them. However that is the aim. That the person loved is brought into a closer relationship with the person loving, and also with God. Some might argue that this too is a contractual form of love. I must disagree. This form of love, while seeking the betterment of the relationship is not contingent upon it. The only contingency is the well being of the beloved. I should note that the well being foremost involves their relationship with God through Christ. Yet even if the other rejects both you and Christ, the love for them does not cease. This love is a commitment not a contract. This love says, “even if you wrong me, even if you leave me, even if you kill me I will love you and do what is best for you. While it is my hope that you will grow more and more Godly each day, that our relationship will grow and change into something far more and far better than we can imagine, even if it does not, I will love you.” Someone once equated being in love to walking into a candy store, “you walk in when there’s candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) and even when there’s no candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) you still stay until the candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) is back.” I would simply add that being in love means you stay in the candy store even if it shuts down. Anything else would simply be a business arrangement, a cold contract.

*Disclaimer* I do realize that there are certain situations where a relationship needs to end or be placed on hold. Home violence being chief among them. I am not advising people in such situations to simply stick it out for the sake of love. No indeed i would advise them to get out of that situation but not stop loving the abuser and hoping they would repent and turn to Christ.

Let me know what you think.

What does Porneias in Matthew 5:32 mean?

In any study of marriage one must deal with this verse first because it comes from a passage right after Jesus says lust is adultery, but also because depending on how porneias (πορνειας: often translated sexual immorality, or marital infidelity) is defined we may have a contradiction in the Bible!!! I of course am talking about Paul allowing for divorces for something else, abandonment or separation (χωριζεται) from a Christian by an unbeliever. So here not only do we have a problem of lust being considered adultery, which would in some sense make lust porneias, but we also have Paul going against Jesus! Jesus only allowed divorce for porneias, and only porneias; Paul is now allowing divorce for other things? There are three possibilities either Jesus lied, Paul was mistaken, or our interpretation/translation of porneias is often wrong. I am going to opt for the third, since I want to maintain if at all possible that Paul was writing holy scripture, and Jesus is truly God's only unique son.

I feel that the easiest way to deal with this apparent contradiction in the bible is to look at the usage of porneias. Has it been defined to narrowly by good bible translations such as the, ESV, NASB, NIV(2000), KJV, NKJV, HCSB, and better translated by translations that I might not prefer such as the NIV(1984), NLT, GWT, have gotten it right? This is a question we will have to answer. The best way to answer this may be to look at the usages of porneias (porne) in both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. Porne and it's derivatives occurs only 56 times in the New Testament and a mere 161 times in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). However if we look specifically at porneias it appears only 12 and 15 times respectively. We will start here.

Starting with the Old Testament porneias appears in three basic categories:

1. In Genesis 38:24 it is used to mean sexual immorality.
2. In Tobit 4:12 (a non canonical book) it is used as mere sexual urges.
3. In Hosea 4:12 it is used as unfaithfulness or apostasy (toward God.)

In the New Testament we most clearly a reaffirmation of sense 1 (1 Corinthaisn 5). We don't see any affirmation of the Tobit passage, I would argue because mere sexual urges are not sinful. It is unclear from current bible translations if there is any place in the New Testament where unfaithfulness or apostasy would be how the word porneias ought to be translated. I would argue that there are at least two passages where this is the most preferred translation the first is Hebrews 12.:16 (Hebrews 12:16 is not the identical word, but they share the same root, and same idea, for our purposes we can simply say that pornos (πορνος) means a porneias man.) Yet was Esau sexually immoral? Was it sexual immorality to sell his birth right, as the context would suggest? No, Esau was not sexually immoral to sell his birth right, however he was unfaithful when he sold it. First he was unfaithful to himself, he was also unfaithful to God. God had given him this good thing, yet in His providence God saw fit to allow Esau to be unfaithful with the stewardship of this good gift from God.

Likewise I think this is also a better translation for the Matthew 5:32 passage. First because Jesus is all about high standards in Matthew 5, notice his you have heard it said, but I tell you statements. Looking on a woman with lust, that's adultery, being angry at your brother, that's murder. Divorcing your spouse for anything but sexual immorality, while that is a high standard for the victim, it is a very low standard for the sin spouses can commit.

