John Owen on Forgiveness

In The Forgiveness of Sin: Illustrated in a Practical Exposition of Psalm CXXX John Owen has these words to say about grace and forgiveness.

Gospel-forgiveness, the discovery of which is the sole support of sin-distressed souls, relates to the gracious heart or good-will of the Father, the God of forgiveness; the propitiation made by the blood of the Son; and free pardon according to the covenant of grace. Faith's discovery of forgiveness in God, though it have no present sense of it's own peculiar interest therein, is the great support of the sin-perplexed soul.

I reversed the two paragraphs above to make what is a key observation of Owen's: that faith-found-forgiveness, finding its source in the grace of God the Father, sustains the soul in ways that the soul has yet to discover. What great comfort! I am not required to even know how this mysterious forgiveness works. I have only to trust and say with the blind man of John 9 and John Newton:

Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see. ~John 9:25

What great comfort! That forgiveness depends upon nothing but grace. Not on my efforts, not on my understanding, even when when my own conscience and its so-called "evidences" deny it faith, real faith, declares that forgiveness had come. Faith-found-forgiveness is so completely of God and his grace that it remains at work even as the conscience doubts its effectiveness. Owen continues:

Now, whom should a man believe if not his own conscience? which, as it will not flatter him, so it intends not to affright him, but to speak the truth as the matter requireth. Conscience hath two works in reference to sin — one to condemn the acts of sin, another to judge the person of the sinner; both with reference to the judgment of God. When forgiveness comes, it would sever and part these employments, and take one of them out of the hand of conscience; it would divide the spoil with this strong one. It shall condemn the fact, or every sin; but it shall no more condemn the sinner, the person of the sinner, that shall be freed from its sentence. Here conscience labours with all its might to keep its whole dominion, and to keep out the power of forgiveness from being enthroned in the soul.

There is a forgiveness that comes at the historical event of the Cross, but this differs greatly from simply thinking about or feeling or understanding the concept of forgiveness. The blood of Christ is effective. The blood in my gray matter is not effective in bringing me forgiveness, and in fact it so often works against me. Oh to live by grace alone.

Ending Well

Walter White, that nasty anti-hero from AMC's Breaking Bad, certainly had it coming. He was a non-tribal uncaring selfish jerk, and he was so because most of us believe that part of what it means to be human is to have a natural affinity towards  other humans. White? No so much. If anything throughout the show's 5 seasons he only develops a natural affinity towards his own self. What makes you happy? Walter White would and does say "I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it, and I was really, I was really alive."

So why do we love this unloveable jerk? We love him like we loved Archie Bunker before. Where Bunker would say the things from his armchair that we wanted to but couldn't. With White it would've been the end of Meathead. White got up from his armchair, made the choices, did the deeds that deep down Bunker only wished he could.

We love it because it our theology-cosmology-sociology is affirmed by it. That in Breaking Bad we see a social structure that exists which we've been conditioned to believe that if we support it will result in a "good" life. Go to schoo,l graduate get a good job, love your wife, and the result is more than fulfilling.

It's a lie and we know it, but it's the best lie we've got. It's a lie  evil and death and cancer, murder, revenge, all prove that it's a lie. We aren't really happy in the network just waiting for the inevitable Bad. It really isn't satisfying and what's worse is that the social structures we find ourselves in have no response to, no answer for, death and evil. What rings true for us in Breaking Bad is that Walter is ultimately alone, he feels it, and we feel it. His social network is helpless against that which is ultimate, and so is ours. So we hope beyond hope that he can Break out of the trap he's in.

We need a hero. Who shall rescue me from this body and soul of death? Certainly not his friends and relations. Finding no hero. What becomes helpful for White, helpful for his soul, is that he still has a choice. He can rescue himself, but to become a hero Walter White must reject what he has been told… that he is a social being.

Don't we wish for heroes? Even if they only just boldly declare what we feel is true from their armchair, don't we want someone to do that for us? Even if they are full of evil but do it all for "us".

Maybe Breaking Bad is attractive because as a society we feel we are given nothing but pre-determined Calvinist-fatalist choices. Choices forced upon us by our collective societal relations. We feel trapped in this machine, and we cheer for a White who fights, not just shouts but really fights against it. White, who chooses a life of meaning for himself, despite and in spite of the so-called choices he's been given. In the end Walter's death is society's gain, which for us who remain "feels" right, because we hope for one who can find a good life for us in the face of evil and death when we cannot do so ourselves.

Regret

Forgiveness flounders because I exclude the enemy from the community of humans even as I exclude myself from the community of sinners. ~Miroslav Volf

I love that thought. That forgiveness means treating the other as a human and not a monster, while remembering that I too have been monstrous.

The trick is what to do when we know all too well that what we have done was monstrous and cannot be undone. How to deal with regret?

Simple answer? Let your regrets drive you to Jesus. Sorrow over the past should result in a willingness to change, a want to change. But, to quote Macklemore, we can't change even if we wanted too. We can't change the past, we can't take back the words, we can't really change ourselves. Dwelling on the past only leads to more sorrow. Sorrow that if left untended will lead to death.

But there are two kinds of sorrow: 2 Corinthians 7:10 reminds us that "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death." Good sorrow, godly sorrow, leads us to repent, that is it makes us turn from our monstrous ways and turn to Jesus. To ask Jesus to do a miracle and forgive us when we cannot forgive ourselves. To ask Jesus to turn death into life again, just as he did at the cross. That's wheat our regrets should drive us to, and when they do, Jesus promises to save us from them.

