Jane Austen's Playful Piety

“I think I may boast myself to be, with all possible Vanity, the most unlearned, & uninformed Female who ever dared to be an Authoress;” so Jane Austen speaks self- deprecatorily. But such is evidence of her characteristic humor and deep wit. “Jane Austen,” a new biography by Peter Leithart, sheds light onto the person and work of the famous novelist. What Leithart calls Austen’s “playful piety,” is her uncanny ability to not take herself seriously. Spending most of her time editing her own work, Austen wrote nearly entirely for pleasure, fashioning stories for the entertainment of her family. Leading a relatively simple life, Austen never got married, never procured for herself a career (as was the norm for women in that era), and thus left for herself much time to write and story-craft. Her blessing is surely our gain. I myself have never read any of Austen’s novels, but I went out and bought a set after reading this biography. Safe to say, it accomplished its task, and I enjoyed it tremendously. My only criticism (and a small one at that) is that it seemed unnecessarily detailed at times, such as describing precise ongoings of Austen’s extended family, introducing them all in the first chapter. That aside, I give my thanks to Thomas Nelson for giving me this ARC.

The Doctrine of Resistance

Now, I'm not afraid to admit that I am quite the amateur when it comes to understanding this topic; I am neither a noodle-spined pacifist, nor a hardcore theonomist. Rom. 13 obviously has much to say in the way of respecting and honoring leaders whom God has appointed. Likewise, God also requires disobedience to rulers in certain situations (e.g. Daniel and his buddies refusing to bend the knee to King Nebuchadnezzar). All this to say, I came upon an interesting quote by John Knox, the great Scottish Reformer:

"If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, no doubt they may be resisted, even by power. For there is neither greater honor, nor greater obedience, to be given to kings or princes, than God hath commanded to be given unto father and mother. But the father may be stricken with a frenzy, in which he would slay his children. If the children arise, join themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword from him, bind his hands, and keep him in prison till his frenzy be overpast 4 think ye, Madam, that the children do any wrong? It is even so, Madam, with princes that would murder the children of God that are subjects unto them. Their blind zeal is nothing but a very mad frenzy, and therefore, to take the sword from them, to bind their hands, and to east them into prison, till they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the will of God" (http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/knox/knox_to_mary/knox_to_mary.html).

The basic question arises: what separates subjection and rebellion? In the case of Knox's illustration, it is the "dutiful" son that binds his father when his father goes mad, and the non-dutiful son that blindly obeys, that being the death of him (and surely others). Furthermore, might some see this son as rebelling against his father? This sounds silly, but why? Would this son not be in strict disobedience to his father were he deny his father's request of his son's blood?

This running illustration gained some traction in my mind due to the recent Obamacare bill. This bill will most likely result in tax-funded abortions. The dots seem to connect quite nicely with Knox's illustration; but is the answer simply to refuse to pay taxes to the government? My initial answer is yes. I don't want to give my "father" the means to satisfy his thirst for innocent blood. But my out-of-context- Romans 13 side says, that no matter to what extent my rulers shake their fists at Almighty God, I am bound to give to them whatever they request of me.

The short answer: I don't know. I'm not sure how Christians should respond should that evil day come when our labor funds murder. Some men say pay up; others say think twice.

Thoughts?

Book Review: "Isaac Newton," by Mitch Stokes

“Isaac Newton,” a biography authored by Mitch Stokes and part of the Christian Encounters Series, was a very informative and entertaining read. As most know, Newton is hailed for his many unique and valuable contributions to the fields of mathematics and natural philosophy. The most enjoyable aspect of this particular work, as with most biographies, is learning what motivated and drove him along in his brilliance. Newton, a lifelong solitude-seeker, worked best alone, for no teacher could come close to the rigor he demanded from himself. Yet his keen intellect did not prompt him to arrogance, for he was a humble Christian man, as evidenced by his desire to understand his Lord better by seeking to understand God’s created order. What I found most surprising was that Newton wrote more on the topics of theology and Christian doctrine than any other. While not completely orthodox in his views of the Trinity (which he kept to himself throughout his life), he championed God’s gospel by glorying in God’s goodness. God, he never ceased to maintain, was the axiomatic starting point for all science inquiry; and what’s more, seeking to understand God’s ordered universe is an act of worship, for God reveals himself in the general ways of mathematics, physics, optics, and natural philosophy. Thank you Thomas Nelson for this ARC, and this outstanding biography of one of Christendom’s greatest saints.

Musical Chronological Snobbery

A few years ago, a woman came up to me after the worship service, and asked why I looked so solemn during the singing. "Worship should be joyful," she argued. I responded that I was truly joyful, and that my serious composure was the result of being joyful in the presence of the Holy Lord...or something like that.