Follow me on this thought experiment for a moment. In a marriage covenant a spouse promises love, honor, cherish and protect their spouse, forsaking all others and holding only unto her or him, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, as long as they both live. Pretty basic vows for a wedding. Now lets say that the husband beats his wife. Is that sexual immorality? No. Is it marital unfaithfulness? Of course! Let us take Paul now, if an unbelieving wife leaves leaves her believing husband; she goes and joins a Buddhist monastery, has she committed sexual immorality? No! Has she committed marital unfaithfulness? Yes! Therefore do Paul and Jesus agree, of course they do!

"But Matt, doesn't this open the door too wide, isn't this the type of thinking that brought the No-Fault Divorce to America in the first place?" Perhaps it played a roll; however there is a big difference between I am not happy with my marriage I will try a new one and my husband beats me or my wife abandoned me but has not been sexually immoral therefore I cannot divorce him or her.

Just some food for thought, later I will hopefully get in to unpacking what I really wanted to touch on today which was unpacking Matthew 5:27-29. Yes this kinda was backwards, get over it.

If something no longer works should it be removed from the equation?

Man: My armor does not crack, it has no holes nor weak spots. It is not prone to rust; yet while it protects perfectly from without it traps me perfectly within.

Voice A: Did you think you could obtain the joys of love yet never suffer its pains?
Voice B: Of foolish man, you are worthless and dumb. You do not matter and cannot even see you're nothing more than a beggar.

Voice A: You have become commonplace.
Voice B: An interesting book placed upon the coffee table of life, often talked about, but rarely, if ever, used and read as you once were.

Voice A: Your purpose has changed.
Voice B: You no longer captivate, you cannot command, you now look pretty, like a single tile of a mosaic. While necessary, never so necessary that you might not be replaced by other stones.

Voice A: Indeed. You used to be the entire picture.
Voice B: A single piece is all that remains.

Voice A: Will you recapture your former glory?
Voice B: In doing so you may destroy the artwork altogether.

Voice A: Indeed you must replace the other tiles.
Voice B: Will this not make them as you are now? Angry? Frustrated? Ready to sacrifice the portrait for the sake of self?

Man: Wretch that I am! Oh Lord what should I do?

The Complimentarian/Egalitarian Debate...

I feel that the Complimentarian vs. Egalitarian is merely a Trinitarian debate with four or five basic positions that could be taken:

1)If the Father is ontologically greater than the Son then Patriarchy is more biblical.
2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could not have been/be the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could have been/be the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.
4)If the Son is ontologically greater than the Father then Matriarchy/Pure Feminism is more biblical.
5)If the Father is the Son then a pantheism is more biblical.

A different way of writing positions 2 and 3 would be:

2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and functionally different than the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is both ontologically and functionally equal to the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.

These of course ignore the entire debate of Economic Trinity vs. Ontological Trinity; but I think that debate is really a debate about Sola Scriptura. Also it rather silly as it seeks to know God as Himself in eternity thinking he might reveal a different ontology of himself in time.

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 3.

IV. “Created” - How?
1. By Divine Action - ברא
The universe was created by God’s exclusive divine action; no partners can be ascribed to God, not even matter.¹ This contrasts the ancient near eastern tales of creation which occurs due to sexual procreation as well as pantheism, emanation, and immanence. Bara seems to indicate that God actually wanted to create and didn’t create out of necessity to him.

This concept that God “created the heavens and the earth” seems very important to the prophets, especially Isaiah’s “council of the gods.” Rather than necessarily emanating the world, God created it for his own glory. This glory is not only for the father, but also for the Son as “all things were created by him and for him.”²

Paul’s new creation is also by divine action since “no one seeks after God” and “that is set on the flesh … does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”³ Thus for Paul the new creation is not a synergistic union between God and a partner, rather God recreated man by his grace and for his glory.⁴

2. By Divine Word - אמר
The world was also created by divine word.⁵ God simply spoke and there was light, he spoke and the grass grew. This sentiment is repeated in the psalms, where the psalmist, speaking of the love of God, exclaims the might of the LORD in creation. Who else has ever spoke and it came to be, commanded and all creation stood firm?⁶ Such implies that the word of God is absolutely powerful to fulfill all that it goes out to do.

In a similar fashion the new creation by the foolishness of the proclaimed gospel. It is not by the weapons of this world, but the divine word working in the hearts of men that they are recreated. The word will not return empty but accomplish that which God purposes and succeed in that which it has been sent for. Hebrews phrases it this way: “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.⁷

3. Dramatically and Aesthetically Joyful and Beautiful
This means that God took the initiative to create the world not because He had some extra stuff lying around but to share Himself with others. One might say that God created the world that creation could experience the joys of the divine love. Solomon tells us that God is a joyful craftsman, rejoicing in his inhabitant world, and that He has made it absolutely beautiful in its time.⁸ The psalmist sings that creation declares the glory of God and such glory is beautiful.⁹ Also we see a highly poetic structure in the genesis creation accounts.

