Considering the Lenses I Wear

How we view events is shaped, or colored, by the lenses we wear. Those lenses can help us to see more clearly, or distort what we see.

When I lived in NH I found a pair of amber sunglasses in a store. This was before they were “tech glasses” and part of the “only sold of TV” brands that are now also sold in Wal-Mart. But I digress. I loved them because I could wear them at night due to the glare of headlights. But everything looked yellow. They helped me to see more, but also colored how I saw things.

Most of us lack self-awareness. We don’t realize the lenses we wear when we examine events. But like those amber lenses, they filter and sometimes distort. These lenses are part of our worldview, but not simply our worldview. They can reflect our experiences, and our idols. They are not simply ideological but can include that.

From the Relational Wisdom360 curriculum

I’ve written how the Covid-19 Controversy/Crisis reveals our idols. The crisis has produced controversy on a number of fronts connected to how to understand the disease, treat the disease and respond to the disease. Some people are aware of their lenses, and others …. not so much.

If we respond “You want people to die” (the new ‘you’re  Hitler’) it’s probably a good indication that we lack both self-awareness and other-awareness. We haven’t stopped to think what drives us, what is driving them, and particularly what God thinks about both.

I thought I’d lay my cards on the table. Here are the lenses I am looking through to understand this controversy/crisis.

Pastor:

I am vocationally a pastor which means I am theologically trained. I am also trained as a counselor meaning, in both cases, I see theology as something to applied to personal lives. This has a number of doctrines in view but I’ll focus on the providence of God and our creation in the image of God.

This crisis is not accidental, and not arbitrary. It happens within God’s plan and purpose for both humanity and individuals. While the prospect of death and the loss of others I love is not pleasant, I’m not scared. The fact that I can’t control it doesn’t mean it is out of control. Or that the virus is in control. It doesn’t “speak” to us, though we gain information through data compilation and analysis.

If we were to ask why God would ordain a pandemic we’d have to add the doctrine of sin into the mix. I’m not talking about personal sin but Adam’s sin and our condition as sinners in a fallen world. Adam’s disobedience as our covenant head (representative before God) brought all of us into the consequences of sin: what we call the curse while on earth, and death. Adam sinned and everybody dies.

So, I’m NOT saying the people who die are bigger sinners than those who do. We are all in the same boat. We just die differently. Therefore I see death as ordinary, though often unexpected and untimely. The process of death can be quite unpleasant.

As a pastor I’ve been with people who knew they  were dying (usually cancer), as well as with people as they die. I’ve heard death rattles, that final breath as people shed the mortal coil. I’ve had to face death up close and personal and therefore don’t live in a fairy tale land where people don’t die. They die every single day and nothing we do will stop that.

The providence of God doesn’t rule out what we call secondary means. We have responsibility to take reasonable means in the case of a pandemic. So, don’t interpret what I’m saying as “do nothing, God will take care of it.” However, someone who takes even the greatest of measures for protection can get sick.

We were made in the image of God. There are a number of aspects to this. Here are a few: we were made to live in community and we were made to both work and rest.

How do I get there? Well, in 1 John we read “God is love.” Augustine is one of the more famous theologians to use this profound statement as proof of the Trinity. The lover must have a beloved. The eternal love  must have an eternal subject and object. God has subsisted eternally as Trinity, a community of love and fellowship between Father, Son and Spirit.

Made in the likeness of this God, we were made to live in loving fellowship with God and other human beings- witnessed in the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, as well as God’s provision of marriage as a one flesh union. Made to love, I see our prolonged stay at home orders (like solitary confinement) to be contrary to our nature, devolving the image of God and therefore destructive to our mental health. As people with bodies as well as souls love includes both body and soul, and therefore this new norm of Zoom meetings is a sad, insufficient substitute. We criticize the younger generations as the text generation, but now we are becoming people who have to rely on it. We were made to hug, hold hands, shake hands etc., not withhold ourselves from each other assuming they have a deadly plague.

