What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

The following was written in the trenches of the First World War, part of it on the Carpathian Front. It was recorded (dated 5.7.16) in the war-time diaries of Ludwig Wittgenstein, then attached to a garrison artillery regiment of the Austrian Army.

What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

I know that this world exists.

That I am placed in it like my eye in its visual field.

That something about it is problematic, which we call its meaning.

That this meaning does not lie in it but outside it.

That life is the world.

That my will penetrates the world.

That my will is good or evil.

Therefore

that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world.

The meaning of life, i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God.

And connect with this the comparison of God to a father.

To pray is to think about the meaning of life ...

PHYSICS OF THE FALL

Physics of the Fall: PART 1 [Randy]

The following 7-part essay conflates a number of posts written by three correspondents.

What was Eden like and what changed, biologically, in Adam, when he and Eve experienced sin's curse? This question seeks to clarify the nature of the transformation in Adam. There was spiritual death, yes, but could have the pre-Fall Adam indeed physically died? What about him, what about Eden, was different before and after the Fall?

Physics of the Fall: PART 2 [Nick]

Adam may have been capable of physical death but kept alive by the Tree of Life as well as the lack of stupid things brought on by sin which rob our health and lead to accidental or intentional trauma and/or death. In other words, "immortality" means "moment to moment dependence" on God's sustenance, much like caring for an infant or child – nurturing, protecting and guiding them – rather than some kind of Superman-like invincibility. There is biblical basis for this view of God's constant care for creation and life expressed several places in scripture.

If this be the case, then the biology pre-fall was pretty much like it is now, with respect to the natural processes and cycles driving it (providentially designed and maintained, as now), except for the degradative effect of sin on lifestyle which shortens life considerably. Affluent America is a prime example as degenerative and other chronic conditions brought on by our lifestyles gnaw away at our life expectancies.

God may very well have meant for this creation to mature to the point where it would be replaced by the new creation, presumably one where the law of entropy was not in effect. Why, then, didn't God do this from the start?

Many Christians have projected this final "new creation" back on the original creation or Edenic "paradise" and claim that the Fall changed it into the groaning mess we now live in. However, what is to be made of the fact that Eden was but a small part of a large planet and of an even much larger cosmos?

Perhaps this space/time/energy/matter realm is a "proving ground" or a kind of "incubator" preparing free-will creatures for a permanent eternal state; a kind of necessary stage requirement [purgatory?]. Certain Scriptures do support this supposition; there is also plenty of material (the cosmos) that reveals what God actually chose to do, rather than what we speculate He could have done. In the course of exploring these things, this combination of special and general revelation needs to be kept in mind.

Physics of the Fall: PART 3 [Craig]

Our knowledge of the world before the Fall is drawn mostly from the two accounts of Creation. How significant is it that one Scriptural account of Creation (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3) seems to entail the whole earth, while the second account (Genesis 2:4-25) focuses narrowly on Eden? Given that the Creator Himself first cultivated the Garden of Eden, might there be some special science involved in that cultivation that differed from the science beyond the borders of the Garden? Might Eden be considered as an experimental laboratory designed for scientific discovery?

It is quite significant that Eden was merely a part of the greater world. By definition, a garden is a particular place prepared especially to be cultivated according to the will of the gardener. It is a fallacy to speak of all Creation as though it was this particular place called "Eden." The possibility of maturing toward becoming a new creation is an intriguing idea. This is the proper understanding of death even now – death does not end life but becomes the gateway to new life begun by being baptized into Christ.

Perhaps we should take Christ's word on the cross as a hermeneutical key to understanding Eden; Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be with Him in "paradise." This "place prepared" for followers of Christ may help us understand the place God prepared to put the man He created:

"The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. ... the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."

Surely Man did more than mere taxonomic research! In addition to naming all the animals, might Adam have discovered more within those special boundaries of the Garden? Did he later share those discoveries with Cain, who then wandered off, bloody-handed, with that knowledge to pass it on to his own progeny? Consider Jabal's agricultural program or Jubal's musical accomplishment or Tubal-cain's implementation of bronze and iron tools.

All these innovations had to begin somewhere and where better than a prepared place protected from chaotic nature?

The cultivated environment of Eden was probably perfect for developing ways to live in this world without struggling just to survive. If it hadn't been for the blessed existence of Eden, mankind would have been hard-pressed to be fruitful and multiply enough to fill the earth, let alone subdue it. Mankind would instead be subject to the struggle to survive. But God was gracious; rather than making man find his own way in the wild world, God "planted a garden" where "He placed the man."

The text shows us a God causing and forming, quite involved in what went on in the Garden –

"Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food ..... Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called the living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field ..."

Now that is some scientific enterprise!

So man studied the natural sciences and, eventually, went on to do coursework in behavioral sciences as well. Enter his lab partner, Eve. You know the rest of that experiment.

It is interesting to note the environmental differences with which man had to contend after the Fall. Before, Man operated with God's blessing. He even had a ready source of water which watered the Garden in which grew what was readily available to eat. Following his Fall, Man had to contend with cursed ground, toiling against thorns and thistles growing in fields where he had to find plants he could eat (incidentally, did Man sweat as he cultivated the Garden? Or was that particular place temperate enough to work comfortably otherwise?). No longer allowed in the lush Garden, Man fearfully faced the dusty domains of the rest of Creation. Although God remained gracious by not letting Man go out naked into the world, He made sure that Man could not reach the Tree of Life from the Garden anymore, driving Man away to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. How did this ground of exile differ from the ground in the Garden?

Another question is, how was Man's new knowledge of good and evil related to his ability to "to stretch out his hand" to "take from the tree of life" so that, eating, he would "live forever"? Could the phrase "stretch out his hand" be applied significantly to other goals other than the tree of life? For example, later in the Genesis narrative, the story of the Tower of Babel mentions how "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." Might "the tree of life" be the ultimate goal toward which Man stretches his hand? Constantly grasping but getting nothing to eat would surely be frustrating. Rather than continue to act faithfully, trusting in God's promise revealed in the words spoken to Eve regarding future redemption in her seed, Man acted from frustration, grasping for goals other than those leading to life. Focusing on the wrong goals, Man wandered farther and farther away from the Garden.