Further the new creation is something that is intended to be beautiful, that God takes joy in. Nehemiah writes anticipating the fully revealed new creation that our not only is the joy of our redemption God’s but that joy is our strength that we partake in. With the victory won we rejoice in the Lord.¹⁰

V. “The heavens and the earth” - What?
1. Entire Material Universe
“The heavens and the earth” of Genesis 1:1 may refer to simply our galaxy, however it is more likely that this includes the entire material universe because of the parallel in John 1:1-3. Genesis 1:14 suggests that the lesser and greater lights might have been created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day of creation. Rather on the fourth day they were given a purpose, which is to define the months and seasons.¹¹ Psalm 104’s creation account supports this conclusion since there is no reference to the greater and lesser lights, however on the “fourth day” the moon marks the seasons.¹² Creation culminates in God’s personal creation and planting of a garden for man.¹³

In the new creation scripture appears to teach that all of creation will be reborn. Paul wrote, “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”¹⁴ This new freedom approaches its climax with the new heavenly garden city of Jerusalem. Being very similar to Eden with the tree of life at the center giving life and healing. Rather than yielding one fruit it yields twelve. There is no sun but the city is eternally lit. This is the telos of all of scripture and creation.¹⁵

2. Nature of Creation
All of creation was made good. This includes matter, which stands opposed to the neo-platonic notions of Gnosticism and eastern religion. Thus even the physical world corresponds with the divine intent and is empowered to fulfill its divinely intended functions. God had a purpose for his world, from the lilies of the field, to the sparrows of the sky, to mankind. Man does however play a special role in the creation. Man was created in the image of God; with dominion over the world that we might guard and serve creation. Being created in God’s image we have his sense of moral character.¹⁶

Due to the fall of Genesis 3, the image of God is marred in man but not all together lost. Thus men are being conformed to the image of the perfect man, the image of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The new self is being put on that their minds might be “renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”¹⁷ While men in the original creation had dominion over the earth the new man will be reign as king and priest over the earth, being already seated in the heavenly places with Christ.¹⁸

V. Conclusion
Creation is not just a one-time act for God, though his methods might change, he is constantly acting and recreating men in his image. In all things it is essential to remember that God is sovereign over creation, forming it and shaping it for his purposes according to his will. Perhaps the most difficult thing for many people to grasp is the simple words “In the beginning God,” because it puts God on a level entirely different than our own.

---

1) While some might note that the etymology of bara deals with cutting, during the creation account it is never with accusative of matter. - Return to text
2) Isaiah 43:7 cf. Colossians 1:16 - Return to text
3) Romans 3:11; 8:7 - Return to text
4) Romans 5:2 - Return to text
5) Genesis 1:3; John 1:3 - Return to text
6) Psalm 33:6,9 - Return to text
7) Hebrews 4:12 cf. 1 Corinthians 1: 18ff; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Isaiah 55:11 - Return to text
8) Proverbs 8:30-31 cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11 - Return to text
9) Psalm 19:1 cf. Psalm 48:2 - Return to text
10) Nehemiah 8:10; Psalm 20:5 cf. Romans 8:37 - Return to text
11) John Sailhammer, “Genesis” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990), 33-34. - Return to text
12) Psalm 104:19 - Return to text
13) Genesis 2 - Return to text
14) Romans 8:21 - Return to text
15) Genesis 2 cf. Revelation 21-22 - Return to text
16) Genesis 1:26-27; 2:15 - Return to text
17) Colossians 3:10 - Return to text
18) Revelation 5:9-10; cf. Ephesians 2:6 - Return to text

---

---

Fin.

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 2.

III. “God” - Who?
1. Character of God
The creation accounts emphasize the character of God as both transcendent and eminent. This accounts for the back to back creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

a) אלהים – Genesis 1
The general flow of Genesis 1 indicates that God is before all creation.¹ God is not seen as engaging in specifics of creation but the universals. In verses 3-5 we see God creating time,² then in verses 6-8 God creates the waters and the air. This pattern of general creation continues throughout Genesis 1. The term Elohim is used to express God as the transcendent creator of the universe, distinguishing his otherness from it. It has also been noted that this plural usage in the singular might be seen Trinitarianly, or simply that Elohim is the supreme being.³ Sometimes this is called the greatness of God.