In Genesis 1-2 we see God working 6 days and resting on the 7th. God works, setting a pattern for us. That this is part of the image is clarified in the 10 Commandments (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5). We are to work 6 days (we forget this part) and rest one (many seem to resent this one). There can be reasons in God’s providence we don’t work (disability or unemployment). But for an otherwise healthy person to not work is difficult psychologically because we are made in God’s image.

I’ve been through periods of unemployment and the problem is far beyond the bank account. Men, in particular, struggle emotionally with not working outside the home. A man who does not work is more prone to drug abuse, depression and suicide. Families forced to stay at home, especially if one can’t work, is dangerous. We are already seeing increases in domestic violence, child abuse (sexual, physical and emotional) and suicides.

Sorry, Governor Cuomo, some of these are death, and some of these haunt people their whole lives. Look in the eyes of sexual abuse victim, Governor, and tell them if was for the greater good.(Yes, he ticks me off)

“You just want people to die!” minimizes the real suffering we are causing by our actions. Death is inevitable, sexual abuse, suicide, drug addiction & overdose are not.

Economist:

My undergraduate degree is in Economics. I went to Boston University long before AOC went there for her PhD in Economics. When I was there in the 80’s the professors frowned upon Keynesian economics (dependence upon government intervention instead of the self-correcting market). Von Mises and Hayak were never mentioned, but they pretty much could have been. Government intervention was seen as essentially “flattening the curve”: while making the correction less intense, it also prolonged the inevitable correction. Depressions and recessions became longer, not shorter. You don’t spend your way out, in part, because you create new problems.

Right now government expenditures are going through the roof and revenues are plummeting since many people are prohibited from working. This is unsustainable as some states are teetering on bankruptcy (due to decades of financial mismanagement brought to crisis point earlier than anticipated by the crisis) and looking to a federal government deeply in debt to bail them out. Other nations are in the same boat too! But money doesn’t grow on trees, it is earned. We are creating an unsupportable debt for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren so we can not work now.

Oh, you may say, we can just print more money. Well, that makes the money worth less and eventually worthless. During Carter’s presidency we had “stagflation”, high unemployment and high inflation. People weren’t working to make money and the value of what they made (or given to them by government) was diminishing so you could buy less and less with what little you had. Eventually you hit hyperinflation. Look at Venezuela, people!

Do we really want to do that to ourselves? To our children? Grandchildren? How many livelihoods is a life worth? In other words, how many lives do we have to trash to save a life? As a pastor, I care about and for those people. They aren’t just a statistic to me.

Am I heartless? No. I am a realist. People die, every day. We assume risk every day because we can’t afford to eliminate risk. People die in car accidents every day because we can’t afford to eliminate that possibility. This is but one example. But look at the other diseases people die from daily. We could potentially eliminate them but we can’t afford to. Even when we poor tons of money into research, decades don’t always produce the cure we want (cancer, Aids, Alzheimer’s etc.). We have to think of polio as the exception, not the rule. But plenty of people still die of leprosy, malaria and measles each year despite there being vaccines and treatments.

A Parent:

I love my kids. I want to be here for my kids, but I know that is not guaranteed. I learned that as a child. On one side of my house lived the Baileys. They had 2 kids younger than me. He died of cancer when they were about 7 and 5. On the other side was my friend Jason whose father died of a heart attack when we were about 8. I can’t control whether or not I’m around to see them graduate and get married. I want to be, and don’t take unnecessary risks.

I care about how my kids will live as adults. I don’t want them living on the dole. They are healthy and productive. They should be able to provide for themselves. But the choices we make as a nation now may rob them of that. Those choice may limit educational opportunities, vocational choices and their social/emotional health.

A Son (and Grandson):

I lost both of my grandfathers when I was 5. I’m thankful that my kids know their grandfathers. They have a gift I didn’t have. Not everyone gets that gift, and we’re not in control of that.

Earlier this year my mom died. She had Alzheimer’s. Her memory faded quickly, but her body didn’t. The insurance was going to run out this year. I hated what it was doing to my father, and could do to him financially. When she died from a stroke in January we grieved, and were relieved. Those things were not mutually exclusive. I know the sorrow of death, but I also know it is inevitable. And unpredictable. I don’t want people to die, but I accept that people do die.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with my take on the controversy. I don’t want everyone to die, but I acknowledge they will. There is nothing we can do about that. We may postpone it in some cases, but even that is under the providence of God. Our (American) God-wish is a fantasy. We do need to think about the living and what this does to them, not simply the sorrow but the life we are creating for them a few years down the road. We are left with difficult choices, and those require some compromises.

Read Full Post »

Considering a Fish Tale

I am not a good fisherman.

That is an understatement. I’m an awful, horrible, lousy fisherman.

When I was a kid, some Saturday mornings my father and I would put the boat on the roof of the car and head out to a lake somewhere in New England. My dad liked to fish. I was mostly along for the ride, and to create havoc like tangled lines. I was an expert at catching weeds and logs. We would fish for bass, but there would be some sunfish that occasionally found their way into the boat. He would catch some dinner. I would catch fish only worthy of release.

About a mile from our house was a series of canals. The trails over them could bring you to the high school I would eventually go to (walking up hill both ways in summer, fall, winter and spring since you walked down into the river valley and up to the high school). You could also follow trails into downtown or the boys club. There were meadows as well. Plenty for a young boy to explore in the days you could actually ride your bike  unaccompanied by parents. My friends and I would sometimes fish in the canal. I was even less successful than in the lakes.

As I grew, and Dad changed jobs he didn’t take me fishing anymore. My friends moved and I didn’t fish in the canals anymore either. Fishing was a thing of the past.

It was that way for many years. When I finally became a pastor in 1998 I lived in Winter Haven, FL which was known for its chain of lakes. There were tons of lakes to fish in. My friend Brian was an associate pastor in the next town. He liked to fish. Okay, he loved to fish.

We synched our days off to Friday so we could spend Friday mornings going fishing. Not every week but often enough in the fall, winter and spring. It was time together talking about life and ministry and more. We had some great stories to tell.

Brian was an excellent fisherman. He would always haul in more bass than me. We were in the same boat. I was still good at catching weeds and logs. I just couldn’t understand how he could be so good and I could be so useless as a fisherman. He tried to impart knowledge to me, but it just wasn’t my element. But you can’t do much hiking in FL.

If I was lucky I caught a 2 pound bass, or 2. On those rare occasions I’d have some church members over for some fried bass in my little apartment. This went on for a few years. In many ways it was a great two years.

It was also a confusing time. Done with seminary and finally having a pastoral position I was hoping to be more successful in finding a wife. Winter Haven was not a great place for that. A church member introduced me to someone we eventually called “crazy lady”. I had a blast riding jet skis on the lake, but that was about it. I was frustrated trying to sort out what she wanted besides a new black Jeep every few years. Her dad really didn’t seem to like Presbyterians. He thought they paid their pastors too much. He never learned how little I made at the time. At least I had Friday mornings with Brian.

I’m not a morning person. I’m a lousy fisherman. That is how much I enjoyed spending time with my friend.

In the fall of 1999 Brian and I spent a morning fishing. Florida has plenty of big bass. I’d seen Brian pull out 4-6 pound bass. I was still settling for 2 lbs. and under. And that day … I pulled up a 4-pounder. It seemed as unlikely as finding a wife at that point. But it happened,and I was elated.

I wanted to eat it, but Brian said I should bring it to a taxidermist. He knew a guy. I got a card, I made a call. I dropped off a fish. I waited. And waited. And waited (you get the picture?).

Around Thanksgiving of 1999 another pastor in our denomination introduced me to girlfriend #5. She worked for a local chamber of commerce and then a city parks department so Brian and I could still fish regularly. He had a boat, a trailer and an SUV so we were good. We talked about girlfriend #5, and perhaps we should have talked more. She wanted me to be someone I wasn’t- a southern gentleman. The writing should have been on the wall when she said I was “a good playmate.” She was looking for someone to hang out with on weekends. I was looking for a wife to fill the house I was having built on my meager salary (I still don’t know HOW I got that loan).

But one day when we were driving she noted a boat for sale on the Boulevard. “You should buy that,” she said. Boats need trailers unless I was going to toss it on top of my Paseo. Not a good move. Can’t tow a trailer with a Paseo. This boat would require a trailer, insurance, a truck… I was about to buy a house. Just not smart. Besides, Brian had all that stuff, and he was the only reason I went fishing anyway.

It was about the time the house was completed and I moved in that things ended. Or should I say she ended things. I should have done it earlier but I was ready for the next stage of life.

Brian moved away to a new and better job. I was left without my friend and a girlfriend. But, I had his dog. With him gone, fishing had come to an end. I wasn’t sure how to spend my days off aside from going to the movies. I won’t lie, it was a hard six months. And I still had no fish.

When I came back from Christmas vacation there was still no fish, but there was a new family at church. Just before Valentine’s Day they invited an old friend to come down from NJ to spend the weekend, and meet me. I met the woman who’d become my wife. I’m not sure why she was interested. The night we met our church had a party and I hosted “The Really Wed Game” wearing a plaid blazer and a big gold chain around my neck.

My memory is fuzzy at this point. I can’t remember exactly when the taxidermist finally called but I think it was after we were engaged. There is a point to this. The fish never made it my wall. My fish just wasn’t appreciated by my soon-to-be wife. We lived in that house together for 8 years with it going on a wall. It was supposed to go up in my office, but I don’t think it ever did.

Then we moved to Arizona. The fish made the trip. The house was big enough for me to have an office at home. Perhaps it could finally find a home there.

That is a big, fat no.

I’m not sure what she’s got against this fish but it never made it past the garage. There is collected dust and obligatory dirt the wind blows in. For 10 years it sat in our garage. I’ve had this fish for 18 years, and never put it up on a wall. The highlight of my brief stint as a fisherman has never been on the wall to show off.

This weekend we cleaned the garage. I cleaned off the fish. CavWife still wouldn’t let it stay in the house. To my office, with the 1975 Carlton Fisk print I have, it would go. To make sure, it was in my car this morning. And now the fish has a new resting place. May it stay there a good long time. But may it finally be seen by people. It is a reminder of a different time. Not a perfect time, but a good time.

Read Full Post »

Considering The Whole Armor of God

Is God trying to tell me something or am I unconsciously seeking to address a present need.? That is an interesting question.

Earlier this year I read one of David Powlison’s final books: Safe and Sound. It is about spiritual warfare. I’ve just finished reading Iain Duguid’s The Whole Armor of God: How Christ’s Victory Strengthens Us for Spiritual Warfare. While I was reading Duguid, Paul Tripp made the same point from Ephesians 6 that both Powlison and Duguid made: that Paul was not changing the subject in Ephesians 6, but that spiritual warfare is the subject of the whole letter. God must be trying to tell me something.

Dealing with a mother’s death is spiritual warfare. Dealing with a pandemic includes spiritual warfare. Parenting kids is spiritual warfare. Session meetings, and especially meetings with the deacons, are spiritual warfare. It is an ever-present reality, not just when I am aware of it happening (like on certain FB groups).

Powlison and Dugud’s books are very similar in many ways. They are both relatively short, unlike William Gurnall’s 3-volume treatise on the subject (you can get a devotional version which is excellent- and I almost re-read it this year until buying Tripp’s devotional for our officers). They are obviously focused on the whole armor of God from Ephesians 6. They both take the approach that Jesus wore this armor, and His victory is what established our victory in spiritual warfare. They are far more concerned with the OT references to this armor than the armor of Paul’s Roman guards.

Let me say that I dislike the word “victory” in the context of our sanctification. We may win a battle, but due to the reality of indwelling sin I will face that battle again. We don’t experience full victory in this life. We have moments of obedience. But that is a personal pet peeve derived from people I used to interact with who went on about the “victorious Christian life.” It didn’t feel all that victorious as I struggled with persistent temptations of various sorts.

Both books do helpfully discuss Christ’s complete victory as the basis for our eventual victory and the source of grace in each conflict we engage in. In other words, both books focus on the objective work of Christ for our salvation (justification, sanctification and glorification).

Powlison writes much of his application within the context of counseling. It is very helpful. Duguid writes much of his application within the broader context of sanctification. It is also very helpful. I can think of a few people that I may give copies.

Duguid begins with the reality of warfare and the reality of our enemy. He is more powerful than we are. But he is far less powerful than Jesus. The spiritual forces of darkness Paul speaks of are behind the unspeakable evil we’ve seen, not simply the human actors. Those people, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pablo Escobar, and others are just pawns. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. This means that the deep state is spiritual in nature, not simply political. The power of the Beast is the demonic force that uses governments as counterfeit Christ’s. But now I’ve oozed into Revelation. Daniel learned there was more to the spiritual battle than he realized when the angel informed him that Michael the archangel had to assist him in a battle with the prince of Persia (Daniel 10).

This means we need to be prepared whether we are pastors, parents, employers, employees, children, rich, poor, majority culture or a minority culture. The Ephesians believed this, and Paul taught this. We should believe this because Paul taught this.

“The choice is not whether you will be a Christian solider or a Christian civilian but whether you will be a prepared Christian soldier or an unprepared one. And an unprepared soldier of flesh and blood will not be able to stand up against the scale of the spiritual forces ranged against him or her.”

The major of Paul’s focus, and Duguid’s focus, is Christ’s provision. The Lord provides armor for us instead of leaving us to our own devices.

“That mighty power of God is at work for our spiritual growth in two distinct ways. First, it was demonstrated outside us in the once-for-all work of Christ in resisting sin and Satan in our place, and, second, it is demonstrated inside us through the ongoing, progressive work of the Spirit, renewing our hearts and minds.”

We see Duguid not only wants us to see the Scriptures, but supports his views confessionally and we see the influence of John Newton. Duguid brings us through the armor of God with this dual focus in mind. In our battle of sanctification (his work in us) we must never lose sight of our justification (his work for us).

At one point he does misspeak. I don’t want to misrepresent the book as flawless. In speaking of the cross he says “God treated the innocent One as guilty so that he could treat us, the guilty ones, as innocent.” He and I know that it goes far beyond this and “innocent” should be replaced by “righteous”. But his unfortunate phraseology understates the reality of Christ’s work and our benefit.

That’s it for the negative really. Duguid gets to the point, repeatedly brings us to Jesus and challenges us to make use of God’s provision by faith. If we were to evaluate this by J.C. Ryle’s 3 questions we say it does indeed exalt Jesus, humble sinners and can also calls them to godliness. It is, as I noted, I book I recommended and hope to teach (along with Powlison’s) after we are able to have Sunday School again. This is what discipleship is about.

Read Full Post »

Considering He Descended to the Dead

The descent of Christ is not a topic that receives much attention in evangelical circles. There have been some academic journals that have published articles on the topic. But it has been mostly an academic issue. That is not a good thing.

If you are thinking, what do you mean by “the descent of Christ” then this is an indication it isn’t a good thing. The descent addresses what happened to Jesus while He was dead. This is important and does matter.

Recently our Session addressed this question in terms of the phrase “He descended to hell” as part of the Apostles’ Creed. After we made a provisional decision on that question, a newer book by Matthew Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead”: An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday came to my attention.

In preparation for Resurrection Day this year, I put it near the front of my queue as part of my Virus Crisis reading. It is published by IV Press Academic.

Emerson’s book is widely researched. He is a Baptist but his research includes the Church Fathers, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians as well as some Reformed theologians. He includes some less than conservative folks like Barth. There is less interaction with Confessions and Catechisms. There is no meaningful interaction with the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms until the final chapter. As a Reformed pastor, I viewed this a weakness. He discounts Calvin’s view (taken by the Heidelberg Catechism) which is a good move. But that is only one approach taken by Reformed theologians (the WCF differs). He addresses the Barthian take on Calvin far more in depth.

Emerson is a Baptist. He also holds to Progressive Covenantalism. This doesn’t seem to affect much, but when he discusses baptism it certainly does. There he displays a misunderstanding of the historic covenantal views of ecclesiology and sacraments.