The thread of this discussion regards the "roots of violence." Violence is force wrongly applied (it is anthropomorphic to call what happens in nature "violent"; like calling the lion a "murderer" for killing the lamb).

The roots of violence are not in Creation itself, but in Man's frustrated response to his struggle for survival following the Fall. Finding ourselves outside of the Garden, unable to get in, we have knowledge of good and evil but lack the wisdom to discern the difference. We ignore God's grace that helps us survive, and grasp to get what we imagine we need to have, applying our efforts toward getting what we want and subjecting others to yield to our will.

God obviously intended that Man would have the opportunity to live forever, but that way remains guarded by His angel, swinging sword in hand. However, that angel also carries a message of Good News – the way is now open through Christ Jesus.

Physics of the Fall: PART 4 [Nick]

I have often wondered what God and Adam talked about "in the cool of the evening."

On such evenings, I often walk the paths in our woods and reflect on what is going on all around me – the budding trees, the green leaves, the insects, the soil, the clouds, the fractal forest, the ecological niches, the biochemical processes underlying and geologic cycles driving it all – and the sheer beauty of the every detail and grandness of the whole scheme. And I feel a strong sense of the Lord 'directing" my gaze, guiding my thought patterns, bringing to mind scriptures and things I learned, opening new insights (sometimes I stop to take notes right on the spot).

Beethoven and Bach both drew inspiration from nature for their music for God's glory.

I have often taken the boys along on such walks and enjoy watching them discover (ant hills, bird's nests, animal tracks, mushrooms) and listening to their explanations and questions. If a post-fall sinner like me (and "father, being evil") has such an experience, is it that hard to imagine Adam's Heavenly Father strolling with Adam and later Eve, detailing for them the wonders of His creation just to see their looks of wonder and expressions of awesome praise for such a goodly world; as well as for their knowledge in "subduing the earth and being fruitful" ... as well as basic body stuff like how not to cut open a cantaloupe and where the best place for a latrine would be, etc.

The thesis of "Eden as Lab" (as well as Theatre and Studio and Kitchen and Basic Training School) – makes sense to me. How much was lost and how much got passed on (probably distorted in some Darwinian way, perhaps) we don't know. But the skills which did beget human culture are strong evidence to me that God was quite the Teacher on those Edenic afternoons long ago. Archaeological and fossil evidence bear this out in showing that, of all animals (including hominids) only Man developed culture beyond mere survival – we find with his (sophisticated) tools ancient (less than 50,000 years) artifacts of instruments (exquisite flutes for instance), decorative jewelry, ritual relics, etc. And it appears suddenly rather than gradually – so suddenly that, like the Cambrian and Avalon explosions of lifeforms ("biology's big bang" - seriously undermining Darwin), it is sometimes called the "Cultural Big Bang".

Amazing isn't it? That God didn't "take back" the stuff He shared with Adam (maybe he even knew about DNA – why not?) but, saddened, God watched man run off with it to use for his own selfish purposes, distorting it all with each generation. (Like Elvis whose talents were nurtured in an Assemblies of God church when he was young - but look at his end; like Michael Jackson – the one bloated, the other bizarre beyond recognition). Noah's family might have preserved a lot; and we know that Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Daniel and others received the best courtly education in the greatest empires the world has ever seen; or, perhaps, were they actually sharing the knowledge passed on to them with their masters (or attempting to) which is why they were so sought after; I am sure it was a two way street, with these patriarchs and prophets taking from these ancient cultures necessary know-how which helped form the durable Jewish people, right up to the present day.

Thanks to the insights from Genesis voiced in the previous post, perhaps we have a clearer path to identifying the original Source of such knowledge back to the Creator Himself!

Physics of the Fall: PART 5 [Randy]

What was different, biologically, in Adam, after the fall, so that he was then subject to death? The things said about God's actively cultivating the garden are most interesting to me, along with the idea of Adam and his kin taking divine knowledge with them on their exit from the garden. I think we consider too little how much we lost from sin.

Physics of the Fall: PART 6 [Nick]

The true effect of sin is something to contemplate. How much the locust have eaten! But how much the Spirit restores with salvation! That is why I am careful with factoring in the "noetic effect of sin" which is a popular way some try to get around why we can't trust secular science today.

As for Adam's biology, why should it have been different if, as I pointed out, God was taking care of him anyway – just like now. In other words, had he not providential protection, no kind of biology would be invincible. It is a fearful thing to consider how vulnerable we carbon-based creatures are, made up as we are of 63% water packaged in little cells that need constant links to the cosmic cycles, all maintained and sustainted (as well as designed and created) by God Himself. (So much for deistic thinking.)

As for how sin affected Adam's biology directly (apart from the "doing stupid things" or "not doing healthy things" effect), we know that, with each replication cycle, something is lost; in other words, the DNA / RNA / protein mechanism, as efficient and accurate as they are (it's been constantly at work for thousands of years – I'll just leave how many thousands at that for now), there is a demonstrable degradation which has occurred, and is occurring (perhaps at an accelerating rate, just like the expansion of the universe albeit for different reasons). This "built-in obsolescence" spells temporal doom for humanity – and in fact, any species. For a fuller treatment of this, I could suggest some references which actually calculate the outside parameters. Suffice it to say, we wear out far sooner than say, the earth or sun, making biblical prophecies of humanity's end quite reasonable to contemporary minds who comprehend the true nature of Nature.

Whether this process was begun or accelerated at the Fall, and whether God originally programmed humans for a longer tenure, is hard to say. From the declining biblical life-spans, we can get some general feel for what I am talking about here. Adam surely was not some kind of mythical superhero or superhuman, but was Adam perfect? What does “perfect” mean? Protein metabolism is not "perfect" but it is optimal, for instance. To be "perfect" would drain all the energy of the universe just fighting the entropy which drives it – so, in one sense, perhaps God had a new creation in mind from the start.

This, of course, is merely speculation, very much subject to further consideration.

Physics of the Fall: PART 7 [Craig]

Man's relationship with God changed when Eve, then Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We know this for sure from the text. Let's look to see what hints the text may have regarding not the obvious relational difference but what physical differences there were.

