God's Calculus Cameo

God made a guest appearance in my calculus class today. My professor was attempting to explain the concept of limits approaching infinity. If you have never taken a calculus class, then just pretend you know what this means. I would explain it to you if I had any grasp of the mathematical world. As far as I can discern, my professor is not a believer. But today he said something rather peculiarly God-glorifying. He gave the following example:

I recently saw a map of the universe. The map was oval-shaped, and it charted various galaxies and astronomical bodies in relation to each other. But this map really does us a great disservice – it shows only the universe within this oval shape. How many of you really believe there is a boundary to the universe? What happens if I go to the end of the universe and take another step? Apparently I expand the universe.

When he asked how many people in the class really believed that there was a boundary to the universe, not one hand was raised. Perhaps this is not shocking when you take time to think through it, but it is revealing. And it is beautiful: though we may not be able to wrap our minds fully around the idea of an infinite universe, it is still easier than believing in a finite universe. Today, I praised God as a classroom full of likely unbelievers unknowingly testified to God’s infinite nature. How may we say that something infinite has been created by something finite, or by nothing at all?

Rather, I concur with Ezra, and say to God: “You are the LORD, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you” (Nehemiah 9:6). Ah, not only has God created all of this infinity, but also He preserves it; “he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). And yet His hand sustains not only the infinite universe as a whole, but me individually.

I agree with David, and proclaim: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Psalm 8:3-4). I love that I can read this passage and recognize that “mindful” is bit of an understatement. Yes, even that God is mindful of me is amazing – but how much moreso that He is merciful and gracious and just. He is not merely mindful of me – He sent His Son to die in my place.

And I believe God, when He says directly: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host” (Isaiah 45:11-12).

Thank You, God, for illustrating Your infinite nature to me today. Thank You for reminding me that You are present even at the lowest point of my day (calculus class), directing my gaze once again toward You. Thank You that all of creation testifies to the glory of Your name!

A Strange Phenomenon

So I definitely dropped the ball on my Clash summaries. I apologize most profusely that the start of school has interrupted my intention to continue covering the material from the conference. I hope at least to write a few more summaries, but I have other thoughts on my mind until then!

School has not been taking all of my time, you see. I’ve been reading a lot, and as a result I’ve been learning a lot. I have always loved to read, but I have The Clash to thank for my recent increase in both my reading list and my desire to spend more time reading books that actually matter.

I don’t think there’s a word for this phenomenon, but I’m sure I’m not the only one this happens to: you know how when you hear about something you’ve never heard about before, or when you learn a word you have never known before, all of the sudden in the next few days or even weeks it seems to come up constantly? And then you wonder whether it has always been around and you’ve just never noticed it before because you’ve never known what it was, or whether it’s just one of those inexplicable mysteries of life…

Well, that’s how my life has been since The Clash. I’m reading several books right now, and it seems that every chapter I read correlates almost directly to another chapter I might have read in another book, and then the same theme or topic comes up in my Bible-reading one morning, and then the Sunday morning sermon joins the fray. It’s everywhere I turn. And like I questioned earlier, I don’t know if this is only because I have come to recognize more connections within the Christian life, or if it’s one of those mysteries. In this case, I’m going to name that mystery God. I choose to believe that God is showing me something very closely related to many of the themes from The Clash. When I build my worldview on God and His revelation of Himself to me, not only does everything about the world and myself begin to make sense, but every component of the Christian life seems to fall into place, and it all ties back to Him.

Everything about the Christian life ties back to God? That sounds childishly obvious. Maybe it is, but I think it’s easier to forget that it seems. I think particularly for those who have been raised around Christianity, though our faith is genuine and our convictions biblical, it can be easy to forget to ground both faith and convictions about life in God and His self-revelation through His Word. We must realize there really is no other source through which we can know anything. Romans 11:36 (a theme verse from The Clash) says quite universally: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.” If we believe the Bible is true, there’s no escaping that. We may appreciate some aspects of God through creation, but His primary method of revelation is through His Word. We may even see creation as a complement to the Bible’s revelation, but it must never be a substitute. There is no means outside of the Bible through which we may really know God.

