Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Mark McIntyre

What is sinful about man’s fallen condition?

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

Question 18Question 18 asks, “What is sinful about man’s fallen condition?”

I actually prefer the original answer to this one which is, “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’ s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.”

Malcolm Muggeridge has written, “The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.” One does not have to work very hard to find evidence that something is very broken in the world. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that there is something very broken inside of us.

The Christian explanation is that what is wrong with the world is that men (and women) start out broken because we have inherited a sin nature from our first parents. In other words, we are born in a state of rebellion against God and it is only an act of God’s grace that can overcome this state.

Yes, I realize that this is not a popular idea. We would all like to believe that men are basically good and that given the right conditions, they will do the right thing and life will be lovely. But history does not bear this out. I just heard on the news yesterday that in the City of Philadelphia, deaths from opioid overdose have quadrupled in the last few years. While our culture is moving further toward personal freedom, it seems that this freedom is not bringing the intended result. Despair seems to be on the increase.

This answer does not teach us that all men are as bad as they could be. There are many people who are loving, kind upstanding citizens who don’t believe in God or identify themselves as Christians. The idea of the depravity of man does not deny that men retain some desire to pursue good ends.

Nor does it teach us that those who come to believe in Jesus Christ will no longer struggle with a sin nature. The Apostle Paul has a lot to say about this in Romans 7.

What this idea does teach us is that we are in need of a Savior to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. A proper understanding of original sin reveals that while we do things that look good on the outside, we do them for all the wrong reasons. If the proper goal of life is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, then everything must be done with that motivation. The problem is that we can do good things for selfish reasons.

I am constantly reminded that Christianity is not a moral code of behavior. It is not a set of rules to be obeyed. Christianity at its center is trusting in Jesus Christ to do for us what we could not do for ourselves. It is trusting that Christ’s righteous life is accepted by God on our behalf (See 2 Cor. 5:21).

What I’ve been doing instead of blogging

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

PCA LogoThose who regularly read this blog have probably realized that over the last year, posts have been rather sporadic. I took a long break between Memorial Day and Labor Day and haven’t posted very regularly since coming back to it in September.

I thought I would take a few minutes to tell you what has been consuming my time.

A couple of years ago, I became convinced that I should pursue licensure to preach in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), the domination to which I currently belong. The reasons for pursuing this were two. First, it was an opportunity to sharpen both my knowledge of the Bible and my theological understanding. And secondly, it would qualify me to be “on the bench” for the PCA churches in our area, some of which are small church plants that do not have multiple elders who are qualified to fill the pulpit.

The PCA has adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith along with the two Westminster Catechisms as the definitive statements of their belief. These were documents to which I had no exposure prior to moving forward toward licensure. And, while I have a graduate degree in Biblical Studies, that degree was obtained more than 25 years ago, so I was more than a little rusty in my knowledge and it took a lot of time and effort to gain the required familiarity with these documents to pass the licensure examinations. This preparation consumed the time that I would otherwise have invested in posting to this blog.

I am happy to say that last Saturday, February 18, the final step in the process was completed. I am now officially licensed by the Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery to preach in the churches of the PCA. I am relieved that the process is over and am excited to see what opportunities present themselves to preach. I am also happy to be able to spend some time writing for Attempts at Honesty.

Before starting this process, I would have told you that I am really bad at memorization. I envy those who can read something a couple of times and regurgitate it word for word with little effort. My brain is not like that. But, I did find out that even though it requires a lot of effort on my part, I can indeed memorize and have memorized about half of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

If you are convinced that you cannot memorize Bible verses or anything else, I encourage you to not give up. The effort will be rewarded by the quick recall of what you have memorized.

On eloquence (or lack thereof) in prayer

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

EloquenceI must confess that I am sometimes intimidated about praying in a church gathering such as a prayer meeting or small group. My brain is not wired to call up Old Testament images about restoring what the locusts have eaten or calling down mighty angels. These references make those adept at praying sound so . . . so . . . spiritual and powerful.

I am not poking fun at them, I really am impressed with some people’s ability to think of these things to spice up their prayer. Such eloquence is a gift, it just happens to be a gift that I do not possess.

But some encouragement came to me during a recent reading of Exodus 5.

That chapter records that Pharaoh increased the workload on the Israelites as a result of Moses’ request to let the people of Israel celebrate a feast to God. The Israelites, in turn, confronted Moses blaming him for the increased hardship.

Moses then brings this to God. Notice the language of his prayer:

“O Lord, why have you brought harm to this people? Whey did you ever send me? Ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done harm to this people and you have not delivered your people at all.” – Exodus 5:22-23

That prayer contains no flowery language. It is short and honest. Moses asks the questions that are on his heart and tells God why he is asking. There is no hiding behind excess words here. Moses comes to God and directly tells him what is on his mind.

This encourages me that prayer does not need to be eloquent to be effective. It is OK to come directly to the point. It is OK to be honest and straight-forward.

I suppose the lesson is that there is no best way to pray. The important thing is to do it.

On the peaceful transfer of power

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

Peaceful
Copyright: icetray / 123RF Stock Photo

I have avoided partisan politics in this blog. I am actually registered as an independent and have no party affiliation. I do not care a bit about whether any of the politicians who represent me in government have an “R” or a “D” behind their names.

Also, I am not a news junkie and am usually uninformed about current events. I did not watch any of the coverage of the inauguration. Politics is not my thing. That being said, even I am aware that there were violent protests in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump as our 45th President.

Presidential inaugurations have been peaceful transitions of power where the presidential office transcends party politics and is honored by citizens regardless of their party affiliation. But yesterday there were violent protests against our newly minted president.

In 2009, there were many who felt that the election of Barack Obama was not good for the country. But I don’t remember many (any?) violent protests in response to his inauguration. There was plenty of complaining and pontificating in conservative circles about the Obama Presidency, but very little violence. In support of this, read this NY Times article.

What is different this time? What is it in our culture that seems to be pushing us toward anarchy?

Some will likely denounce this as too simplistic or as religious propaganda, but I think the drift toward anarchy is due to the popular opinion that there are no transcendent values or a universal moral law.

Without a moral law to which an aggrieved person can appeal, his only means of redressing his perceived wrong is brute force. Without a standard against which disagreements can be evaluated, the only alternative is to shout louder to win the argument.

As a Christian, when my government makes decisions with which I do not agree, I find comfort in the belief that nothing can derail God’s plan for humanity. You might think me delusional to believe this, but at least my delusion allows me to have peace in the midst of the conflict.

If God is indeed in control, we have a court of appeals where we can bring our frustrations. The Psalms are full of such complaint and appeals for God to act. We can leave it in God’s hands.

But if there is no God, then any means of winning is acceptable. Violent protest can then be construed as a virtue. If there is no higher law, violent protest is merely standing up for what one believes and no-one should criticize their methods.

Contrast this with the strategy of Dr. Martin Luther King. King pointed us to a higher law that revealed the shabbiness of our behavior to people of color. He showed us that those who resort to violence are on the wrong side of that higher law. He was right to do so, our country was broken and needed to be fixed. Our country is still broken, but as Dr. King showed us, violence will do nothing to mend it.

I wonder if those who subscribe to the meme that there is no transcendent moral code don’t feel a little bit uncomfortable with the slide toward anarchy that we are seeing in the political arena. I wonder if there is a small part of them that realizes the danger of allowing anyone to act upon the belief that he, himself, is his own standard.

That discomfort is a clue that there might indeed be a transcendent standard. It should also serve as a goad to find out what that standard is and who has the authority to set that standard. The consequences of not pursuing this question will be devastating on an individual and on a national level.

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama