Life, Death, Evangelism, Apologetics, and the Heidelberg Catechism

Here is an email I shared with a work associate. I share it to reveal how powerfully catechesis can be both in life and in death, both in yours and others.
________________

Dear Jack,

[“Jack,” a friend who worked for my client’s company was facing a case of the most aggressive cancer and invasive treatment. It entailed a mere five percent chance of surviving the next five years. I first addressed Jack’s grave circumstances, sharing with him our concentrated prayer on his behalf, and the many-sided ways that God’s mercy and grace were available to him through Christ and his gospel. Then, I identified a similar situation I had, and made application, then used the faithful Heidelberg’s gospel center in Q 1 to show and tell the gospel hope. Since the note, I am blessed to share that Jack's prognosis is greatly improved and treatment measures have been remarkable!]

I’m not sure if you were aware or not, but late last spring, I took a fall, while fishing and the next evening was in the first class seat on a life-flight helicopter headed to Roanoke Memorial. Evidently, the blow I took ruptured my spleen. By the time I finally went to the ER in Bedford, I had lost about two units of blood into my abdomen. All the staff, bless their hearts, began freaking out! They wanted me outta there yesterday! After making it clear to Fanny and I that the prognosis was rather poor, granting how much I had already lost, how much is lost during the removal surgery and the other attending risks, they told us that they already called and LGH didn’t want me either! Ugh. That was because their blood bank wasn’t prepared for a level three trauma. And I just thought I threw my back out real bad! This was a shocker to say the least. I had never felt so utterly out of control of myself and my circumstances in my entire life. I felt helpless and nearly hopeless.

After ten hours’ worth (I think; it’s all a bit fuzzy) of observation in ICU, my H & H number (hemoglobin and h-something?) began to rise. To everyone’s surprise, this indicated that the hemorrhaging had begun to slow way down, if not stop altogether. All the staffers were nothing short of incredulous. Nevertheless, three days later, my numbers were leveled out at normal; they ejected me! I had several doctors and nurses tell me that they had never witnessed a splenic rupture heal on its own. Just this week an MRI finally revealed that my spleen wasn’t the only thing to rupture. Two discs in my thoracic 12 / lumbar 1 area are bulging, one is ruptured, and a vertebrae is displaced, putting pressure on my spinal cord. Ironically, I’m thankful for that. I feared that the continued pains were related to the spleen, which is not an issue I really wanted to revisit.

Sorry for the windbag autobiography. But I share this story for a couple of relevant reasons.

First, although the doctors had little experience in, and even less so a naturalistic explanation of, the spleen “healing,” concerning the latter, we did. Here we were, 1200 miles from any family and (despite how likable we are, we haven’t made many friends in Big I ;), my main concern was for my girls, Fanny and Israel. Poor Fanny got lost in Bedford, trying to leave BMH and follow the chopper to Roanoke! But she was praying, and praying hard. A pastor friend, who lives in Bedford, shot over to BMH and was able to pray for me just before I was loaded in the bird. We had a handful of close family in the faith praying, and God heard these faithful few, and our faithful King Jesus came, “with healing in his wings” (Malachi 4:2).

This explains what was inexplicable to the doctors, regardless of whether or not they would admit it. Granted, this answer isn’t subject to pathological analysis or empirical observation. However, neither are time and gravity, logic and love, morals and motion. That these aren’t subject to scientific observation doesn’t challenge their reality; rather, the reality of these things—among others—provide the necessary preconditions that make scientific analysis possible; they must be taken for granted for my doctors to even do their scientific reasoning. So, that the absolute-personal God, who created and is “upholding all things by the word of his power,” has the gracious will and almighty power to be personally present, caring for his people, may have been implausible at best to those doctors of mine, that didn’t challenge the fact that he was there and acting (Genesis 1; Hebrew 1:1—3). Heck, science is allegedly all about finding the best case explanatory hypothesis. But, if Jesus Christ promised that his Father and ours would respond to our prayers in his name, and we thus prayed, and God responded, our explanation certainly got the blue ribbon at the science fair that night (St. John 14:13—14)! I just think sometimes that the doctors’ pride can’t handle being outclassed by the Great Physician. :) As William Hunter’s ole hymn by the same name goes:

The Great Physician now is near,
The sympathizing Jesus;

He speaks the drooping heart to cheer,
Oh, hear the voice of Jesus!

Mine was just one experience of many—an unusually many—remarkable answers to prayer for healing and wholeness. I’m sure you are aware of Ms. E’s radically reversed situation this year. We had the honor of praying her through that season with them. So incredible and “scientifically inexplicable” was her situation that I believe even many of her doctors had to tip their hats to God’s hand of providence in the situation. God’s mercy in healing people has just been incredibly apparent round about us this year. It’s been a privilege to witness it and be a part of it. I’m excited and hopeful about praying with so many others to see what God might do in you and your situation.

In addition to the physical healing that God wrought in my experience last spring, the second reason for sharing it is the spiritual and psychological wellness that I experienced during and through it.