I’m not getting off topic – I think this is crucial to the “phenomenon” I was talking about before. I don’t think my phenomenon is a unique experience. Maybe I’m only now beginning to understand what it means to know God through His Word. It’s no mystery that the books I’m reading and the messages I’m hearing about the Christian life are all repeating each other and tying together. It’s all coming from the Word of God. God reveals Himself and His will for my life through His Word, not directly through other books or even sermons. Those mediums are thankfully available (and important!) to point us to and help us understand the Bible, but they should not by any means replace the Bible. Of course the Word of God ties back into itself and relates to all aspects of the Christian life!

There’s a little picture into what my life has been for the past week or two. I mentioned I have been learning a lot, and that is true. I am excited to write about some of these things, not because they will be anything new for most of you, but because it’s exciting enough to me that I cannot contain it to myself!

And as a side note – everyone should read “The Certainty of Faith” by Herman Bavinck. Every attendee of The Clash received a copy of this book, but if you had not the fortune of being there, find this book and read it. It is short and easy to read (I read it in one sitting) and chock full of wisdom and insight. I underlined sentences and paragraphs on just about every page.

The Clash: Epistemology

So in our ongoing attempt to prove that the only sure foundation for our worldview is God, we have now unsuccessfully attempted to build our house of knowledge on the world (See “The Clash: Metaphysics”). There yet remains, however, the argument for building our worldview on man, or on ourselves. I am skipping over several lectures again both because in the logical progression of how I have been presenting the material, this lecture comes next, and because if I leave it too much longer I might very well forget it entirely. Next to Metaphysics, it is this lecture on Epistemology that most strained my mind, and therefore solidified itself as one of my favorites of the week.

As with metaphysics, we will begin with the simple definition of epistemology: our theory of knowing. For this argument, we turn to the great philosopher Rene Descartes. In attempt to find out what he could build his house of knowledge upon, Descartes devised a method of doubt. His idea was that if he could doubt everything he possibly could, that which remained would be that on which he could build his worldview. He decided to doubt everything he could and see what was left.

The first thing he stripped away was all his senses. He allowed for the possibility that he could be dreaming. This thought process would like something like this: “Everything I see and hear and feel now seems to be real, but all these senses also seems to be real when I am dreaming. Therefore how do I know that I am not now dreaming?” So the senses were the first to go, leaving only that which was in his mind. Next he took away all arithmetic, arguing there is always the possibility of mistakes, or there is a theoretical possibility of a deceptive god causing him to be mistaken. All these things could be doubted. His great conclusion is quoted as follows:

“But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no mind, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.” And so was born the great philosophical argument known as the Cogito: I think, therefore I am.

If the Descartes’ quote doesn’t make sense to you, stay with me. All he is saying is that even if there WAS something out there deceiving him into thinking everything incorrectly about the universe, there still has to be a him to deceive. Supreme-Being-X can’t deceive Descartes if Descartes doesn’t exist.

And so we arrive again at what seems to be a working argument for the existence of self without first presupposing the existence of God. But there are still a few unanswered questions. Here we go:

First, we must separate the Cogito into a syllogism, which is simply a logical structure. Our syllogism for Descartes’ Cogito looks like this:
Major Premise: Whatever thinks, exists.
Minor Premise: I think.
Conclusion: Therefore, I exist.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the major premise, but we must ask Descartes: “Do you have any concept of what ‘I’ means in the minor premise?” And again for the sake of argument, Descartes replies: “’I’ means ‘a thinking thing.’” If this is the definition of “I,” then the syllogism becomes:
Major Premise: Whatever thinks, exists.
Minor Premise: A thinking thing thinks.
Conclusion: Therefore, a thinking thing exists.
This conclusion is now very different from our first conclusion, though. We have proven that something exists, but we have not proven that this something is Descartes, or “I.”

But what if Descartes didn’t know what “I” was? What if he answered to our question: “No, I don’t know what ‘I’ means in the minor premise.” The problem then becomes that if you don’t know what “I” means in the minor premise, then you certainly don’t know what “I” means in the conclusion. This may conclude that Descartes exists, but it does not in any way answer what exactly Descartes is. He clearly does not know himself as a specific individual. If the sole definition of Descartes is “a thinking thing,” but Brian Whalen is also “a thinking thing,” how is Brian Whalen different from Descartes? Are they the same being?

The point here is that the argument becomes confusing when we use personal pronouns, because they are subjective. It is just the same as using a demonstrative pronoun: you might as well say “This thinks” to a blind person, and expect them to know exactly what you are talking about. Remember that Descartes has doubted the existence of his senses – he has no external context by which to define “I.”

So Descartes fails. But what if Descartes was incorrect in his decision to rule out all his senses? Could not the argument work if we provide an external context for “I”? Let’s try it out. Let’s claim that Brian Whalen’s present space-time position is part of his essential definition and distinguishes him as an individual. My definition may therefore become: a thinking thing that is sitting at his computer desk in his room at 11:00 PM on August 14, 2007. I have successfully distinguished myself from all other thinking things, since no other being can occupy the same space at the same time. But if this is my definition, what happens when it becomes 11:01 PM? Have I ceased to be Brian Whalen? What if I walk down to the bathroom? Have I then ceased to be Brian Whalen? I must then be a different being at every instant of every day.

Okay, so I have to expand the definition of myself to include all the spaces and times I will ever occupy. Then a new problem arises – I can only occupy one point and one time. “If my future space-time properties are part of my essential definition, then I do not yet fit the description of what I essentially am. I am not yet myself.” Even bigger than this problem, however, is that in order to know myself truly, I must know the entire course of my entire life. When I admit that I do not know the course of my entire life, I admit that I do not really know myself at all.

The biggest problem with defining myself by my space-time position is yet to be said: “If I am, by definition… the-being-that-sits-at-his-desk-in-his-room-at-11:00-PM… then it would be a logical contradiction for me to be anywhere else at that time.” My space-time position becomes a necessary fact rather than a contingent fact. But everyone would agree that my space-time position is a contingent fact: I could have chosen to be somewhere else at that time without ceasing to be myself. So I cannot define myself without my space-time position, but neither can I define myself with my space-time position.

And so again we must find ourselves turning to a presupposition of God if we are to know anything about ourselves or anything at all. If we allow for God and the possibility of hypothetical necessity (as talked about in Metaphysics), then we may say that all of my space-time properties are not only known by God, but decreed by God. Nathan writes that “the meaning of any thing—its origin, duration, and destiny, its essence as well as its existence—consists in its place in God’s plan. To know what a thing is, is to know its place in the plan of God.”

I end, as Nathan did, with a summary quote from John Calvin:
“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he ‘lives and moves’ [Acts 17:28]… Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself…Yet, however the knowledge of God and of ourselves are mutually connected, the order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first, then proceed afterward to treat the latter.”

I repeat my appeal for feedback and thoughts on the manner in which I have presented this material. I repeat my complete lack of original thoughts for the actual content of this post, and give all due credit to Nathan Sasser and the many men on whose thoughts he himself stood. I do continue to hope, however, that I have served to clarify rather than confuse.

The Clash: Metaphysics

I am jumping ahead several messages to talk about metaphysics because it makes most sense to me in progression from the introduction I posted yesterday. I am also doing this because Metaphysics was one of my favorite lectures of the entire week. It was upon hearing this message that I knew two things for sure: 1) that Nathan Sasser would forever be my hero, and 2) that all the effort and money it took to get to The Clash was well worth it.

I mentioned in “The Clash: The Beginning” how man has unsuccessfully attempted to build a worldview on the world itself. Otherwise called a scientific worldview, this is when you start with observation of the external world and, by means of induction, try to discover the laws of nature.

So what on earth is metaphysics? By definition, it is simply a theory of reality. Nathan titled this message “Why does anything happen at all?: Necessity, Causality, and the Creator-creature Distinction.” Before we dive into what is universally called “the Cosmological Argument,” there are a few definitions which must be understood. First, necessity: something is said to be necessary which cannot be otherwise. Second, contingency: something is said to be contingent when it is neither impossible nor necessary (therefore it is possible, but not necessary). In the words of Nathan Sasser, “Stay with me.”

The Cosmological Argument attempts to use a neutral concept of necessity to try to prove that there must be a necessary being. There is a principle called the Principle of Sufficient Reason which says that nothing exists or occurs without a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise. From this principle we derive the idea of necessary beings and contingent beings. A necessary being has its sufficient reason for existing within itself. A contingent being has a sufficient reason for existing outside of itself.

Okay, so what does all this mean? The world is full of contingents. There is a possibility that anything in the world might have failed to exist. Think of anything in the world, and then decide whether that thing absolutely had to exist. Of course the answer is no. Anything in the world could have been otherwise. Nothing in the world is necessary. Since the world is therefore contingent, it must have a sufficient reason for existing outside of itself, and its sufficient reason must be a necessary being. We call this necessary being God.

There are two objections to this reasoning, which at first glance may appear as though it has successfully argued the existence of a necessary being, or a “god” of some kind. First – if the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true, then the universe necessarily exists, and becomes a necessary being itself. (Stay with me.) “If the sufficient reasons for Item X are present, then Item X can’t possibly fail to exist. A complete explanation of the sufficient reasons for Item X does not leave open any possibility that Item X can be other than what it is. So, if the necessary being exists (God) and is the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, then the universe cannot possibly fail to exist. In other words, the universe becomes a necessary being and therefore God is no longer a necessary explanation.

Lost? I’m essentially going to repeat what I just said in that paragraph with the illustration Nathan gave us. In Nathan World, snow is contingent on two things: there must be moisture in the air, and it must be cold. This means that every time there is moisture in the air AND it is cold, there must be snow. Moisture in the air and cold are the sufficient beings. Let’s apply it to me: If God is my ONLY sufficient reason, and He DOES exist, then I must exist. There are no other factors to be considered which might cause me not to exist, because God is my only sufficient reason. If I must exist, then I am a necessary being.

The second objection is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false, and there is no such thing as cause and effect. Nathan presented the arguments of David Hume, who claimed that humans have never observed necessary or casual connections between objects. Hume argues that cause and effect connections are not necessary, even though we might observe them thousands of times over. There is no logical argument against this theory, absurd though it sounds. He says, “For what reason we pronounce it necessary, that every thing whose existence has a beginning, should also have a cause?” He says that it is logically conceivable for something to begin to exist without a cause. [Keep in mind – nobody is saying this is likely; he is only arguing that it is logically possible; in other words, there is no way to argue that it could not happen.]

This second objection leads us to the conclusion that brute facts exists, which are contingent things or events which exist or happen for no sufficient reason; they just happen. But if even one thing in the universe can be a brute fact, then anything in the universe can be a brute fact. How do we know what is brute fact and what is not? How do we carry out scientific investigation? How do we even know that any of our knowledge is correct at all?

So all of this leads up to an even greater dilemma. If the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not true, and brute facts exist, then there is nothing in the universe that can be known for sure. But if the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true, and the universe exists necessarily, then everything in the universe has to exist exactly as it does, and everything can be known for sure. Either we know nothing or we know everything.

So what is the use of all this reasoning? It helps us see that we cannot argue for the existence of our God through the external world. As we prove that neither argument here holds weight, we can from there progress into our claim that nothing about the world can be known unless we first presuppose God. And as we presuppose God, we can see that everything makes sense. A house of knowledge built on the world cannot stand.

How does presupposing God solve the dilemma? If we believe in God as described in the Bible, we may present the idea of dual causality, or dual necessity. We may say that there is absolute necessity, which includes only God and His attributes. He cannot deny Himself; His non-existence is impossible. And then there is hypothetical necessity, which says that everything that God decrees or wills to happen, must, necessarily, happen. And this means by implication that only that which God has decreed can happen. “God was free to either not create any world at all, or create a different kind of world with a different history. In this sense, our world exists contingently. However, once God has decreed what will happen, it cannot possibly fail to happen, in virtue of its hypothetical necessity.”

I hope I have presented this material in a way that may be understood. I am afraid that though I grasp the concept when I hear it, I do not have Nathan’s gift or experience of effectively communicating the arguments. I would greatly appreciate any feedback both from those who attended the Clash and those who did not.

The Clash: The Beginning

Well, I’m home at last, and with information stuffed into every corner of my mind. But perhaps more importantly for you, I also have a neatly organized notebook which will aid me in recalling that information and presenting it in what will hopefully be a semi-coherent manner. I dare not aspire to recounting the content of even the majority of the sessions, but I will share those which most heavily impacted me and those which I found most crucial to the central message of the conference. (If you do not know what I’m talking about, check out my previous few posts.)

Before anything else, I must express once again my absolute amazement at this conference as a whole. The Clash far exceeded all of my (high) expectations, and I am already counting this past week as one of the highlights of my life to date. Beside the wealth of solid teaching which I was so blessed to receive, I was encouraged daily by the other 150 Clash Attendees -- by their obvious passion for the Lord, by their dedication to the Truth, and by their friendship. The questions some of them would ask in the post-lecture discussions caused me to realize how out of my league I really was; I followed along with the various speakers without problem, but my mind could not conceive of some of the intelligent questions which were being asked. Their humility and hunger for learning were both convicting and contagious. I must publicly thank Jeff Purswell and Nathan Sasser for their most excellent leadership of the conference, and Paul Medler for his planning and hours upon hours of giving up his life to serve us. Thanks also to all the pastors who took time away from their home churches to come and lead small groups.

So what on earth is The Clash? The clash is not a conference so much as an idea: it is a word we used to describe the battle that is going on between Christians and the world. It is the antithesis between the two types of worldviews any person may adopt. Either we choose to view the world on the basis of the Creator, or we choose to view the world on the basis of creation. Worldview has three major components: God, man, and the world. God is the Creator. Man and the world are the creation. Nathan Sasser opened up the conference with this introduction and by arguing that all worldviews include a “god.” Whatever a person chooses to build his worldview upon is his functional god. As Christians, we see building worldview on anything other than God the Creator as idolatry. There is only Creator-based worldview or creation-based worldview. There is truth or there is idolatry.

Nathan continued to explain this concept of a triune worldview by presenting the concept of each person building their own “house of knowledge.” One may choose to build upon a foundation of any of the three components. A scientific worldview (foundation on world) starts with observation of the external world and, by means of induction, tries to discover the laws of nature. A philosophical worldview (foundation on man) starts with the thinking mind and, by conceptual analysis and the laws of logic tries to discover external reality. A religious worldview (foundation on God) views everything from the standpoint of the consciousness of dependence upon God, and refers all back to God. Below is a quick rendering of what a house of knowledge built on God would look like:



From here, we established the idea of a necessary antithesis between the Creator-based and the creation-based worldview. Cornelius Van Til writes, “The struggle between Christian theism and its opponents cover the whole field of knowledge. It is not as though we are at the outset dealing with the question of the knowledge of the world about us and that the only point in dispute is whether or not God can be and need be known… Christian theism’s fundamental contention is just this, that nothing whatsoever can be known unless God can be and is known… there is not a spot in heaven or on earth about which there is no dispute between the two opposing parties.” Most importantly, however, it is the condition of our heart that determines which worldview we adopt. Man, outside of the regeneration offered through the Holy Spirit because of Christ on the cross, will not ever choose to make God the basis of his house of knowledge. Natural man will always choose a false god.

There is no simple definition of what exactly encompasses a Christian worldview, but certainly it must first include an accurate picture of God, as He is to be the basis upon which our worldview is to be built. If the primary difference in worldviews is whether man builds on the Creator or the creation, there must be obvious difference between the Creator and the creation. God is not like man. God is independent, self-existent, self-determined, immutable, and transcendent. Man is sinful, unable to “even know [himself] without knowing God.” Nathan Sasser gave two specific lectures later which explained how man has tried to build worldviews on either the world or himself, and showed very effectively why neither of these work. [Look soon for my notes on Metaphysics and Epistemology.]

Why develop a Christian worldview? To answer this question, I refer to a quote from Abraham Kuyper which showed up many times throughout the week, and one I intend to include in my regular repertoire: “Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”

I have only just scratched the surface, but I believe this first introductory message is crucial if any of my subsequent posts are going to make sense. It is in light of this view that all the other lectures were presented. Please know that in writing this post I have relied heavily on Nathan Sasser’s outline, and though some wording may be my own, none of the ideas are. This may not be new for many of you, but I promise this was necessary (for me if for no one else) for all the writing I hope and plan to do in this upcoming week. Please e-mail me or post a comment with any specific questions regarding the material, as I am sure I will often fail to explain coherently.

Guest Blogger: Emily Hollis

Well, it turns out that it is possible to find time in this crazy conference to sit down and formulate thoughts. But not for me. Please allow me to introduce to you my friend Emily Hollis who has graciously written out these thoughts with the primary intent of posting them on my little blog for you to read. Her thoughts are not only an excellent summary of what we have learned today, but an encouragement and exhortation to follow up and apply that knowledge.