Note that there seems to have been no difference between that tree and any of the other trees in the Garden, except for the status of being off-limits. "Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow EVERY tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; and the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ... [T]he women saw that the tree was good for food, and it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise ..." "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From ANY tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.' "

This is almost all we know about that fateful tree and its fruit. The only physical description we have, that it seemed to have been located in the midst of the garden near the tree of life (of which very little is said), and that it was good for food. Other descriptive language focuses on non-physical aspects of the tree, one might say metaphysical – the look of it was delightfully pleasing and something about it aroused in Eve the desire to be made wise. It is somewhat confusing to read that Eve saw that the tree was good for food, but God said that in the day the man (can one rightly assume that God meant the woman as well) ate from it, he would surely die. Was the goodness that Eve saw a deception? I don't think so, but the fact that we only have a description the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of Eve may be significant.

Given my understanding of goodness as being inextricably related to God, I posit that our understanding should be founded on the verb not the noun - the fruit of the tree was not evil (and, from Eve's perspective looked good for food), but EATING of that fruit was undoubtedly evil because God forbid it. We can only wonder what might have been if Adam, instead of taking of the fruit as well, would have instead paused, then gone to God to seek counsel on what to do next. After all, according to the text, the command had been given directly to him, not the woman.

Of course, he did take the fruit his wife gave to him and ate. The next thing the text tells us is that "the eyes of both of them were opened." This describes a physical act transitively; one wonders, were their eyes closed before? Did they close their eyes somewhere in the process after seeing the tree? What is the significance that their eyes were opened rather than them opening their eyes? It is interesting to read that then "they knew that they were naked." The text says nothing of them being dead. Hmmmm. How are we to understand the relation between the two phrases: "you shall surely die" and "they knew that they were naked"? Previously the text told us that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." The language leads one to connect nakedness, shame and death. Before the Fall, no coverings seemed to be needed, but after the Fall, the shamed couple, knowing now that they were naked, made coverings for themselves - loin coverings to hide their genitalia. Hmmmm. This recalls the first command, "Be fruitful and multiply." Covering themselves as they did, they placed an obstacle in the way of being able to obey God. Then they "hear the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." Their physical senses still operate just fine - they can taste, see and hear; however, such sensation now serve much more selfish ends than those guiding them prior to the Fall. Before the Fall, Man used his senses to discover what might be revealed in God's Creation; after the Fall, the senses alerted the man and wife so that they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

I have tried to read the text closely to understand the physics of the Fall. Further study is necessary, but my conclusion so far is that the text supports the notion that no physical change resulted immediately from the Fall. My father insisted that of the four components of love, eros, the only one which is wholly physical, was unchanged; in contrast, the most radically changed was agape - in fact, agape became impossible for Man on his own (review my father's paradigm for love at http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/08/paradigm-foundational-to-understanding.html). I wonder, then, if the primary consequence of sin is not to be found in the physical realm.

I admit there remains the question of how to understand what God meant when he warned the man, "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Perhaps a hint is hidden in the possible consequences of eating from the tree of life: "he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." What does God mean to "live forever"? Is this the same as the "eternal life" promised in the Gospel? If so, then it is possible to understand all this as one understands the "old age" and "new age" - the phrase "already-not-yet-here" comes to mind. The Fall ushered in "the old age." Prior to the Fall may or may not have been like what was ushered in by Christ, "the new age." The old shall pass away, the new shall remain. For now, however, we exist in in both.

THE IDEA OF AMERICA

America is an idea, even a good idea. That idea is expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. The idea of America is more than some mere "-ism" (capitalism, socialism, etc.). The American idea is symbolized by the "Stars and Stripes" waving in the wind. American soldiers and statesmen swear to defend that idea, even at the cost of their lives. American allies and enemies both recognize the power of that idea. Politicians must act to appear aligned with that idea. Many may mock America, but the idea of America remains untarnished. Citizens of America form communities holding on to the hope of that idea. Children are raised to realize the truth of the American idea, learning how they, too, may participate in making that idea prosper. It is a durable dream that drives Americans to realize freedom as their birthright and thus to live free in the face of all other apparent realities.

I am unapologetically American. It grieves me how this great idea has been reduced to facile political sloganeering plastered on bumpers and flaunted in photo-ops and bandied about on blogs. Let's work to re-imagine the idea that is America, willing the best that can be, rather than the worst that might be. We are blessed to be Americans. Let us not be ashamed to always pray, "God bless America!"

STATEMENT OF FAITH (under constant reconsideration)

I believe in God.
My belief is provoked by God’s love for me, which is an act of grace.
God’s grace also has provided me with a measure of faith

by which I am able to believe.

My first experience of God’s love

was through the loving nurture of my family.

Having been conceived in the nuptial embrace

of my father and mother,

I was born into this world a helpless human being

wholly dependent on others.

My whole experience of love in the beginning was erotic.
As I matured, I discovered more mutual ways of loving

and began to love others less self-interestedly.

Through my family I came to accept the Bible as the Word of God.
Because of my family, I found myself in a community of people

who gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I matured in this community, I came to an understanding
that
I must make a personal decision concerning reconciliation to God

given that my relationship to God is not right

apart from accepting Jesus Christ as the way to be reconciled to God.

I trusted my family and the Christian community to which I belonged,

believing them to be truthful in teaching me these things.

Given my understanding of God,

especially how God is holy

and how we too should live holy lives,

I often found myself at odds with my profession of faith,

finding resolution

in confession and repentance,

but not enduring in my resolve

to live in such a way as to be found holy in all I thought, said or did.

I developed secretive habits that became part of my lifestyle

that provoked much awareness
for the need of confession and repentance,

yet miserably persisted.

I believe the grace of God kept me in spite of my persistent sin.
It is my hope

that the character of Christ Jesus is forming in me

by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank God for his lavish goodness.

Begin here in God and God will take you there.

God is God, beyond comprehension.
God provides, by His Spirit alongside/within/all about us,

what we require to think of Him,

but we must not think that our thoughts can wholly comprehend Him.

We have the Word of God

to which we must go to measure our musings against His awesome Majesty.