Our particular theological heritage has a rich history in creeds, confessions, and catechisms. These, whether the shorter or longer ones, are basically systematic summaries of what we believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach concerning the big numbers—God, the creation and preservation of the world, man, sin, salvation, etc. Earlier last spring I was winding up to write a devotional commentary on one of the oldest, most-beloved catechisms in the Reformed-Presbyterian tradition, the Heidelberg Catechism (which, Lord willing, will be ready for press spring of 2015). About a week before my fall I had memorized the first question and answer of the Heidelberg. I believe, with many others throughout the world and time, that the first Q/A of this warm and personal catechism is one of the finest statements of the good news that God brought to light in Christ that has ever been penned (outside the Bible, of course). It goes like this.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

There are some folks that think that doctrine is airy-fairy, abstract and dry, having nothing to do with practical, warp-and-woof experiences of life. Well, this doctrine and my experience stand as an indictment against such ideas.

I had buried this truth deep into my head the previous week, but my fall brought about the true test of whether I had truly buried it in my heart. In my twenty years of following my faithful Lord, knowing myself like I do, I had always feared that my faith would falter when a serious test hit me. I have often enjoyed this “comfort in life,” but what would happen on the pangs of possible death? I’m the guy who was still sucking my thumb at 12 years old! I still cried about getting shots when I was 14 years old! I’m the most pusillanimous person you know, believe you me! 

Nevertheless, Jack, I felt utterly no fear, as I was being prepped and loaded on the helicopter. Of course, I was worried about my girls. That was the only fear I felt, however. By grace and the enabling power of God’s Spirit, Christ Jesus—who had died and rose three days later, defeating the grave—he was truly my “only comfort” in body and soul, life and death! By God’s grace, this doctrinal truth had made its home in the deepest part of my soul. If this doctrine is true—and it is—then there is no reason to fear anything in either life or death, if Christ is one’s “faithful Savior.”

It is amazing how circumstances like mine and yours radically relativizes what once seemed like top priorities but are now periphery issues at best.

It’s with chagrin and shame that I must confess that I’m ignorant of whether or not you enjoy this hope that the Heidelberg talks about, and that carried us through my recent crisis. The gospel of Jesus Christ, that is. I pray—and will continue to pray—that are enjoying it. If not, though, it is my earnest hope and prayer that you will reconsider it...or seriously consider it even if for the first time. Frankly, I know of no other real hope we have, save God’s mercy in Christ.

After years of studying the plethora of perspectives and worldviews available to us, I’ve found that only the biblical world and life view provides sure enough footing to make sense of our experiences, be they better or worse, in this world or the one to come.

I’ve enjoyed what little times we’ve had to talk, and pray that they continue well beyond this windy note...(salutations, etc.).

The Therapeutic State and Competing Religions

Granting that our contemporary therapeutic, self-worship culture is controlled by psychical theories, Christians need to become increasingly cognizant of the primary religious competitor of the Christian faith in America.  I am not talking about Islam or Buddhism; rather, the comprehensive control religion of the psycho-therapeutic state.  Below is one of my initial critiques of the psychical so-called “sciences.”  I have shared this point with several psychology professors and others in the field.  I’ve yet to hear a reasonable rescue of the position.  Granting my decades of navigating a closest family member’s struggles with so-called Bipolar disorder, I thought it would be a fine point of departure.    

One of my primary concerns with psychical sciences has to do with just that, its science.  Of course, at bottom, any and all science is fundamentally concerned with causal relations.  Psychical theories are no different.  So, to be a genuine science, it will seek to discover causes and sufficiently explain related effects.  As I see it, psychiatry on the one hand and psychology on the other must posit (and do postulate) reversed causation.  Let me explain.

Let's take so-called bipolar disorder as our example.  Psychologist must presuppose that the causes of bipolar are external stimuli or otherwise behavioral in nature.  This generalization will likewise be narrowed according to the adopted theory of the clinician.  Cognitive psych will suppose that the patient's problem lies in their conceptualization and interpretation of relational and situational events, for instance.  The behaviorist (even contemporary theorists, such as Bandura) will posit that the patient's environment or social construct is the final causal link in the chain of causes.  Thus, psychological theory finds the causes of manic-depressive episodes in something extraneous the patient.

Psychiatry, on the other hand, is obliged to work on the assumption that the effect of bipolar behavior is caused by biochemical imbalances in the brain.  This, of course, is part and parcel of the popular-level thought on the problem.  The psychiatric position, then, says the cause is internal to the patient and the effect is the external behavior and symptoms.  Therefore, the psychologist and the psychiatrist are operating off of perfectly contrary causal premises.  This is not to say that neither can therefore be true.  One or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true; the ice cold grip of logic will not allow it.  Moreover, the respective methodologies of each perspective reinforce the causal premise of the perspective.

It is tempting to say, "Well, the truth lies in a careful wedding of the two perspectives; and, subsequently, a bipolar sufferer's remedy lies in dual treatments: pharmacotherapy (by the psychiatrist) and psychotherapy (by the psychologist).  Despite how hopeful and popular this may be, it is still illogical.  The former assumes that the brain causes the behavioral effect; the latter assumes the external stimuli are the cause of the effect.  It is unreasonable to the say the cause is the effect and the effect is the cause.  This would contradict the laws of logic, the principle of sufficient reason and intuitive common sense. 

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.