----

Hello all... I am Emily of the Hollis family, and Brian told me at the beginning of this Clash week of insanity that I was going to write a guest post; I just had to let him know when I was ready. Well, I am ready.

Today, the last three sessions of the day were on Government/Politics and how a Christian worldview is to approach them. I literally jumped in excitement when I heard this was going to be the case because, as some of you know (while I am not nearly as famous as Brian, I can say I am acquainted with some of you who faithfully read his blog), I am a political and historical nutcase- I even received the "Social Studies" award at graduation... that was just a nice way of putting "History Nerd" award. I am getting a little off track, but I feel that my passionate statements need to be prefaced by informing you that I am somewhat insane, proud of it, and probably about to expose that at even a deeper yet hopefully infinitely more valuable level.

Dr. Gregory Thornbury was the lecturer today, and let me just say, he was INCREDIBLE! He's a Dean of something very important at Union University and he is very, very, very smart. He brought to us in his last lecture on “Christianity and the Public Square” a number of things that Christians today wrongly assume as their role in politics. They either believe that they have no role in politics, or they believe that it is their duty as Christians to turn America into a Christian nation- into God's perfect kingdom on earth. They are sadly misled, however admirable their desires are. Dr. T (as I will call him for sake of weariness and the inability to type his name accurately) explained that it is our job as Christians to be the best citizens... Athenagoras in 177 AD said of the Christian church in the Roman empire that they were the best citizens- they were not adulterers, promiscuous, divorcing, etc.- but they obeyed the laws and helped the poor and sick. They were the perfect citizens. He asked us if that same thing could be said of the American Evangelical church of today... the obvious answer is no, it could not.

So what does that mean, and why does that matter? Well, our duty as Christians concerning politics is to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to GOD what is GOD's... to explain that- we are to give our government the payment for our involvement in the commerce and activity in the economy and the services they provide for us, but we are to give God our glory and praise. In order to give God our glory and praise, we are obligated to protect His creation... to subdue it, and politics is a way of doing that. Not only are we to be nice to animals, not litter, and try to conserve water, we are also to protect the images of God, that is the people, of our country. We are obligated to give a gospel-centered argument for political reform.

An example of this zealous quest to apply biblical moral codes to the world without trying to perfect it into God's kingdom on earth, would be William Wilberforce. He was the driving force behind the abolition of the slave trade and eventually slavery altogether in England. He used his God-given gifts of incredible oration and his gospel-centered convictions to correct a social injustice and evil. He did so, however, not hiding his foundation of biblical truth. He preached the gospel while reforming a political structure. He realized that moralizing His nation would not make it a perfect Christian nation, but it was his duty to protect the creation of his God and show his love to others (i.e. common grace) by assuring their safety and freedom. A similar example is Ake Green- a Swedish pastor turned media deemed political activist... he spoke out against homosexuality and sexual promiscuity in Sweden during a Sunday morning message and ended up using that same message to defend himself in the Supreme Court of Sweden!

What is the common thread in these three examples? Well, neither the early Christians, Wilberforce or Green attempted to "take back America for Christ." They simply tried to stop or reverse the crippling effect of a cultural or societal problem that the world was blind to. And they did so by showing a societal evil, offering a gospel centered alternative, and offering the redemptive grace of God through the blood of Jesus.

So why did I get so excited about that? Well, one, because any opportunity for me to be able to argue for something political makes me unable to contain myself, but more so (at least I hope it is more so) I finally have figured out how my desire to see change and help effect change can correctly, effectively, and humbly be used for good in my world. God gave me a love for politics and history and a love for debate... and by grace He has given me the ability to desire to see Him glorified and to spread His message of hope. Maybe I have found a way to use my gifts and desires to glorify Him, or maybe I have simply been convinced that politics are important, more so than I thought. And I hope this has caused you to think about how you view your effect on politics, societal morals, culture, etc. When someday you have an opportune moment to speak out against abortion, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality, and tyrannical governments, ask yourself these questions... What should I, as a Christian, say that no one else will? How can I use my gospel-centered moral conscience to effect a hurting world? Can I be the Ezekiel 22:30 "man in the gap" who is missing- the one who will stand up for the moral code necessary to hold together a nation that God has revealed to us in scripture? How can I respond in a way that will glorify God and show His love to a fallen and hurting nation?