In doing so, we will inevitably end up like Job, who confessed,

"I have uttered what I did not understand.

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

... I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you.

Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

We might learn also from Elijah's experience,

who, in beholding the LORD's passing by, realized where the LORD was not.

This recalls the via negativa

to which theo-philosophical discussion must usually resort.

Transcendence is troubling to those trying to take God's measure.
Immanence is God's solution,

and that is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

Begin here in Him and He will take you there.

Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional

A correspondent wrote: "Theology, even on the disputable matters, is relevant, in that it makes us better or worse prepared to live a life worthy of Christ, and makes us more or less interested and effective in sharing the Gospel, which is one more reason we should do our best to get it right."

This statement is of utmost importance. Theology, as I understand it, involves telling; telling implies communication, communication implies relationship. One engages in theology for the purpose of communicating to others one's experienced understanding of God. Given that language is a primary means of communication, words come into play in particular.

Although "all experiences are not equivalent," all experiences are mediated by some relationship. Right relationship leads to truth. Although "we do not abandon the objective claims of the scripture for the self-authorizing subject," we do need to be sure that we submit such so-called objectivity to the Self-authorizing God of Truth, whose Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

I understand the Pentecostal emphasis to be on experienced Truth being informed by God's Word while informing understanding of God's Word and compelling obedience to God's Word. (Many other Christian groups are skeptical about experience and often discount it in theological intercourse; for the Pentecostal, experience is very significant - theology is an active verb to be spoken in the present tense.) The words in God's Word are the common coin exchanged back and forth in the Household (economia) of God and the Spirit of God is the measure of their value. Theology may be the effort to facilitate the means of exchange.

When unbelievers enter the theological conversation, it is like a foreigner without any Euros entering a European country. Perhaps apologetics is the place to exchange currency. Consider Proverbs 23:23 – "Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom, discipline and understanding."

I am speaking of Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional given that Truth is true because God is the source and sustainer of what is true. Apart from God, there is nothing true; thus does the father of lies distort what is otherwise true to become false. Apparent truth must be closely examined with the discerning light of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised will guide us into all truth. All truth is God's truth and any proposition must be put to the test of agreeing with what is revealed in the Word of God. I insist - there is no truth apart from God; reality itself confronts us with what is true because all creation declares God's glory, so sinful Man avoids what is real by creating his own ideal, proposing this or that idea to make reality seem to conform to him.

Thus does it behoove us to submit to the Spirit's renewal of our minds so that, becoming transformed, we are able to perceive what is really true. Propositional truth depends on language, language depends on understanding, understanding depends on relationship, relationship depends on grace. Let us then celebrate the glorious Incarnation of the Logos who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE

I am convinced the present generation of Pentecostals has almost altogether abandoned its historic roots. Both by experience and by disposition the earliest Pentecostals were a lay movement, where there was little interest in "clergy" and all were called "brother" and "sister." At the same time, there were a large number of women who had been ordained for ministry. But in three generations of the Assemblies of God, I have watched all that change. When the Pentecostals joined the National Association of Evangelicals, an erosion took place in the area of church and ministry that is bidding fair to destroy the very thing that God the Holy Spirit created in the first place. Despite protest to the contrary, we are now de facto a denomination of clerics, second only to Roman Catholicism; and, unfortunately, we have become a denomination of white male clerics. Although I have little hope that one voice can stem this overwhelming tide, I include this essay because it expresses the convictions not only of a New Testament scholar, but of a Pentecostal that bemoans the dissolution of the "restoration" on this very crucial theological issue. For some, this essay may seem to have a dimension of "clergy bashing" to it; if so, it probably gives expression to my own deeply populist roots, which I am convinced in this case are also the roots of the New Testament church.

[Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics page xi]

Fee's verdict concerning the erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE is right on; it was a classic case of pouring new wine into old-wineskins. In my opinion, evangelicalism was/is riddled too much with modernism, accepting the presumptive mind-set of the Enlightenment. The Pentecostal movement, with its supra-rational restorationist focus on letting the Truth of God's Holy Spirit lead scripturely-correct religious practice, trumped modernism's rationalism with its Spirit-quenching Kantian restrictions on religion while at the same time exposing the spiritually-counterfeit masquerade of theosophism/anthrophosophism with its neo-gnostic nonsense. The late 20th century drift toward post-modernism seemed to be a secular attempt to escape the modernist dead-end; that effort is failing and will continue to fail because it too quenches the Spirit of Truth with its embrace of radical poly-valence and abhorrence of Real Presence.

I doubt that the "christianity" emerging from post-modern culture will fair any better.

Evangelical Identity

Reformatted excerpt from AN EVANGELICAL MANIFESTO:

A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment

May 7, 2008; Washington, D.C. (http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf)

To be Evangelical,

and

to define our faith and our lives

by the Good News of Jesus

as taught in Scripture,

is to submit our lives entirely

to the lordship of Jesus

and

to the truths and the way of life

that he requires of his followers,

in order that they might

become like him,

live the way he taught,

and

believe as he believed.

As Evangelicals have pursued this vision over the centuries,
they have prized above all certain beliefs
that we consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus
and therefore foundational for us

— the following seven above all:

First, we believe

that

Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human,

the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation

of the very being, character, and purposes of God,

beside whom there is no other god,

and

beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Second, we believe

that

the only ground for our acceptance by God

is what Jesus Christ did on the cross

and what he is now doing through his risen life,

whereby he
exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence,
bore the penalty for our sins,
credited us with his righteousness,
redeemed us from the power of evil,
reconciled us to God,
and empowers us with his life “from above.”

We therefore bring nothing to our salvation.
Credited with the righteousness of Christ,
we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.

Third, we believe

that

new life,

given supernaturally through spiritual regeneration,

is a necessity as well as a gift;

and that

the lifelong conversion that results

is the only pathway

to a radically changed character and way of life.

Thus for us, the only sufficient power

for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world

is that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, we believe

that

Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude

toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible,

God’s inspired Word,

make the Scriptures our final rule

for faith and practice.

