Lessons of a Loss

Last Friday morning my bagel break was interrupted by allowing access to some dummy contractors at a gate on the other end of the plant's campus. Unsurprisingly, I was not a little irritated. However, half way there the Listener's Bible snippet came on the radio. It was a reading from Romans 12. Max's velvet voice began, "What are the marks of true Christian spirituality...listen to the Bible from..." I listened carefully, but the line "rejoice with the who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn" stood out remarkably to me, like never before.

This bit struck me in the soul. Everything after that was like Charlie Brown's teacher squawking in the background, as I began to prayerfully turn it over and over in my mind and challenge my heart with its imperatives. The Holy Spirit knew what I needed to hear and was making it stick.

Within the hour, one of my closer friends, Bob (not his real name), who is a retired once-weekly vendor at the plant that I work at, left a voicemail. My contacts on the new iPhone didn’t recognize Bob’s number. Consequently, I thought it was either a wrong number or some other undesirable caller. When I did get around to checking the voicemail, I could sense in Bob’s voice that he wasn't calling to share something for our mutual rejoicing.

I waited until I got off at 4p, so our conversation wouldn't be interrupted by the several-many issues at work.

Bob answered to tell me that Joanna, his well-beloved wife, who had struggled for more than two decades with a severely debilitating disease, had passed away the Thursday last. She was having some breathing issues throughout the night, which improved at about 3a. This let Bob get a couple hours sleep on the sofa by where she was resting. By 9a, he felt things were well enough to take a quick shower. After what he said was less than 10 minutes, he came back out and she was gone. After calling 911, and working CPR for several minutes, he checked her pupils, which were completely dilated and unchanged by the pen light. She was gone before he started. Still, 15 or so EMS worked hard to bring her back to us. Nevertheless, this was not God’s will...not just yet.

So, three points. (1) If I would have known how powerfully the Holy Spirit was going work that verse into me for the ministry-purpose to both Bob and me that was lying a mere hour or few ahead of me, I would have had an entirely different, a zealous, attitude about leaving my warm bagel to open that gate at the North End. However, I should've known, or rather did know. God works all things--seemingly trivial dispatches to secured gates--for our good and to the fulfillment of his great and all-wise plan and purposes. This I "know." Yet I fail to appropriate that knowledge too often in my day in day out rhythms, like opening gates and other things that inconvenience me at the moment. Lesson: Nothing is inconsequential with our omni-efficient God; he foreordained, purposes, and micromanagingly orders all of life's mundanity, thus nothing is trivial or mundane. What seemed like simply being bothered to open a gate was rather our loving God preparing me for the future and ruling over all with his Word and Spirit; it was him opening the rusty gate of my heart, so I could weep and mourn with a broken brother.

So, (2) please remember with us our widower brother this Lord’s Day, as we all gather at the foot of the throne of grace. (My relationship with Bob, incidentally, began several years ago when, as he was signing in one day, and shared that he had just come from the chiropractor. I asked why. He explained his beloved’s situation and how he has to move her and dress her, etc., because of the immobilizing aspects of her condition, and that his 50-something back was just not what it once was. I took the opportunity to explain my biblical-covenantal understanding of marriage, and that his faithfulness was a great encouragement and witness to me and what marriage means to our nutty culture. The rest is history, as they say.)

Finally, (3) per Bob's adamant wishes, and in memorial to Joanna, let us not miss a single opportunity to show-and-tell our wives what wonderful women God has blessed us with, pointing out their personal fulfillments of the Prov. 31 wife, and their picture-painting ministry to us about what the Church (should) looks like (Eph. 5). Let us shower them with love and praise. Likewise, let us pray earnestly for the redeeming-loving grace necessary to be abundantly faithful Christ-likers in return, letting them know their value to us, "even unto death,” as Bob’s marriage-long commitment illustrated to me.

Lutherans' Consubstantiation: Trampling Under Foot All Reason, Sense, and Understanding

Martin Luther once stated “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.” He might as well have included biblical truth and sound doctrine in this list. This is precisely what he and his successors did in their formulation of their understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the doctrine commonly called consubstantiation.

Lutherans’ confessional commitment to consubstantiation, their view of the Eucharist, must be considered heresy in that it contradicts the orthodox formulation of Christology as prescribed in the Creed of Chalcedon, which reads, “One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly...” This clause was in response to the original heresy of Eutyches, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

How, though, does the Lutheran confessional stance on the Eucharist confuse Christ’s two natures?

The Epitome, one of the central Lutheran confessional documents, contains a blatant contradiction, which leads to the contradicting of the Chalcedonian Christology. In chapter eight, “The Person of Christ,” the Epitome affirms the following.

VIII. The Person of Christ: Affirmative Theses

[6] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.

[7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite (that is, boundless and without spatial limitation [KS]), and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

[8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

Here are some clear points that may be adduced from these theses.

1. The divine and human natures do not comingle; each nature retains its own properties, which are never communicated to the other nature (from [6]2).

2.  Omnipresence and infinity are properties of the divine nature, and never become properties of the human nature (from [7]3).

3. Flesh and blood and finitude are properties of the human nature (from [8]4).

These are some of the most basic doctrines of Christology and are worthy of full acknowledgement and confession by any claiming to be faithful Christians. So, from these three general propositions, one can make the following synthesis.

C1. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can never possess the properties of omnipresence and infinity (of the divine nature, being “everywhere present”).

This seems to be a necessary implication of the three theses from the Epitome, chapter 8, on the Person of Christ. This then is a foundational belief for a faithful Christology, according to both the Chalcedonian Creed and the Epitome-Concord; and, I’d argue, the scriptures. Concluding this, we have a good starting point to go back one chapter in the Epitome, chapter 7, and consider its theses on the Eucharist.

For clarity’s sake, I’ll use just a few theses from the Negativa, namely [32]11—[34]13. First, though, I’ll include this section’s prefatory remarks. The preface reads,

[21] On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper...

The following articles read as follow.

[32] 11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at once and at one time in many or all places upon earth where His Holy Supper is celebrated.

[33] 12. That Christ has not promised, neither could have effected, the essential presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper, because the nature and property of His assumed human nature cannot suffer nor permit it.

[34] 13. That God, according to [even by] all His omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time.

Of course, as part of the Negativa, these theses, as the preface makes clear, are those that are denied by Lutherans. Again, a positive statement of synthesis necessarily follows from the above theses.

C2. The body (i.e., flesh and blood; human nature) of Christ can be omnipresent, “at one time in many or all places upon the earth” (divine nature).

Now, let’s put these two propositions together, one a conclusion from chapter 8 and the other a conclusion from chapter 7, and see if they can be maintained in any sort of meaningful relationship.

C1. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can never possess the properties of omnipresence and infinity (of the divine nature, being “everywhere present”).

And,

C2. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can be omnipresent, everywhere present (divine nature).

Coming now to these two conclusions, which I believe are very fair inferences from the Epitome’s theses, there are only a couple of options available to us.

Option 1. We allow the more basic, foundational doctrine of Christology (C1) to cause us to reevaluate and reformulate as necessary the doctrine of the Eucharist (C2). Granting that we are over 500 years removed from formulation and confession of the formula of the doctrine of the Eucharist, this doesn’t seem likely.

Option 2. We maintain the two doctrines of the Concord stand in clear contradiction. If we were to try to synthesize C1 and C2, it would look something like this.

C3. It is the case that Christ’s human nature cannot possess the divine property of omnipresence; and, it is also that case that Christ’s human nature can possess the divine property of omnipresence.  

This is a particular violation of the general statement of the law of non-contradiction, a most basic law of logic: Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time in the same sense. Or, to put it in our context: Christ’s human nature cannot be both omnipresent and not-omnipresent. However, that is what I understand, as illustrated above, the Formula of Concord to be saying. This is utter nonsense!

To invoke the miraculous nature of the Supper doesn’t help resolve this. In fact, I don’t question for one second the supernatural or miraculous nature of the Supper; it is nothing less! What I have trouble with, in fact must reject, is the idea that Christ’s institution would entail such a brazen contradiction as this does.

To be clear, I am not promoting rationalism. I don’t understand logic to be something extraneous to the Godhead, to which he is subject. Rather, logic is an expression of the divine nature itself, which was “declared” (exēgeomaito) to us in the incarnation of the Word, the eternal Logos (Jn. 1:18). Being part of the essential nature of God, he cannot contradict himself, or as St. Paul put it, “he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself,” thus, “he cannot lie” (2 Tim. 2:13; Tit. 1:2). And being created in his image, to reflect his glory, we also cannot violate logic, especially in our thoughts concerning his nature and this holy Supper, wherein he is present.

In chapter 8 of the Epitome, [13]5 of the Affirmative Theses rightly states, “That God's Word is not false, and does not deceive.” Elsewhere, the Formula confidently states that the doctrine of the Eucharist is based solely on the words of Christ, “according to the letter,” and the literal sense. However, if, as I’ve shown above, this doctrine entails a contradiction, then it is false by definition, not to mention deceptive. Moreover, if these doctrines are assuredly good and necessary deductions from the clear teaching of Scripture, then Scripture too must contain at least one contradiction, which would have obvious implications for our bibliology, namely the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy.

The good Dr. Luther, in spite of the huge debt of gratitude all Protestants owe him, and the mighty ways that God used him and his brilliant mind to contribute to the Reformation, saving the church from her Babylonian Captivity to Rome,  risks being condemned by his own words, when it comes to the doctrine of the Eucharist.

“You conduct yourself like one drunk or asleep, belching out between your snores, ‘Yes, No.’” –Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, Vol. 33 of Luther's Works, pp. 113).

W. H. Griffith-Thomas on Faith

Trust is the only adequate answer to God’s revelation.  Just as the absence of faith makes it impossible for human beings to have any dealings with each other, so the absence of faith in God makes it wholly impossible for us to have any association with Him.  “He that cometh to God must believe” (Heb. 11:6).  Trust is thus the correlative of truth.  Faith in man answers to grace in God.  As such it affects the whole of man’s nature...

Faith is not blind, but intelligent, since it rests on the conviction of the authority of Christ as Teacher, Savior, and Lord.  The three-fold Revelation of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, revealing, redeeming, and ruling, is met by the response of the whole life, intellect, emotion, and will.

The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, xx—xxi.  

Worldviews: Faith Goes Deeper Still

Scripture and experience have taught me how little the creation-evolution debate actually has to do with evidences and “science.”  Solid creationist materials have highlighted that what is at stake in this is an all-out clash of worldviews.  Even the humanist materials have, consciously or not, alluded to this reality here and there, mentioning the socio-situational relativity of the scientific enterprise.  This observation helps us get beneath the fact-lobbing type of discourse and into a deeper analysis of the conflict between not facts and evidences per se but each perspective’s philosophy of fact and philosophy of evidence, and most importantly the nature of epistemological authorities.  However, I now question if the worldview level of analysis is sufficient for truly understanding what is at stake for the subjects holding one or the other of these antithetical perspectives. 

I believe to really get at the root of the divide, at least of the personal, existential, or psychological level, we need to look even deeper than mere worldviews.  Worldviews are not selected like pudding or pie at a buffet; neither are they caught passively like a common cold.  Rather, just as philosophical theorizing and scientific hypothesizing have a particular worldview undergirding them, that worldview is not a self-sufficient, self-grounding paradigm.  Worldviews are themselves a more or less self-consistent, more or less internally coherent and systematic expression of a deeper heart commitment, namely a faith. 

Every worldview—again, consciously or not—is characterized by faith.  When we are plumbing questions of the origin and destination of the world, and by extension ourselves, the unity and diversity of our experience, and such matters, we soon discover that the answers to these questions are far beyond analytical or linear reason and even farther from inductive, scientific thought and theory.  The answers ultimately grow out of what Herman Dooyeweerd called a ‘religious ground-motive.’  This is equally true for both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.  This religious ground-motive is prior to and tethers the entirety of one’s life attitude or outlook.  As Solomon said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23; cf. Matt. 12:35).  So, just as worldview is logically and practically prior to one’s epistemic authority and philosophy of facts and evidences, so also is one’s deepest heart commitment, that is, faith, prior to his worldview.