I hope my thoughts were accurate, helpful, encouraging, and challenging. Thanks Brian for allowing me to share, and thanks everyone else for listening to me!

A Moment to Breathe?

Okay, so you haven't heard from me in a little while because this is quite possibly the busiest schedule I have ever before lived out, and I just don't know how to find time. Actually, I would be able to find it if any spare existed, but alas it does not. I will try to keep updating a little bit each day but I doubt that I will get to complete any of my lecture recaps as I had hoped -- that will have to wait until next week I think. I have not been getting much sleep, and with no time for naps I am nearing exhaustion, but regardless I am going to take a few minutes to update here before bed.

Nathan Sasser's lecture on metaphysics was one of the coolest things I have ever heard, and he came in close second to himself tonight with his lecture on Epistlemology, including a case study on Rene Descartes which I found most absolutely fascinating. I am looking forward to reading further material on both topics when I get home, as I am sure there is far more that Nathan was not able to cover in a one-session lecture.

In more mundane news, we lost our volleyball game today, but that was to be mostly expected. I have high expectations for ultimate frisbee tomorrow. In better news, we had some great games of Dutch Blitz tonight.

I have been particularly amazed by the incredible intelligence of the other Clash attendees. I am in the company of much wiser 17-20 year olds than myself. After most sessions the lecturer opens up the floor for Q&A, and some people are asking questions that would never have crossed my mind -- intelligent questions that make even the lecturer pause and think sometimes.

Most of all, I am so grateful to be here, and even though day two is now over, I can't really get over how incredibly cool this whole experience is and how blessed I am to be a part of it. I have no doubt that this week is going to stand out as a highlight of my life probably for the rest of it I have yet to live. I am particuarly excited about the abundance of friendships that I am building, and I know are also being formed all across the conference. I can't wait to see what happens from here.

And now I must sleep, for 6:30 comes sooner than I could hope. I think Stepheno is already asleep despite the incessant drone of my typing. Here is a picture of Stepheno and Aaron in the back seat of my car on the drive up from Virginia Beach:

Kickball and Anticipation of Metaphysics

Session three was good, though I have to admit to a few moments of near-nodding off. It was right after lunch and the room was just a tad warm. Perfect nap conditions.

From there the great discussion group team of Nick Swan (Crossway Community in Charlotte, NC) won a game of kickball. It was sweet.

Dinner was tolerable. Session four is about to start, and then after a short break will be the highlight of the week: Metaphysics!

I just might actually have time to talk about the content of the messages later tonight, and some pictures should be forthcoming as well.

Food!

In the dining room eating lunch -- session 2 is now over and Bryan Detwiler is making fun of me blogging in the cafeteria. He'll be making a guest appearance later this week.

Again, I don't really have time to give a recap of the session, but so far I have been amazed by the incredible content of the messages and I have already heard many things I have definitely have not heard before -- probably a combination of the lecturer's superior intelligence and my own lack of it.

Jeff Purswell outlined the story of the Bible in its four major phases -- Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation, highlighting God's faithfulness throughout and pointing out the ongoing batttle between two conflicting worldviews -- between those who worship the creation and those who worship the Creator.

Anyway, the food is tolerable, and I've got about 3 minutes until our group is meeting for discussion so I must be off. Pray for the discussion group leaders as they help facilitate the processing of the lectures. Almost all of the discussion group leaders are pastors in their churches, and they are taking the time to lead a small group of 17-20 year olds, and for them we are very grateful.

Introduction to Worldview

First session is over and we've got a twenty minute break before the next session begins. Nathan Sasser outlined the three main components of world view: God, man, and world. Everyone has a worldview, and all worldviews are broken down into two categories: creation-based or creator-based.

Will update this post later with more details -- next up is the Doctrine of God, Part 1.

Schedule.

Good morning. By good, I do not mean to imply that being up this early is good in any way, shape, or form, but simply that the grace of God is new this morning and will be much required today. It's 6:17 AM. I have not been awake this early in a very long time.

As will typically be the case, I don't have much time now, but here's a little preview at what our schedule looks like for today:

6:30-7:30 am - Wake up, clean up, quiet time
7:30-8:15 am - Breakfast
8:30-8:50 am - Worship
8:50-9:50 am - Introduction to Worldviews by Nathan Sasser
9:50-10:20 am - Break (And already needed, I think.)
10:20-12:00 pm - Kingdom of God, Part 1 by Jeff Purswell
12:15-1:15 pm - Lunch
1:15-1:45 pm - Group Discussion
2:00-3:15 pm - Kingdom of God, Part 2 by Jeff Purswell
3:30-5:00 pm - Recreation and Sports
5:15-6:15 pm - Dinner
6:30-7:45 pm - Doctrine of God by Nathan Sasser
7:45-8:15 pm - Break
8:15-9:30 pm - Metaphysics by Nathan Sasser
9:45-10:15 pm - Group Discussion

Now multiply this times five, and you will get an idea what our schedule is like for the entire week. Please be praying for all of us today -- that God would focus our minds to take in the wealth of knowledge which we are about to receive.

Clashing.

Hello. This is the beginning of the attempts I am going to make to blog throughout the week of the Sovereign Grace Conference, The Clash. I've been driving for two days and I'm exhausted, so instead of explaining it, I direct you here.

So we have arrived safely, had a great time getting here, and we are all super-excited for the days ahead. Tonight was orientation and an "ice cream social" which, as you might expect, was compromised of eating ice cream and socializing. I didn't eat ice cream, but I did a lot of socializing. In case you were wondering.

My wonderful roommate, Stepheno Zollos, from the great church of Sovereign Grace in Chesapeake, VA is now trying to go to sleep, so I'm going to cut this short. He's greek. Don't mess with greeks.

Anyway, I have already met tons of new people and re-acquainted with many old friends. There are only about 150 total people in attendance, so it's not too far-fetched a goal to meet everyone here before the end of the week. Good plan, I think.

That's all for tonight. Our schedule for each day is rather inhuman, so I don't know how often I will be able to update, but we'll see how it goes. Until next time...

On A Street in London

I accidentally came across a news brief this evening. It read, simply:

“A teenager has been shot dead on a south London street.

The victim, who police describe as "in his late teens", was discovered at 2210 BST on Marcus Garvey Way, close to Brixton underground station.

Officers were called to the area after receiving reports of shots being fired. Attempts are being made to identify the dead boy.

The killing takes the number of teenagers murdered in London this year to 17.”

I’ve read a lot of blogs lately which have used the recent story of the Minneapolis bridge collapse as a springboard into the topic of human mortality and the frailty of life and the ultimate sovereignty of God. And I believe they are right to do so. Perhaps there was even a teenage boy who died on that bridge, and I understand the tragedy of a young life lost that goes hand in hand with the unchanging goodness of God despite the sorrow. But it’s this teenage boy, found dead on a street in London, who has driven himself into my heart.

Was it his fault? Was he aware of the risks he might one day face? Did he see it coming? Did he run? Did he fight back? Did he deserve it? Was it revenge; was it fear? Did he know when he woke up this morning that today would be the day he completed his life on earth? What did he dream last night? Did he know that on August 3, 2007 he would cease being a friend, a son, a brother, and become a statistic – the seventeenth teenager to be murdered in London in the year 2007.

I don’t think he knew. But now I know, and I wonder what his life was like. I wonder if he ever sat and watched the rain at night, as I do now. I wonder if he ever read any of the books I have read, or sang the same songs. I wonder if he ever took the time to figure out what this life is for. The great thinker Blaise Pascal assures us that in life “the last act is bloody, however fine the rest of the play. They throw earth over your head and it is finished forever.” This is the conclusion for which all of us wait, unless Christ should first return. I do not say this in a mood of gross morbidity, but in solemn consideration.

There is life-changing truth in the fact that you and I are going to die. Is it not grand that it is the very inevitability of death that determines the way we live the lives which there lead. I find it beautifully circular and strangely logical. How wise is God, to put ever before us something we cannot escape to contrast the spiritual death which we are able to escape because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. How perfect is God, to make no way out, even for His people, to show that it is not this life on earth that is of primary importance in eternity.

I don’t know why God decided for today to be the day that this boy in London would die. I don’t know whether his soul is now suffering or rejoicing. But I know that God can show Himself in all circumstances, and I thank God for speaking to me through this boy’s death. I do not believe that I will soon forget him, though I never knew him. He will remind me of eternity, and of the unfathomable vastness of God’s mercy – to save me, a sinner like this boy in London, from a death infinitely worse than that which will separate me from this earth.