The attitude that many Christians have and assume is that older music doesn't have any use for us today. "It is outdated." "It was cool back then, but not now." "We want music that we find cool." On and on the modern thought goes.

By what standard? Now that is a good question. By what standard is the music we bring before the throne of God worthy? Firstly, none of our music is ever worthy of God. Secondly, the standard by which must judge our music is Scripture. Yes, even the tempo, yes even the rhythm, yes even the instruments played. Questions asked may include: "Does instrument A help us to focus our corporate attention on the Lord better than instrument B?" "Does this rhythm communicate an enjoyment of self more than an enjoyment of God?" "Does the melody of this piece have a sacred sound? Is that important?"

We need to be asking ourselves more revealing questions about the song-singing in our churches. We must do so for the sake of the Kingdom.


Source article: http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/Worship.asp

Also check out: http://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Out-Without-Dumbing-Down/dp/0802841023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246338515&sr=8-1

Christian Hilarity

civitas Dei

"It would be nonsense to say this of a particular group of people: 'Though they do not wear uniforms, are not organized by rank, do not employ military language, do not enforce rules of military conduct, never perform any military ceremonies, and never engage in military operations - yet in spite of this they are the military.' (Or, it would be nonsense unless it were describing the French military.) Military culture is the sum of all these activities and practices.

Culture is not a shadowy something existing in secret "behind" its "manifestations" in language, rites, and discipline. Culture is a people organized and united by its language, rites, rules, and mechanisms of enforcement.

So also is the covenant.

So also is the Church." (Against Christianity, Peter Leithart)

Counterfeit Virtue

Alcohol is synonymous with sin for many. Still for others it is considered an act of Christian love to perpetually abstain from alcohol, to provide a good Christian witness to others. My beef with the latter view (the former being easily dismissed on account of Scripture, and also condemned in the heresy of Manicheism) is that it creates a counterfeit virtue for the Christian.

The erroneous logic is as follows: 1. Alcohol itself is not inherently bad. 2. Perpetual abstinence from "stumbling" consumables is commanded from Scripture for reason of providing a good Christian witness. 3. Therefore, perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not bad; it is in fact a virtue.

My claim is that perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not good, and Scripture by no means condones this false conviction; it is in fact a counterfeit virtue.

Starting from the first premise: alcohol is not inherently bad. The positive of this negative statement is that alcohol is inherently good. Alcohol, being a creation of our Lord, is intrinsically good. Unlike the Manichees who understood evil to be tangible, Jesus states that "it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Matt. 15:11). Evil is not tangible; evil is spiritual. This the Bible makes this absolutely clear (Gen. 1:11-12, Matt. 15:11, Romans 14:14, 1 Tim. 4:3).

The second premise is where things have gotten hairy in many modern churches; this is where my disagreement lies. In Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s book, "God Gave Wine," he devotes an entire chapter to the exegesis of Romans 14. In that chapter, Paul is speaking to the Romans about the doctrine of Christian liberty. There were a few things that stuck out to me in this chapter. One such point is the term "stumbling block" that many Christians like to throw around. What does this cryptic saying mean? What constitutes as a "stumbling block?" Gentry defines the Greek word used here: proskomma. As it turns out, this Greek word does not simply mean something that causes someone to feel uncomfortable or irritated. The meaning is much stronger than that. Proskomma in the Greek refers to something that causes someone to fall into sin against God. Notice the word "cause." If the effect of my cause is rebellion against the Lord, then I should not do what is in question. On how many occasions is moderate alcohol consumption a cause for sin? Let us answer the question with care, for our Savior Himself consumed alcohol in public, around the society's lowest, most likely some of which may have been tempted with the sin of drunkenness.

The fact is that Christ did not cause anyone to sin. "Cause" implies intent. If it is my intent to cause someone to fall into sin, then I have sinned; I am responsible. We cannot cause someone to sin if it is not our intent to do so. If our intent is not to make others sin and simply enjoy God's goodness and providence, then the responsibility literally does not lie with us for the sin they may commit as the result of our lawful activity. We cannot unknowingly cause someone to sin, according to the very nature and definition of the word proskomma.

So how, then, should we approach alcohol? In the same way we approach everything else. With sobriety of mind and spirit, and with praise for our Lord on our lips. He is good, and all that he has created is good. Alcohol abstention is, in fact, nothing more than a counterfeit virtue, a "virtue" that Christ Himself did not practice.

It is dangerous business indeed to try and be holier than Christ; that was the Pharisee's fatal game. Let us give thanks to our Maker for the good things he has given to us to enjoy; let us praise Him by enjoying alcohol as He meant for it to be enjoyed. Cheers!