This realization has had a subjective and objective effect on my thinking about the creation-evolution debate.  With respect to the subjective side, this realization has granted me an even sounder cognitive rest in my faith commitment to a young-earth creational view.  Understanding the pre-worldview commitments involved helps to undermine any insecurity that a Christian may have in the face of evolutionary theories and so-called evidences.  The debate is ultimately not, as it is often misunderstood to be, faith versus reason, even less is it religion versus science.  It is one faith commitment versus another; it is ultimately two antithetical religious ground-motives in mortal combat.  Additionally, because the relatively young-earth creational view is perfectly self-consistent and self-referentially coherent, as an integral element of the biblical worldview; and, because of my faith commitment to the biblical worldview through the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find myself at imperturbable cognitive rest in the biblical creational perspective. 

With respect to the objective side, these observations have serious implications for apologetical and evangelistic engagements.  If these observations are so, then no amount of so-called scientific evidence will change a person’s mind, toward either direction in the debate.  This does not disparage the right place and purpose of evidences within the broader context of a particular worldview.  What it does do is encourage the apologist-witness to quickly move the direction of the conversation to the crux of the issue, the misplaced faith and faulty ground-motive of the non-Christian, who needs to experience a Copernican revolution, so to speak, of the heart—repentance and trusting obedience to the gospel of Christ. 

All this has led to a related disposition, that is, a more critical view of so-called scientific truth, whether in the context of either worldview, be it creationism or humanism-evolution.  Science—all science—is a human endeavor.  Science is one expression of the human response to God’s revelation in nature.  It is the attempt at producing a systematic ordering and description of the created order.  As such, true science is always provisional and contingent; at best, we may ascribe to its conclusions ‘scientific knowledge,’ but never ‘scientific truth.’  Because of its inherent nature, scientific reasoning can never achieve epistemic certainty; it can never result in “truth.”  Truth is immutable, that is, unchanging.  However, the natural order, which is the lawful field of scientific investigation, is always changing.  Truth is eternal or timeless; science deals only with the temporal structures of reality.  Truth is abstract, whereas science deals only with concrete particulars.  Truth is universal, but scientific studies are, again, bound to particulars. Therefore, anytime the conclusion is reach, which claims to have been demonstrated as “scientific truth,” one can rest assured that the argument for the so-called “truth” is a non-sequitur—that is, it does not follow. 

Similar to the first, this observation has a two-fold effect.  First, when confronting evolutionary “truth,” in so far as the proponent claims to be conducting science, it is demonstrable that his reasoning is fallacious and will always be so.  Every claim to scientific “truth” is false, ironically.  This, I believe, would be immensely helpful for young Christians especially and their interpretations and explanations of the popular science on TV and in other media, which naively presents the findings or those of others as “scientific truth.”  Secondly, it teaches us that despite our commitment to creationism, we must be cautious with respect to a number of statements in Scripture.  The creation account of Scripture was not written by scientists for scientists, neither was it meant to serve as a scientific textbook.  The biblical account of creation is pre-scientific, as are all origin accounts, including evolution, pantheism, and the rest.  It is pre-scientific in both the historical and the logical sense.  Historically, the creation account is centuries anterior to the rise of modern science.  Logically, in light of the above observations, it is anterior to scientific investigation.  However, this is the case with all accounts of the origin and destination of humanity and the cosmos.  So, this must be borne in mind, while considering the manifold aspects of the debate.  To say that the creation account is pre-scientific in either sense is not to suggest that it is un- or anti-scientific at all.  However, as they put it is my neck of the woods, “It is what it is.”  Therefore, we must take it on its own terms and resist at all costs the temptation of imposing a modernistic, scientific mode of thought upon the text.

For me, then, all of this is compelling me to look beyond the typical battleground passages of the debate toward other deep, related, and profound statements, as I continue to nurture my creational outlook.  Consider passages like St. Paul’s doxological outburst in Romans 11:36, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen;” or, the Christ creed of Colossians 1, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (vv. 16—18).  How should these texts shape one’s creational outlook?  It is typical among creationist literature to point out that one will have an anemic view of Christ if he doubts Genesis 1, but what if we inverted the reasoning; we will have a warped view of creation apart from a full, rich knowledge and grace as it is in the incomprehensible Christ.  Let us therefore keep the Center, Christ.