God’s greatness is echoed elsewhere in scripture. God through Isaiah proclaims rhetoricly:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?⁴

Further the Psalmist explains the that “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”⁵

b) יהוה – Genesis 2
In Genesis 2 we see a second account of creation, unlike the first account. Here we see God taking a particular interest in the specifics of man and where man is to live. We see God planting a garden⁶ rather than simply speaking it into existence.⁷ Furthermore in contrast to Genesis 1 we now see the word YHWH being used of God.⁸ This is the personal covenantal name of God⁹ used throughout the Old Testament.¹⁰ This second rendition of creation brings the reader to grips with the eminence of God, interacting and caring for His creation.

God is relational; the first thing in all of creation that He says is not good is that man is alone and thus not in relationship. God remedies this problem as a great surgeon.¹¹ The care of God in the garden and the specific detail a close and loving side to Him.

c) Consistency of Genesis 1 and 2
Some theologians seem to pit Genesis 1 against Genesis 2,¹² however if such were the case the foundation for our whole doctrine of God would fall apart. If one takes the view of Genesis 1 alone they would see God only as Voltaire’s watchmaker and not from the beginning relational. If one takes Genesis 2 alone we may see God as a grandfather type in the sky, without ever seeing the majesty of God. The two stories are consistent as they bring the universal and the particular together.¹³ This is in contrast to many ancient gods who are either personal or infinite but only the Judeo-Christian God is both.¹⁴ We also see God’s character show up as one who is willing to die for sinners in order to bring about his new creation.¹⁵

2. God as Foundational
The Bible does not give any background for the creation or formulation of God rather it begins with a bold assertion that God exists.¹⁶ The writer of Hebrews picks up on this notion, “whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists.”¹⁷ The nature of such an account requires one to approach the text in faith. It also breaks with the ancient near east being monotheistic and not poly and pantheistic.¹⁸

This also breaks from the man centeredness of what most new creation stories entail. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”¹⁹ If new creation is a synonym for the entire process of salvation, then it is only by God’s active will that men are made new and not by their own fruition which is at such utter odds with the mindset of both the Pharisees of Christ’s day and the culture of our own.²⁰

This is prophesied when Ezekiel writes, “And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Here God is speaking about his restoration efforts in the new covenant, and he attributes the work of new creation to himself, and not to man in any way.²¹ Paul echoes this when he states that we are “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.”²²

3. Trinity in Creation
All the members of the Trinity are both present and active during the creation of the world. God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit are explicitly presented in Genesis 1:1-2. There is also an allusion to the Trinity in Genesis 1:26, “let us make man in our image.” The grammar suggest that one being is actually saying this, therefore the distinctness of personalities, a plurality within the unanimity of being can be argued from here. However other interpretations suggest that the “us” are angels of some form or even other gods.²³

In the New Testament Christ is the agent through which God creates the world. The most obvious parallel to Genesis 1:1-3 is John 1:1-3. Paul also picks up on this in Colossians 1:16-17 asserting that Christ is not only the creator God but also the sustainer God.

Furthermore we see Trinitarian formulas tied with the new creation, in many of Paul’s letters. In Galatians Paul wrote that it is the Father who sends the Son, gives the Spirit to redeem and recreate sinners.²⁴ The classical view of the atonement, which brings salvation, echoes these verses, in that the Father gives the Son, the Son buys the saints, and the Holy Spirit indwells them.²⁵

