Yeah, right.  Actually, my first helpful thought in my son’s situation would be to get out of the way and let the qualified medical personnel do their jobs.

I play a little hoop, but that doesn’t mean I can get Kobe Bryant on the phone and tell him he needs to work on his running jumper.  I played baseball in high school, but that doesn’t mean I can tell Barry Bonds to watch that elbow hitch.  I have birdied a few holes in my lifetime, but that doesn’t mean I can school Tiger Woods on his long-iron approaches.  Bottom line: The gap between these legends and me is as long as one of Tiger’s drives.  YOu know it, and I know it.

Yet this is exactly how many of us act toward God.  The gap between Him and us is infinite – yet we have the audacity to say, “Thanks, God, but I’ll take it from here.”  And some of us don’t flinch from giving Him our unvarnished opinions.

That’s what happened to King Nebuchadnezzar, who had to learn some lessons in humility.  Talk about humbling: For seven years, the king suffered from a mental illness that caused him to roam the pastures outside the palace and chew grass like a cow.  After paying the price for his pride, the once self-centered king said: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just.  And those who walk in pride he is able to humble” (Daniel 4:37).  In this confession, two words and one phrase are key for me: everything, all, and his ways.

These words speak to the king’s new understanding of God’s control and to the choice we must all make:  His way or my way.  Some men simply do not ask God, “How do You want me to handle this?” or inquire, “What does God’s Word call me to do in this situation?”  The reasons for not asking these questions are simple ignorance or blatant arrogance.  Niether befits God’s man, and both carry high price tags.

excerpt from Every Man, God’s Man

Do you have a spiritual mentor?  Does he seem so far advanced in his faith that you wonder whether you could do anything productive for the Kingdom?  What does Greg say about such “heroes of the faith” and our capabilities?

What are Greg’s four hard realities of spiritual growth?  1) Spiritual growth is perplexing (from our perspective); 2) Spiritual growth takes time (lots of it); 3) Spiritual growth hurts; 4) Spiritual growth doesn’t ultimately satisfy.  What lessons ought we learn from them?  1) Though most of the time, we don’t have the foggiest idea of what God is up to, I can be perplexed but not despairing (2 Timothy 1:12); 2) Spiritual fruit is like any other fruit – it becomes… over time, an important factor in real change; 3) Change happens in people’s lives, but generally it doesn’t happen unless it’s more painful to stay the same than to change; and hardship reminds us of a precious truth: “… we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves” (2 Corinthians 4:7); 4) We can experience a measure of fulfillment, but there’s always something missing… until our Christian hope is ultimately realized in heaven (Philippians 3:14; 2 Corinthians 5:2; Romans 8:23; 1 Peter 1:13).  Cite at least one passage of Scripture that Greg used to make each point.

From Truth to Experience, part 1

1)  Two and a half years ago, Chuck Colson wrote an op-ed for Christianity Today wherein he wrote: “… even when Christians know correct doctrine, they are afraid of speaking the truth for fear of offending others.  What right have I to impose my beliefs on others? is a thought that shapes too many of us believers.  This is why J.I. Packer, on his 80th birthday, said that the greatest challenge of evanglicalism is to recatechize our churches.  More than ever, Christians need to be able to speak intelligently and courageously about the hope that lies within… Orwell was right: In a crisis, we often have a duty to restate the obvious… The greatest challenge for serious Christians today is not reinventing Christianity, but rediscovering its core teachings.”

Where does Greg’s citation of the Barna Research Group’s statistics fit in here?  That many Christians are woefully ill-educated about cardinal doctrines of their own faith.  Are you prepared to “make a defense” of the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” – whether to an atheist neighbor, the agnostic at work, or the Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon on your doorstep?  Could you make a strong, biblical case 1) for the existence of moral absolutes and their being reflective of God’s character; 2) for the universal violation of those absolutes by Man; 3) that salvation is by grace and not by works; 4) for the deity of Christ and His exclusive and necessary role in effecting our salvation?  How?

2)  How does the adoption of post-modern relativism threaten our ability to make that defense?  At a very basic level, the Christian faith, among all the world’s religions, is uniquely founded upon the objective truth of a number of historical events.  Once you give up the very idea of Truth, it’s impossible to sustain their defense.

3)  What does Greg cite as a particularly ubiquitous form of relativism in the church today?  He characterizes it as “Ouija Bible.”  What are the consequences of believing that “the Holy Spirit gave me this verse?”  ”Truths” are obtained by one person that are not applicable in the same way to anyone else.  What does Greg mean by his axiom, “Never read a Bible verse”?  It is inappropriate to obtain some “truth” from a single verse without any context.  Have you had occasions where someone has drawn a mistaken conclusion from a single Bible verse without context?

4)  Greg’s use of 1 Corinthians 14:7-9 illustrates his treatment of what relativistic trend?  Looking at the Bible as something that needs to be decoded… the analogy of the bugle: is it sounding “Charge” or “Retreat” or “Taps”?

From Truth to Experience, part II

1)  Summarize Greg’s illustration of coaching methods and quarterbacks and apply it to the Christian life.  How are you doing on your own prep?