Fifth, we believe
that

being disciples of Jesus

means

serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives,

secular as well as spiritual,

public as well as private,

in deeds as well as words,

and in every moment of our days on earth,

always reaching out as he did

to those who are lost

as well as

to the poor,

the sick,

the hungry,

the oppressed,

the socially despised,

and being faithful stewards

of creation and our fellow-creatures.

Sixth, we believe

that

the blessed hope of the personal return of Jesus

provides both strength and substance

to what we are doing,

just as what we are doing

becomes a sign of the hope of where we are going;

both together leading to

a consummation of history

and the fulfillment of an undying kingdom

that comes only by the power of God.

Seventh, we believe

all followers of Christ are called

to know and love Christ through worship,

love Christ’s family through fellowship,

grow like Christ through discipleship,

serve Christ by ministering to the needs of others in his name,

and share Christ with those who do not yet know him,

inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time

to join us as his disciples and followers of his way.

At the same time, we readily acknowledge

that

we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling,

and all too often illustrate

the truth of our own doctrine of sin.

We Evangelicals share the same “crooked timber” of our humanity,
and the full catalogue of our sins, failures, and hypocrisies.

This is no secret

either to God

or to those who know and watch us.

"BELIEVE WHAT? WHOM?"

Believe God is - this first, then faith will become operative in assuring one of what follows from that. The first responsibility of any person is to believe in God, that is, be faithful to God - faith, by definition, is believing what is true; if what one believes is not true, one is unfaithful. To not believe God is will mar anything else a person may believe: "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Belief functions in humans before reason does. This priority of belief is a matter of maturity - "when I was a child, I reasoned as a child ...." What is childish reasoning like? It is thinking one's beliefs rightly describes reality as it appears to be. Reason accepts the possibility that what is apparent may be other than what is real. This is what I like about the philosophical approach of phenomenology - it takes seriously the appearance of things but is willing to put that appearance to question.

There is no such person as a "non-believer." Every person believes something. A reasonable person will desire to believe what is true - to believe otherwise is not reasonable. Grace and truth are realized through Jesus Christ. I believe that God graciously ta kes responsibility for revealing the truth He wants us to know. We must pattern what we believe after that which God has revealed - God is perfectly revealed in Christ Jesus. Born in sin, our belief system begins out of whack. We begin our lives capable of believing only one thing properly (this is how I understand what Romans 12:3 describes as each person's "measure of faith" ) - that we need God to reveal how we ought to believe. Responsible belief is continually on the lookout for whatever God reveals. Humans are born ready to respond to what God reveals - sin works to distort that revelation and alter our response. It is the grace of God the works against the distorting influence of sin; by grace we are able to respond rightly to God's revelation, if we are willing, that is, if we believe. Belief is what we are willing to do.

Belief always takes place in the context of relationship. That is why witnessing is more that mere reasoned presentation of the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ - it is a reasoning together: this often involves a challenge to beliefs, iron sharpening iron, as it were. Let this conversation take place in love, grace and truth in action. When one of the persons reasoning together is God Himself, the other discovers a cleansing transformation taking place - sin, that source of bad belief, no longer separates oneself from God. God is right there to be worshipped - confession, repentance, praise, intercessory prayer, proclamation of his mighty works, and on and on.

All praise be to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

who has opened the way for us,

through the power of the Holy Spirit,

to faithfully believe what pleases our Father in Heaven,

the LORD God Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth.

Self Abortion 05.16.09

Skeptics build a house of straw where they reside. They lock themselves into a little room then paint themselves into a corner. They curl up in the corner with clenched fists, ears shut and eyes closed tight. In fetal position, they self-destruct. Skeptics abort themselves.

Evangelical Manifesto considered

In a recent correspondence, a colleague wrote:

But just because Christianity contributed to the forming of our country does not mean our country is Christian. Composed of may Christians, sure. But as far as I can tell the only true Christian government is the one where Jesus Christ rules in the flesh - and that doesn't happen until after the resurrection.

First of all, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding - so much revisionist history is out there severing well-established historical connections with Christianity (glaring example: the European Union constitution, of all things), that I was not sure where you were coming from. I also agree that America is "Christian", in the sense you employ; however, it is NOT "post-Christian"'; far from it. Or else it would look more like some soviet or Islamic state (or worse). A Christian presence is still quite ubiquitous in American life and culture - if it were not so, the anti-Christian lobby ( a truly motley crew) would not be so enraged, incensed and organized to stamp it out. They would just let it die a nice quiet post-Christian death. Ain't happenen'.

I agree with the (somewhat overblown self-righteous?) statement in the Evangelical Manifesto (http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/), but what motivates this group anyway? And why a manifesto? Isn't that something Karl Marx did a century and half ago, and that humanists update every couple of years? (Have you seen the latest version, by the way?) I am not a stranger to American Evangelicalism all these years, warts and all. Yet I feel no over-riding compulsion to go out of our way with a bunch of mea culpas to show to the supposedly dominant new Left. These people don't give a hoot about what Evangelicals believe - they think of us as Stalin did his "useful idiots"; so why act like the part? What is wrong with just leading people to Jesus and telling them all about Him? The root of "evangelical" is, after all, "evangel".

Now, how come these things weren't brought up in those long "Bull" years; now that the "Bear" has come to Evangelicalism, politically at least, it's suddenly cool to gloss over all that has happened, spiritually, since the Billy Graham crusades of yore clear up to PromiseKeepers and beyond, as if nothing of significance happened except for scandal, duplicity and hypocrisy. Fact is. lots of folks "got saved" (or whatever they call Christian conversion these days). All of a sudden, Christians are welcoming (failed) socialist approaches, uncritically, naively, as if it's new. If you don't believe it, look at the new life breathed into some of these old goats, like Sojourners. Do they really have something new to say to me that I didn't get the first time around? Well, I'm not buying it. Their is just a whiff of Franky Schaefferism in some of this stuff that makes me a bit skeptical - or at least, not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon. After all, the core of all those decades of activity and, yes, activism, was the Gospel message itself - spoken not like Liberal denominations, nor other parts of Christendom which would dilute the preaching of the Cross and the salvation that each person needs, etc. - unabashedly and boldy preached. Even with my advanced degrees and decades of campus culture, I am still cautious of the diluting effect the university (including, or especially Christian ones) can have on an believer's genuine vibrant faith in Jesus and the love that engenders all around. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord then dwell in the tents of evil men...(one reason I admire C.S.Lewis, and my dad, and others, so much, is that, while they worked in those tents, they never dwelt there.)