“This approach to biblical theology argues that, while there is a foundational continuity between the old and new covenants, such that Jesus’ work fulfills all the hopes of OT Israel, there is also a progression from the Abrahamic covenant to the new covenant. This progression is effectively one from inclusion in the covenant people based on ethnicity to inclusion based on faith. This is why the sign of the covenant progresses from circumcision to baptism. The former is related to physical birth in the flesh, while the latter is related to new birth by the Spirit.” (pp. 212)

This denies and/or ignores the distinction Covenant Theology makes between the visible and invisible church. In the OT, we also see Gentiles entering the covenant of faith by profession of faith. Salvation was not by birth, but always by the new birth & faith. Emerson flattens Covenant Theology and thereby passes over the circumcision of the heart, of which physical circumcision was a sign. He also passes over Paul’s affirmation that we receive the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, rather than progressing beyond it (see Gal. 3). We are sons of Abraham because we’re united to Christ the Seed!

I’m just not sure how much this affects his work. I don’t say this to dismiss it, but if he can’t get Covenant Theology correct it makes me wonder at times what else might be misunderstood.

This does not mean I fundamentally disagree with him. Particularly with his criticism of evangelicalism’s neglect of creeds.

He begins there in the first chapter. He offers us a definition of evangelical so we know what he means by the term which is important in the current climate of slippery meanings.

“… I do not mean a particular political voting bloc in the United States but rather the Christian movement that (1) began in the late eighteenth century, (2) is most concentrated in North America, and (3) is characterized by David Bebbington’s quadrilateral of commitment to biblical authority (“Biblicism”), a focus on the cross as the center of Christ’s work (“crucicentrism”), the need for personal conversion (“conversionism”), and the importance of sharing one’s faith in evangelism and engagement with the public square (“activism”).” (pp. 3)

Into this he speaks of a near uniform view on the phrase “descended into hell” until Bucer and Calvin’s novel expression of this as a place of torment. More on this later. There was plenty of variations, but no one thought it referred to hell as a place of torment. This is why he calls his book “He descended to the dead” or Hades, which doesn’t have the baggage of saying ‘hell’.

Recent challenges, based on that interpretation of Calvin’s, are combined with a rejection of creedal formulations and authority. In this, Emerson is very critical of Wayne Grudem. He’s critical not only of Grudem’s conclusions but his methods. Grudem is focused on solely exegetical arguments, not theological arguments. This led him, in the past, to question the eternal generation of the Son on the basis of Proverbs 8:22-31. Emerson is right to affirm theological patterns in Scripture (though he doesn’t always recognize all of them). He notes biblical patterns like that of the Son of Man. We have to see each text within the context of the rest of Scripture.

Emerson wants us to understand the descent in light of the other passages dealing with Sheol, in light of the historical context or the views of the underworld by the nations and second temple Judaism. He also wants us to see the patterns across various doctrines. Like Lints he sees the fabric of theology, not simply the thread of a doctrine. You can’t change one without affecting other doctrines.

His focus on second temple Judaism is also of unknown concern. He seems to see second temple Judaism as uniform in views, much like N.T. Wright, Sanders and other proponents of New Perspective(s) on Paul.

The second chapter is A Biblical Defense of the Descent. He doesn’t want to depend on 1 Peter 3:18-22, for good reason, as the basis for the doctrine. This is a disputed text in terms of interpretation. I’ll lay my cards on the table: I think the text is about the Spirit’s ministry in the time of Noah which seems to fit the larger context in 1 Peter. Emerson’s brief exegesis makes some sense, until I think about the rest of 1 Peter. But you don’t need this text to affirm the doctrine of descent.

“To put is positively, the descensus is a thoroughly biblical doctrine, which teaches that Jesus experienced human death as all humans do- his body was buried, and his soul departed to the place of the dead- and, in so doing, by virtue of his divinity, he defeated death and the grace.” (pp. 24)

His argument is that second temple Judaism and early Christianity had a cosmography similar to the Greeks and Romans (I’d see the Gentiles’ view as a corruption of the biblical view, not an influence upon the faithful community). The underworld had two chambers: the abodes of the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead. In an OT & NT context the righteous were those who believed. We see this in the parable discussing “Abraham’s bosom” or “paradise”. The rich man could not pass over.