2)  In his section on “The Still, Small Voice” Greg argues against the very common notion that prayer is a two-way personal conversation with God.  He subsequently characterizes this as the “Hearing the Voice of God” doctrine.  What are the three claims (whether explicit or implicit) made by advocates of hearing the voice of God?  1)  Every Christian is entitled to special inerrant, personal revelation from God.  2)  We can each develop the ability to get our own special revelation from God.  3)  This revelation in on par with Scripture in authority, though it has a different application (i.e. for the individual, not the whole church, and is, therefore, not canon Scripture).  What is the common result of the introduction of additional sources of revelation?  The secondary becomes a primary: Examples would be the plethora of Watchtower publications, Mormon revelations (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, pronouncements of the Prophets from Joseph Smith through Brigham Young and down to contemporary Presidents), the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and ex cathedra papal pronouncements… and Christians hearing the voice of God.

3)  What distinction does Greg draw between “Ouija Bible” and “Hearing God’s Voice”?  The latter is not explicitly relativistic while the former is.  However, operating under the tenets of “Hearing God’s Voice” has a relativizing influence on the church because it focuses on experience rather than on God’s Word.  According to Greg, why don’t we need to “hear the voice of God?”  First, because the Bible doesn’t teach it (when you examine John 10 – My sheep hear my voice” in context, the claim fails); second, because it is impossible to learn to hear the voice of God.

4)  When Greg takes a stand against “Hearing the Voice of God” and people claim that he is thereby limiting God, what is his response?  The issue is not alleged limitations on God; rather, the real issue is: What does the Bible teach?  Does the Bible teach that or imply that every Christian is entitled to special revelations from God?  Or, does the Bible teach or imply that we have to develop a special spiritual skill in order for us to “hear” His revelation?  The answer to both questions is “No”.

5)  In the section, Re-arming the Army, what is Greg’s prescription for remedying the problem?  1)  We have to quit trying to hear the voice of God, which the Bible doesn’t tell us to do.  2)  We have to start learning to understand and obey the Word of God, which the Bible tells us to do all the time.  Until that happens, we are listening for a voice He hasn’t promised while (largely) ignoring the Word He has already given; we are not giving first attention to first things.

We had a BALL at the Family Freeway Series on July 2!  70 of us went to see the Angels play the Dodgers at Angel’s Stadium.  Join us for our next event!  Check your Resource Folder or the table in the lobby on Sunday morning to keep up on the latest events!  Or contact Amber McEwen at amcewen@northpointcorona.org.

Nevertheless, Great Books editor, Mortimer J. Adler, considered those same writers to be the most impactful that western civilization had to offer.  Adler divided the various works among four different categories: philosophy and theology, history, science, and literature.  He also conceived of the multitude of issues dealt with by these men as the Great Ideas, of which there were 102.  They ranged from “Angel” through “Education”, “Logic”, “Nature”, and “Sin” to “World”.  Each work dealt with multiple ideas.  Dr. Adler pointed out that of the 102 Great Ideas, three of them (Truth, Goodness and Beauty) have been described by some as “transcendental” because “everything that is is in some measure or manner subject to denomination as true or false, good or evil, beautiful or ugly.”  Others have believed that they ought to be assigned to particular areas of subject matter: that is, “the true to thought and logic, the good to action and morals, and the beautiful to enjoyment and aesthetics.”  Whatever the case, it’s easy to understand why these three, as Adler says, “form a triad of terms which have been discussed together throughout the tradition of western thought.”  And, it hardly needs noting that these three ideas have been extensively dealt with in the Bible.

In his introductory essay on the idea of Beauty in Volume 2 (entitled The Great Ideas – A Syntopicon I), Adler notes that “Truth, goodness, and beauty, singly and together, have been the focus of the age-old controversy concerning the absolute and the relative, the objective and the subjective, the universal and the individual.”… Hmm.  The whole idea of “relative” and “subjective” is causing me to have visions of elephants and blind men!

Moving on, it should be pointed out that the ideas of Truth and Goodness have been much more a part of objective-subjective discussions than has Beauty.  And even when Christian philosophers have once again in a major way taken up the task of contending for objective standards of truth and goodness, the idea that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (a very subjective/relativistic notion) has largely escaped attention.

Interestingly, persuasive arguments have been provided by Christian theologians and philosophers throughout history for treating all three ideas (but particularly truth and goodness) as absolute, objective and universal things.  This is backed up in John 14 where Jesus tells His disciples (and us) that He is – among other things – “the truth”.  And, knowing what we know of Jesus, would it not seem incoherent to say He was arguing for a relativistic view of the matter?  Imagine: “Well, Jesus, that may be true for you, but…..!!”

Furthermore, a biblical apologia for an absolute/objective/universal stance regarding the “triad” can go beyond Jesus’ claim.  Paul’s famous exhortation to the Philippians stands out: “Finally brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things” (4:8).  Whether noun or adjective, every single characteristic mentioned by Paul has something to do with Truth or Goodness or Beauty!

Before getting to Beauty specifically, I want to provide a recent example of how the other two ideas have been dealt with.  In his wonderfully accessible book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (co-authored with Frank Beckwith), and in frequent public lectures, Greg Koukl has argued that the whole idea of relativism – in whatever realm – commits suicide; that is, it is logically self-refuting; or, as the late Ronald Nash used to say (with a twinkle in his eye!), “self-referentially absurd”.  For example, with specific regard to ethics (that is, the good – or lack thereof – in action), Koukl gets to the nub of things by asking, “Who is the moral hero of ethical relativism?  That is, what do we call a person who, more than anything else, is characterized by marching to the beat of his own drum?”  The answer: a sociopath!  Koukl’s conclusion: If the moral hero of your view of what constitutes good behavior is a sociopath, it is bankrupt as a system of morality.  In truth, it cannot even be considered to be a system of morality at all.  Moreover, it stands as a significant danger to society.

Our specific concern this morning, however, is Beauty.  As mentioned, of the three ideas, Beauty has more consistently been thought of in relative, subjective, and individual terms than the other two.  I’ve already noted how prevalent this idea is by citing the old cliche, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  But, is it really?!  Is Beauty entirely a relativistic thing?  Even in the absence of the Christian view of God, Aristotle regarded Beauty as an objective thing defined by proportionality, simplicity, harmony and complexity.  Later, both Thomas Aquinas (a medieval Roman Catholic) and Jonathan Edwards (an 18th century Protestant), coming from Christian perspectives, wrote in very similar veins.

More recently, R.C. Sproul has not only validated Aristotle’s view but also posited the idea that God is both the source and norm not only of Truth and Goodness but also Beauty.  That is, He is the standard by which all three of these basic ideas must be gauged.  In his notes for lecture number 3 (“Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?”) – part of his DVD lecture series entitled, Recovering the Beauty of the Arts – Sproul concludes that “we see that historically Beauty was not determined by arbitrary feelings, or chaos, but was based on the interaction of the above four principles (i.e., proportionality, etc.).  All of these principles, Aristotle rightly understood, do not occur randomly, and they can be applied to every work of art regardless of form.”

With that in mind, in Psalm 27 David writes:

One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: That I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the Lord, and to meditate in his temple.

Similarly, we have David’s Song of Thanks as recorded for us in 1 Chronicles 16.  [By the way, a lot of it is repeated in Psalm 96].  In the song, the king mentions God’s glory throughout – a word that speaks of majesty, worth and splendor.  David then calls on the people to worship the Lord “in the splendor (sometimes translated, ‘beauty’) of holiness.”  In other words, Yahweh – the True God, the God we are to worship – can be thought of as The Beautiful One.

Now, I find it fascinating what God says when He describes for Moses what Aaron’s priestly garments are to be made of and how they’re to be decorated.  First of all, they’re to be made with gold!  This is immediately followed by mention of blue and purple and scarlet yarns – the three colors of fabric that were the most costly to produce! – and “fine, twisted linen.”  And throughout all these descriptions, God says they are to be made “for glory and for beauty” (Ex 28:2)!!  Why?!  It is because these qualities reflect God’s character.  Additionally, it’s interesting to note that the first people in the Bible who are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit of God are the artisans that made everything having to do with the tabernacle and the priests – all the articles made for glory and for beauty!

With the Bible introducing the idea of beauty as applied to the priests’ attire – and, in light of the tearing of the veil, that of the High Priest in particular – does this say anything to us today about our attire in formal worship?  Sproul says it does.  The purpose of the beauty of Aaron’s garments was not to prompt him to think of himself as really spiffy!  Rather, it was a means of consecrating him to his various tasks.  Therefore, since we comprise a priesthood of all believers, should the controlling element in our Sunday dress be comfort?  I’ve argued for some time now that much of modern worship has come to be about “us”… that is, “me” writ large.  And comfort – in dress, atmosphere, etc. – is just part of the picture.  And, this is going to be way countercultural, but since we have been given the privilege of dealing directly with the Living God, ought not our attire on Sundays be more about glory and beauty than comfort?  I leave that to you to ponder.

Finally, though , something else to think about: Handel’s Messiah: ugly or beautiful?  Serrano’s Piss Christ?  Macbeth? Yorkminster?  Gwyneth Paltrow?  Reims cathedral?  Psalm 23?  Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater?  Rosie O’Donnell?  Hugh Jackman?  Leonardo’s Mona Lisa?  Grapes of Wrath? Psalm 51?!  Elphabah?  Or, Glinda?!  Much Ado About Nothing?  The South Bronx?  The prologue to John’s gospel?  The New World Translation?  Pick something/someone; and try to discern God’s judgment!

Saturday, April 16th, we will be having our annual Syrup on the Mount Band of Brothers breakfast.  We will meet on campus at 7:00 am and “truck pool” up the mountain, returning around 10:30 am.  Craig Hawkins will be talking to us about God’s creation and the beauty of it.  Breakfast will be served on the mountain, right in the middle of creation!  Bring a portable chair and a hat or some sunscreen.  Sign up on Sunday at the men’s table.