But maybe I am over-reacting (like many of those of whom I speak). Perhaps some of us overindulged or are just coming to terms with things we never thought about before. Or perhaps we are just adjusting to new technologies, like the internet and global culture, etc. I'm cool with that part. But next time. tell these evangelical nay-sayers not to quench the Spirit when some of us Pentecostal types have a word to speak...maybe next time, they'll listen. But will there be anyone left to prophesy?

FRANKYnstein Shaeffer

Franky Schaeffer, frankly speaking, has lost it!

See his weird confessional considering the murder of Mad Doktor Tiller at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html, which begins: "My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America."

I discovered this outrageous article through the blog (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/frank-schaeffer-son-of-evangelical-icon.html) of an outspoken Roman Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, who writes: "Last September, Schaeffer put out his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back, in which he essentially renounced his past and trashed his father and mother. It was one of the most astonishing displays of ungratefulness and betrayal of one's parents (and the movements one was a part of) in memory. He had done a similar thing to a lesser extent in his semi-autobiographical novel Portofino (2004). His mother Edith has expressed extreme anguish and hurt over this, and longtime Schaeffer family friends are outraged by how Frank has behaved. See, for example, family friend Os Guinness' scathing review of this book and a further comment by Dr. Jim Eckman."

I recommend the Os Guiness review, found at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html?start=1. The review begins with the following thought: "The case can be made, however, that from a Christian perspective, no relationship is more mysterious and more wonderful, yet sometimes more troubling, than that of fathers and sons. The depth and wonder begin with all we know of the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, while the troubled aspects stem from the Fall. Consider Absalom's rebellion against King David in the Old Testament, Edmund Gosse's exposure of his father Philip, the Oedipal drive in the writings of Sigmund Freud—and now Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, a memoir that is his personal apologia at the expense of his famous father, Francis Schaeffer, who was the founder and leader of the worldwide network of L'Abri communities."

Reading the review, as well as Armstrong's comments about Schaeffer, I found myself reflecting on my own status as son of a well-regarded man of God. To be candid, I must confess that I saw a bit of myself when reading about Franky's angry rhetorical attitude; I hope and pray that I truly learn to "speak the truth in love" so that my own words are not merely sounding brass and clanging noise. In his anger, it seems the Franky Schaeffer has finally gone too far and sinned - supporting such a monstrous agenda as belongs to the wickedly deceitful "pro-choice" crowd.

THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BEING PRESENT

Was Pentecost truly the birth of the Church? What about the "church in the wilderness" spoken of by Stephen in Acts? It was the Spirit of the LORD being present that let it be known that God favored the congregation of Israel, distinguishing them from all the other people on the face of the earth. The LORD promised, "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." The echo of this promise can be heard in the call of our Lord Jesus for all to come find rest in Him.

How must we consider the significance of such continuity? Consider this - restlessness may be a sign of absence, not presence. As Augustine confessed in Book 1, "You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you." Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. The rock upon which the church is built follows God's people from age to age; on that solid rock we stand or stumble. Eating the same spiritual food, drinking the same spiritual drink, let us become the Body through which God's glory, expressed perfectly in Christ Jesus, is made manifest.

Speaking of being made manifest, it is interesting to note, in 1Co 12:7, that Paul writes that "a manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial ...." This verse is why I resist speaking of manifestations of the Spirit and prefer to emphasize one manifestation - the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems to me that whatever the form such a manifestation takes, the function is the same - to reveal the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The several gifts are singular in what is made manifest. Unity in diversity is the hallmark of the True Church.

Some thoughts on Pentecost Sunday

[The following essay was posted to our discussion group by a pastor in our group. 

I am reposting the pastor's comments here with his permission.]

The most neglected Sunday of the year is Pentecost Sunday, according to David Bratcher, who leads a service that assists churches in preparing liturgies for worship.  While arguments could be made that post-Lent and Holy Week fatigue have a role in this effect in some places, the absence of emphasis in Pentecostal churches is inexplicable. The very churches that exist to bring renewed emphasis to the present day ministry of the Holy Spirit equally neglect the importance of this Sunday on the Church's calendar.

This year [2007] with Pentecost Sunday coming on Memorial Day weekend found more emphasis on the latter than the former. Add to this the fact that few Pentecostal churches preach on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit nor give any opportunity within their services for receiving this biblical experience there can be little doubt as to the reason for a quickly declining number of Christians who testify of this experience or practice praying in tongues. George Barna recently reported that only 18% within Pentecostal churches report that they pray in tongues. In many places it has become an embarrassment, and this practice is either greatly limited or forbidden.

The reason for this is clear. There is a lack of conviction on the part of the current generation of pastors. The pulpit is devoid of biblical preaching in general and on this experience in particular. Instead of deep personal conviction that "the promise is to you and your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call" the old non-pentecostal view of "seek not forbid not" is in vogue.

The leading influences within the evangelical churches are non-pentecostal highly visible personalities. Growing the church, which is God's work, has been usurped as the church's work, and the teaching of the observation of all Jesus commanded, which is our work, is neglected.

When God's people are filled with the Spirit, when all of the Gifts of the Spirit are fully functioning, and the life of the Risen Lord is evident the sought-for evangelism will be explosive. After all, didn't Jesus promise that believers would receive power and be witnesses to the ends of the earth when the Spirit came upon them? Just a brief period after John Chrysostom wrote in the late 4th century that the church no longer expected converts to speak in tongues when hands were laid on them to receive the Spirit, the Church along with culture tumbled into the Dark Ages.

Today there is a fear that disorder will occur and leaders are uncertain as to how to handle such situations. There is a greater effort to make sure that nothing untoward will happen than a burning desire that the Spirit will have His rightful place to be manifest among God's people.

One of the reasons for this is the rearrangement of the Church's life. Sunday morning historically was the gathering of believers for worship and Sunday evening was viewed as evangelistic. With Sunday evening nearly gone Sunday morning has become more and more geared toward unbelievers, and there is no specific gathering for believers except in small classes. I Corinthians 14 is referred to as a relevant teaching on order which of course it is. However, Paul treats the situation as a believers meeting and gives instruction on comportment should unbelievers come into it.

Today Pentecostal emphasis is kept alive by Youth Pastors. This occurrence would be almost totally missing if it were not for retreats, camps, and all-night prayer meetings in which young people receive the Baptism in the Hold Spirit, and smaller churches that still have altar times.  Because of my present malady, I have been out of the pulpit for 5 years. I have not heard a message on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, since the last time that I preached on it myself.

Jesus said that these signs would follow believers. The question we must ask is do we believe this? Are we ready to practice it?

... every imagination of the thoughts of one's heart ...

Humans experience all reality through their imagination. It is not either/or.

True, reality is not a personal construct. However, our perception of reality is - constructed by means of imagination. All sensation feeds imagination which translates that sensation into images that interpret what is sensed. Reality is not imagination but human sense of reality is.

I do not distinguish between imagination and perception. One's imagination is the instrument of perception. I do not know how to explain it otherwise. Imagination may be prior to awareness, for some things are perceived without one being aware that such perception is taking place. We are created in such a way that our access to reality occurs as a function of imagination. Disciplined imagination orders perception, undisciplined imagination is ordered by perception.

Imagination contains intellect, memory and will. That is why creativity is possible in anything a human does, whether intellectually, physically (muscle memory comes to mind), meditatively, or spiritually. Understanding imagination in this way explains humanity profoundly. It is, I think, quite consistent with humans being created in the image of God, and underscores how Jesus Christ is the express image of God.

Imagination is the nexus between the real and the ideal. When one's imagination is grounded in reality, then any ideas one may have will have more possibility; this may explain how, with God, all things are possible, because God's creativity defines what is real. Thinking God's thoughts after him is the goal of any creative Christian thinker.

The Scripture that has most influenced my thinking about this is found in Genesis 6:5 –
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
And Genesis 8:21 –
"And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."
This juxtaposed with Romans 12:2 –
"... be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
And, of course, Philippians 4:8 –
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

[In Genesis 6:5, the Hebrew word translated as imagination is yetzer; eikasia, the near equivalent Greek word, is not found in the New Testament as far as I can find, but is a major concept in Platonic thought (Aristotle preferred phantasia).]

I may be making the word "imagination" work harder than others tend to, but it makes sense to me to use "imagination" in this way that I do. Though influenced by a number of other thinkers – for example, a book which seems to discuss imagination in the way I am using the word is THE WAKE OF IMAGINATION: Toward a Postmodern Culture (Routledge, 1998) by Richard Kearney – what I have written is my own thought.

My thinking is framed by my personal preference for intuitivity; I think this is why improvisatory theatre appeals to me so much - it takes intuition very seriously. Being a Christian, I must be careful to submit my own intuitivity to the discipline of the Spirit's leading, guided by the Word of God revealed in Scripture and confirmed by Christian community.

One must imagine what is True in order to know the Truth. In reference to this, I am studying 2 Thessalonians 2:1-16, the following verses in particular:
"... they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

My father taught me that faith begins in one's imagination. Without faith, one cannot even begin to believe what is true. Renewal of the mind happens in the realm of imagination; one who is willing to submit to God's Spirit of Truth can expect true transformation to take place. Contrary to godless philosophers who claim all religion is delusional, the Word of God destroys delusion by revealing Truth. Really.

ON HEARING FAURE'S REQUIEM SUNG

by The Valley Forge Choir of Men & Boys

at Washington Memorial Chapel on February 29, 2003.

Silence.

Boys proceed with folded hands,

their fingers intertwined.

Men follow,

young, old, faithful, faint.

Others watch

and wait,

sitting in the wooden pews

or on stone benches

set along the chapel walls,

(some, having arrived late,

on folding chairs set up front),

all now a sudden congregation

set to hear a service sung -

an invocation to our God

that He

would grant eternal rest.

.

Requiem aeturnam ...

Organ chord sounds loudly first,

and startles some

who sit not knowing

what they should expect.

Rest eternal ...

sung in Latin verse,

the Lord beseeched with music,

God in Zion praised,

and we,

reminded that all flesh

shall die,

seek God's face

to favor us with mercy

in that coming moment.

.

Kyrie eleison ...

Lord Christ have mercy.

Surely you are able, Lord;

we pray that you be willing.

.

Rex glorie ... libera animas ...

From death deliver souls.

Oh Lord!

Is not the promise of the King of Glory sure?

Surely shall all faithful souls be saved

from being swallowed up

in deepest darkness,

from falling down forever

into abysmal obscurity.

Make those souls pass from death, O Lord;

deliver souls from death

to pass instead

to life.

.

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus ...

Thrice holy God, Lord Sabaoth,

hear blessing from trebled voices

as organ plays with harp;

the highest hosannas sung

to the One who comes,

full of glory,

in the holy Name,

I AM.

.

Pie Jesu Domine ...

Please, Lord,

hear our prayer,

and, in your mercy,

grant eternal rest.

.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi ...

the world ... the sins ...

who takes sin away?

There is no one else

who can, who has, who sacrificed for us.

who ... who has mercy?

Only you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Oh, God ... like a slaughtered lamb you lay,

stretched out on a cross,

striped with bloody marks of malice,

miserable, suffering like we do,

and more,

and more,

and more ...

.

Libera me, Domine ...

lux perpetua luceat

Liberty! (Deliver me.)

Liberty? (Deliver me.)

From eternal death, deliver me.

Don't let death be dominant.

That fearful day approaches quickly

when all liberty proclaimed

in vain and bloody revolution

shall come to naught;

the wrathful truth is a bitter judge.

I tremble to consider the desolation of that day.

Those whose fantasy of perpetual luxury

will instead

be shut forever out

of Paradise,

suffering a second death.

.

in paradisum ...

In your coming ... be with us in your coming.

Be with us, Lord,

be with us now,

so that in Paradise we may be with you.

Help us find our rest, O Lord,

in you.

.

Requiem ...

requium aeturnam, dona nobis.

My heart, my flesh rejoice in God.