Jesus descends to the place of the righteous dead upon His death. He is not suffering there, but His victory is proclaimed and Sheol either transformed for the righteous or emptied of the righteous with Christ’s resurrection and ascension. I would go with the latter, not the former.

He traces the development of this doctrine in various Scriptures referring to Sheol, and Christ being raised “out of the dead” or the place of the dead. He interacts with Psalm 16 and its usage in Acts 2. Jonah 2 is also addressed before he goes on to Pauline statements, like Ephesians 4, Philippians 2 and Romans 10.

“At minimum, then, this text affirms that Jesus experienced human death as all humans experience human death, in body and soul.” (pp. 35)

The next chapter is about the historical defense or interpretations of the doctrine. Here he mentions that Grudem is following Philip Schaff in arguing that the phrase was inserted by Rufinus. Emerson ties its inclusion to the threat of Apollinarianism which believed that the Son did not assume a human soul, but only a body. He shows that many believe Abraham’s bosom was part of the underworld, the place of the dead, and not a heavenly region. It is not a place of torment. Jesus’ torment was finished upon the cross. Jesus entered the place of the dead to conquer death and Hades. Here he looks at a variety of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformation theologians. He brings out some significant differences in views. Emerson looks at Calvin’s idiosyncratic view (not sure I’d use that term) as an over-correction based on a bit of misunderstanding of other views.

There is a large section on Balthasar’s view. He was a Roman Catholic theologian who attempted to combine what he thought was the best of Orthodox, Roman and Calvinist views. He ends up with a view that sees His descent including the torment of hell, particularly in the separation from the Father.

Part two of the book looks at the descent and Christian dogmatics. This is where he examines the fabric of theology. It can seem repetitive at points. He begins with how it affects and is affected by our theology of the Trinity. He gets into the doctrines of inseparable operations and appropriation. The first is that the Trinity acts inseparably. There is no Lone Ranger among the Trinity. They are working with one purpose. Appropriate refers to the fact that each has different roles in that one work, which pertains the distinctions in persons. This formulation seeks to preserve God’s oneness consistent with their mode of subsistence.

“The descent is only victorious because the Son descends as God, and it is only vicarious because he descends as a human being, as the human being.” (pp. 112)

Here he returns to Balthasar in critical fashion. He argues that Balthasar violates both of the doctrines (inseparable operations and appropriation).

The next chapter discusses its impact on our doctrine of creation. This includes cosmography and ANE beliefs. This is where he begins to argue for Christ transforming Hades from the place of the righteous dead awaiting Messiah to where the resurrected and ascended Messiah dwells with His people. This is an idea I’m not sure I’m ready to buy into, at least as how I understand it. The human nature is not ubiquitous and is at the right hand of the Father, meaning reigning and ruling in heaven. I’m thinking, at this point, that Paradise aka Abraham’s bosom has been emptied and heaven is being filled. This is not our “final destination” which is actually the renewed earth.

He then shifts to the incarnation and Christological anthropology. He delves into whether we are a body-soul union, just a body that ceases to exist or a hylemorphic dualism with soul equal to the form of the body. This section is heady and philosophic at points. Then he examines the doctrine of justification and the atonement, the resurrection of believers and ecclesiology.

Part three is one short chapter on the Christian life. He plays out some of the ways it should impact our lives now. Much of it seemed ‘ho-hum’. The key point for me is that Jesus knows not only what it is like to die but to be dead. He is able to comfort us in our grieving as One who tasted death, remained under its power and rose triumphant over the grave.

Overall this was a good book. It was mostly understandable, and does help you think through some of the issues. It is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion of this doctrine. He does not have me convinced of all of his views but I am better prepared to think about this, talk about this and perhaps even preach on this.

Q. 50: Wherein consisted Christ’s humiliation after his death?

A: Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell. (Westminster Larger Catechism)

Read Full Post »