---

1) This idea is echoed in places such as Isaiah 45:18 - Return to text
2) While specific time references are not used Earthly creations tell time by the movements of the sun and the stars. - Return to text
3) BDB, s.v. “430”, 43. - Return to text
4) Isaiah 40:12, All Citations ESV unless otherwise stated. - Return to text
5) Psalm 90:2 - Return to text
6) Genesis 2:8 - Return to text
7) Genesis 1:11 - Return to text
8) LORD God statements beginning in Genesis 2:4 - Return to text
9) BDB, s.w. “3068-9”, 217-218. - Return to text
10) Genesis 15, 17, Exodus 3, etc. - Return to text
11) Genesis 2:20-2 - Return to text
12) This is mostly liberal scholarship though one theologian of note might be Dr. Michael Welker of the University of Munster, as seen in his article: Michael Welker, “What Is Creation? Rereading Genesis 1 and 2”, Theology Today 48/1 [1991]: 56-71. - Return to text
13) R.Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 141-217. - Return to text
14) The pantheon of the Canaanites and the unmoved mover of Aristotle express this point, the former being personal but not infinite, the latter being infinite but not personal. - Return to text
15) Romans 5:7-8 - Return to text
16) Genesis 1:1 - Return to text
17) Hebrews 11:6 - Return to text
18) Ancient myths such as Enuma Elish contain many gods who are part of the creation. - Return to text
19) John 6:44 - Return to text
20) John 5-6 - Return to text
21) Ezekiel 36:25-8 - Return to text
22) Ephesians 2:10 - Return to text
23) The position of other gods is defended mostly by Dr. Michael S. Heiser of www.thedivinecouncil.com where much of his work is available. - Return to text
24) Galatians 4:4-6 cf 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 - Return to text
25) Westminster Confession of Faith, xvii, 1. - Return to text

---

---

...To Be Continued...

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 1.

I.Introduction
A biblical theology of creation often encompasses only the process by which God created the world. While such studies are important they often miss a fundamental thought of New Testament, that is New Creation. A biblical theology of creation, and new creation, can be expressed in the fundamental of Genesis 1:1. This provides the framework of “when”, “who”, “how”, and “what” that are dealt with in creation and new creation.

II. “In the beginning” - When?
1. Absolute Beginning?
There are two major positions when it comes to if this is an absolute beginning or not. This argument springs from the translation of בראשית. The first position translates this word as an independent clause or “In the beginning God created...”¹ The second position translates this word as a dependent clause or “When God began to create…” ²
The implications of these two different translations is of great importance, insomuch that being mistaken here will take effect not only creation but also God.

a. Independent Clause
The independent clause implies that creation is ex nihilo, that God is before matter and creates the heavens, earth, darkness, deep, and waters. Thus the beginning spoken of is the absolute beginning of time and space. This is the traditional view of creation. Support for this position includes all ancient translations of the text, the grammar and syntax of the text,³ the styalistic structure of Genesis 1,⁴ and the obvious parallel in John 1:1-3. This view leaves us with a theology of the transcendence of God. He is Lord over all that is not He, since no partners can be ascribed to Him.

b. Dependent Clause
This view is based mainly on a theory that Moses, or the writer of Genesis⁵ borrowed from neighboring cultures when writing the creation account in Genesis. Since most other ancient near eastern creation accounts start “when on high” an independent clause in Genesis 1:1 would make the Biblical account absolutely unique when compared to other ancient views of creation.⁶

c. Conclusion
The evidence leads to the affirmation of the historical view of creation unless one is willing to set the standard for biblical interpretation by ancient parallels to scripture. However holding such a position the biblical writ would amount to nothing more than a slightly demythologized version of ancient theologies and philosophies. Thus the stark contrast against the cynical view of reality and eternal view of matter supports the independent case against unbelievers who suppress the truth about God.⁷

2. Literal Beginning?
One might not think this is important after establishing that creation was an absolute beginning; however without the literal beginning there is no literal end. Also while the Doctrine of God was largely dependent upon the absolute beginning, the doctrines of man, sin, salvation, judgment, and the Sabbath all hinge upon the understanding of the literalness of the beginning. The use of תולדות (generations) in Genesis 2:4 seems to indicate that the author intended the creation account to be just as literal as any other narrative in Genesis. Further it would appear that the historicity of an event is often underscored by a poetic nature. Thus most historic accounts in Hebrew thought are filled with theological implications.⁸

Furthermore the usage of “morning and evening” tends to lead us to believe that this creation took place in seven literal days. Also while the word יום (day) can be used to express and extended period (e.g. Genesis 2:4) when ever it is used with an ordinal number it is always a literal twenty four hour day, also when it is plural it is always literal.⁹

Additionally if these days were not literal then the Sabbath law of Exodus 20:8-11 would make little sense at all. Here we find Moses equating the days of the of the work week with the days of creation, if the seven day creation were simply figurative periods or epochs then such an exhortation would seem out of place. Also the New Testament writers seem to affirm a literal history of Genesis.¹⁰

Finally some who hold to a non-literal position submit that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is simply a mythology. Others seem to think of it as poetry, while still other regard it as symbolism or theology.¹¹ The only consistency among these is that Genesis 1:1-2:3 cannot be literal. Now those who hold to a literal creation do not assume that it cannot be literal, symbolic, poetic, and theological. In fact the more one studies the text the more they will be inclined to believe that it is indeed all of these things.

Some have suggested that verse 1 and verse 2ff are two different acts of creation. This is known as the “Active Gap” or “ruin-restoration” theory. The theory essentially assumes that God had a first act of creation in verse 1. Then for billions of years creation was perfect. Then when Satan fell from heaven (Luke 10:18) sin entered the universe. God judged the rebellion and sent the creation into the chaos of verse 2, “the earth became without form and void.” This brought about a second act of creation starting in verse 3. Unfortunately the grammar of verse two contains three circumstance noun clauses that describe a state and not a sequence, therefore they must be translated “was” and not “became.”¹²

The more traditional view sees a unity between verses 1 and 2. Verse 1 declares God’s general creation out of nothing of the original matter that is called heaven and earth, thus their absolute beginning. Verse 2 then clarifies that when the earth was first created it was in a state of being unformed and empty.¹³ Finally verses 3-2:3 describe God’s forming the unformed and filling the empty matter.¹⁴ There are two variations of this view, the first, referred to as the “no gap” interpretation sees verses 1-3 as the first day. The second sees verses 1-2 chronologically separated by a gap of some amount of time from the first day described in verse 3. This is usually called the “passive gap” interpretation. The author will assume the passive gap interpretation though both views are solidly within orthodoxy and fit the grammar of the text as it is ambiguous in this matter.

3. Recent Beginning?
The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are very unique and are unlike all other genealogies in the Bible. Unlike other genealogies these have unique features that seem to indicate a specific chronological time to make it clear that there are no gaps between generations. The form is very particular¹⁵ in that its interlocking features suggest that there cannot be generational gaps, rather there is a complete chronological sequence from Adam to Abram via direct biological fathers and sons. This evidence suggests a recent beginning to the earth of around 6,000 years ago.¹⁶

Creation culminates itself in the new creation of the New Testament. Paul indicates that this creation process was at least planned for from before the foundation of the world.¹⁷ This creation started with Christ at his resurrection and begins in the believer at their conversion.¹⁸ Thus new creation is littered with the already not yet tension of the New Testament where the new creation is constantly being formed in the image of Christ, yet it is already raised with Christ and seated in heaven. ¹⁹

---

1) As seen in the King James Version (KJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). - Return to text
2) As seen in the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New American Bible (NAB), New English Bible (NEB), Anchor Bible Project (ABP). - Return to text
3) Millard J. Erickson , “God’s Originating Work: Creation,” in Christian Theology: Second Edition [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007], 394-396. - Return to text
4) Charles E. Hummel, “Interpreting Genesis One,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38.3 [1986]: 178. - Return to text
5) JEDP and Tablet theories do not attribute authorship of Genesis to Moses; this however is moot at this juncture since the underlying presupposition is that “all scripture is God breathed.” - Return to text
6) See Plato’s Tiamus, the Babylonian Enuma Elish, et cetera. - Return to text
7) Romans 1:18 - Return to text
8) R.M. Davidson, “In the Beginning: How to Interpret Genesis 1”, Dialogue: An International Journal of Faith, Thought, and Action 6/3 [1994]: 9-11. - Return to text
9) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006) s.v. “3117”, 398-401. (BDB henceforth) - Return to text
10) While very reference the seven day creation specifically they do reference the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:28, Hebrews 4:4,9), the creation of Man (Mark 10:7, 1 Corinthians 6:16, 11:8-9,12) , and the Flood of Noah (Matthew 24:37-38, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5 - Return to text
11) Scofield Reference Notes: Genesis 1:2 - http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=ge&chapter=001 - Return to text
12) H.F.W. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 454. - Return to text
13) This lends to the poetic structure as תהו andובהו rhyme in Hebrew. - Return to text
14) Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, 179. - Return to text
15) Form: patriarch lived x years and begat a specific son; after he begat that specific son he lived y more years begetting sons and daughters; all of the years of patriarch were z years. - Return to text
16) This of number can vary by 1,000 years depending on the text being used of the difference in the dates. However for our purposes 1,000 years really does not matter since even a 10,000 year old earth is still a young earth. - Return to text
17) Ephesians 1:4 - Return to text
18) Colossians 1:15; 18; 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Return to text
19) Romans 8:29; Ephesians 2:6 - Return to text

---

---

...To Be Continued...