.

... exultaverant in Deum vivum!

To dwell with you, as you have come to dwell with us,

is bliss beyond imagination.

.

Laus et Jubilato ...

Hidden in your heart is home.

How dear your dwelling is, O Lord.

How delightful is your rest.

FROM FRACTURE TO FULFILLMENT

A Clinically Proven and Therapeutically Practical Concept of Marriage

* In March 1992, I edited this essay from excerpts of my father's unpublished monograph, "Towards an Operational Definition of Marriage and Its Implications for Divorce and Remarriage." It was his contribution to a committee of the General Council of the Assemblies of God who were commissioned to consider the credentialing of married ministers who have a living spouse; that committee, chaired by Glen D. Cole, published its report on March 30, 1990.

What is marriage?

There really is no definitive agreement

on the nature of marriage.

We simply assume that, since we all use the term "marriage," there exists a common meaning. As long as we are not confronted by problems related to its meaning, these remain confused and confounding issues. The consequences are severe. If the validity of a marriage cannot clearly be articulated, there will be both uncertainty and disagreement about what divorce is and how the dissolution of a marriage actually comes about. How can any clear guidelines be provided for the role of persons bogged down in such a quagmire?

A simple conceptual definition is inadequate.

In order to identify a valid marriage, we must progress to an operational definition to describe the composite reality we call "marriage." This beginning point is what is to be established. An operational definition is necessary for marriage so that we can measure the components of this phenomenon which we treat as a single entity. This will help us in determining the time when a marriage indeed exists, as well as the factors which can disintegrate the marital relationship.

The model developed embodies what is asserted to be

universally characteristic of marriage

in both recorded human history and myriad cultural settings.

Identified in this model are three components - coitus, commitment and culture. These components are in dynamic relation to each other through their paired elements: in coitus are the elements of procreation and pleasure; the elements of commitment are word and work; and in the cultural component we have elements that are regulatory and religious.

BIOLOGICAL: Coitus (procreation & pleasure)

interfaces with Culture & Commitment

PSYCHOLOGICAL: Commitment (word & work)

interfaces with Coitus & Culture

SOCIAL: Culture (regulatory & religious)

interfaces with Commitment & Coitus

(CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE)

When these elements are rightly related

to Jesus Christ

for the glory of God

Flowing from this model is the operational definition which establishes a basis for determining a valid marriage. A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated.

A usual, normal marriage =

a relationship in which

a man and a woman exchange

verbal and behavioral commitment to each other,

who meet the requirements of their culture,

and who share sexual relations with one another.

It should be self-evident that we are all born strangers. We hold the power to modify that initial relationship through communication. From stranger, we may go on to acquaintance to casual friend and on to close friend. Out of nothing we create a unique relationship. Just as we can create and nurture our social relationships, we also can act to dissolve those very same relationships. After creating a close friend relationship, we can use our decision-making capability to modify it, and, instead of cultivating the friendship, cause it to deteriorate, even going on to change the relationship to enemy. But we can never be a stranger to that other one ever again.

Fractures are characteristic of,

not the exception to, all human systems.

Theoretically,

all fractures in these human social systems

can be healed.

In practice, this rarely occurs.

The dissolution of a relationship does not include being relieved from the responsibility that goes with the privilege of exercisin the power to establish the relationship in the first place. For example, with the privilege of creating a friendship come the responsibility that makes it impossible to ignore the other's person without consequently fracturing that friendship. Fractures are characteristic of, not the exception to, all human systems. Theoretically, all fractures in these human social systems can be healed. In practice, this rarely occurs. Some continue to worsen until the system no longer holds together and the relationships no longer continue to contribute to the cohesion of the group. This process of "ungluing" is the reverse of that which brought the relationship together. It accounts for a human condition that does not occur suddenly but is instead drawn out over time.

Hardness of heart begins when bitterness,

however slight, whatever its form,

is allowed to take root within a person.

Attitudinal and behavioral rather than physical, this condition involves spiritual, psychological and social factors. One might describe it as "growing cold." The biblical label is "hardness of heart." In fact, Jesus himself taught that provision was made for divorce on account of "hardness of heart." Hardness of heart begins when bitterness, however slight, whatever its form, is allowed to take root within a person. The longer the bitterness is nurtured, the colder the heart gets, until one becomes afflicted with "hardness of heart." When this process occurs and is allowed to continue in a marriage relationship, the elements of the marital dyad become anemic and weak. Such a marriage is in trouble to the point of deterioration. Trifle by trifle, in one element after another, the marital dyad becomes unglued. The process that brought it together has reversed itself. This is what conventionally is meant when we say "their marriage is falling apart."

It is possible, and preferable,

that a couple stay together

and work out their problems together.

Coming upon hard times is no ground to say a marriage is fractured beyond repair. Despite that such circumstances are often bitter and frustrating as well as emotionally and intellectually exhausting, a fractured marriage is still a valid marriage. A valid marriage constrains the pair to maintain their responsibilities towards one another so that each may derive the privileges therefrom. A spouse who is committed to the marriage relationship imagines, thinks, and behaves in a covenantal way. Relationships are created and maintained by two persons. It is doubtful that there are very many marital problems in which one party is totally innocent, that is, one did not contribute in any way to the delinquency of the mate. If both parties "will to do the will" of the laws involved in creating productive relationships, disintegration of a union may be stopped and reversed.

Marriage vows are sacred

to self and society.

In being committed to maintaing their marriage, a husband and wife must continually seek how they may enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance one another. While it only takes one spouse to ruin the marriage, it takes both to maintain a healthy and holy marital relationship. This model has proven to be a practical clinical tool for diagnosing a developing, healthy or troubled relationship. Especially helpful is its usefulness for developing a comprehensive therapy to maintain ro restore an adequate and successful marriage. Marriage vows are sacred to self and society. Using this conceptual model of marriage may help husbands and wives facing struggle, strain and separation to keep honoring their vows together.

A man and woman, as husband and wife,

commit themselves

to maintaining their marriage

by continually seeking how they may

enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance

one another.

While it only takes one spouse

to ruin a marriage,

it takes both to maintain

a healthy and holy marital relationship.