The Last thing Calvin Says

The opening words to Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion are well known.

"Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves."

What is not as well known are the Institutes' final thought. And before I go on I think these final thoughts are both connected to and serve to indicate the purpose of its first words. For what purpose is there in gaining any knowledge of God or of ourselves that will not simply puff up pride in ourselves? Why study God at all?

Calvin's Institutes comes in four books. The first two books follow the "knowledge of God" portion of Calvin's famous opening statement; How we know God the Father, and how God the Son reveals the Father. The last two books speak to the second portion of the opening statement, namely how the Holy Spirit brings us into knowledge of ourselves through union with Christ and how the Church is to live in light of this new knowledge of God and self as revealed in the scriptures.

All this culminates in a not-so-famous but no less important closing word:

"Let us comfort ourselves with the thought… That we have been have been redeemed by Christ at so great a price as our redemption cost him, so that we should not enslave ourselves to the wicked desires of men—much less be subject to their impiety."

Not as lyrical as his opening couplet but just as poignant. The logical conclusion that knowledge of God leads is to is that we are not our own, but that we belong and have been purchased by another who not so much demands our obedience as he deserves our obedience before and in stead of any impious desire. Why seek knowledge of God at all? Because, according Calvin's last word, in knowing God a comfort is found that allows us to stand up to and overcome any wicked scheme of man.

Yesterday's Doodle

Last Sunday, Google unveiled a doodle honoring Cesar Chavez. It was his birthday, after all, but this apparently was unknown to the millions of Christians celebrating Easter on the same day. While honoring Chavez aligns with Google's mission of "don't be evil" doing so over and against the context of Easter (unintentionally) came across as an anti-Christian statement.

Who is a greater liberator than Jesus? Cesar Chavez! Can't you just hear the crowds chanting? "We have no king but Caesar!"

Someone posted in the comments of the RedLetterChristians blog... "What if Google had posted colored eggs and bunnies instead?"

It's a good question, but not the best question. Google has a long history of ignoring religious holidays, no problem there, but they also have a history of (purposely) honoring personas in lieu of religious holidays, which does raise the question of why, to Google, is religion off-limits? At best they are being all-inclusive (Google: "Kangaroo Christmas Doodle"). But I wonder if underlying the fact that they have refused (since 2000) to acknowledge Easter, Ramadan, or Passover, they aren't also relegating religion and religious interaction right out of the public arena. "We find all other and eclectic celebrations acceptable, but holy-days we specifically do not."

The RedLetter article referenced takes some well placed jabs at the evangelical knee-jerk (the author obviously doesn't like Al Mohler), but it doesn't move the parties any closer together. It simply tells evangelicals to shut up and chill. Now that I've chilled, tell me then, when is it appropriate to talk about Jesus in public? To paraphrase the article, "How dare you to ask me, once again, NOT talk about Jesus."

What's really missing in the piece is a healthier understanding of Jesus. To say that Jesus, "took the focus off of God and put it on the people who were being ignored and left out," is not only not true, it's idolatry and the blasphemy Jesus was being accused of.

Both the withered-hand healing the article references and the Sabbath healing of the lame man are exactly the opposite of focusing on someone other than God. Both headings are about who has lordship over the Sabbath. The miracles clearly answer, Jesus, the Son of Man is Lord over all He has created. Access to the Father, and the liberation he brings the captives and oppressed comes only through his resurrection life.

Liberation doesn't always bring freedom, it often only substitutes one oppression for another. Or it leaves the blind, lame, and imprisoned still captive in their sins. Like Jesus, Chavez was a liberator, and a socialist in the best terms… a socialist that poignantly attempted to keep political power socialized. Neither Chavez nor Christians need the Googles of the earth to represent the meek. Chavez like Jesus teaches us that the Google's Earth belongs to the meek. But to be continuously ignorant of such a huge segment of the public shows poor taste and smacks of the oppression Chavez fought against. It's irony.

Mormons at Liberty

As a regular Glenn Beck listener I am always surprised by how often he fuzzes the lines between "faith" and "politics". I am not sure whether he does with intention but he certainly does so with conviction. I sense the same conviction in Romney, but with more political tact.

Neither are intellectual slouches so I also must believe that whether their convictions stem from a vibrant Mormon faith or a nominal one both must at least be familiar with what both Evangelicals and the LDS teach. Unfortunately there is little that hallmarks between the two in popular culture. All Evangelicals have been shaking off distinctives as fast as any First Baptist Church re-naming committee. Yet we do share this common social-conservative conviction.



If anything, we Evangelicals, have certainly been complacently church-growthing our congregations over the last few decades. And while we have acheived numerical and socio-political sucess, we have failed to credit God for them resorting instead to writing books and organizing seminars. We have side-stepped the Christian narrative of "Christ is worth dying for" and replaced it with "Christ is worth living for." The latter promotes a gritty, fist-clenching faith. The former promotes an open-handed and other-worldly faith. The latter creates followers  passionate about conviction. The former followers passionate about grace.

Happy Monday

This passage could possibly sacntify Mondays...

According to Ecclesiastes 3:9-13, What is the best way to see beauty or touch eternity? Work!

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

God, because we are mortal, gifts us with the gift of work. So that for mortals there is nothing better than joining with God in the joyfully endless and good work of beautifying all things

There is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man. 3:11-12

Happy Monday! 2 seconds ago• Like• Del

Greatness

"Greatness lives on the edge of destruction." Wil Smith

He has a point: Churchhill, Lincoln, Wm. Carey, Hudson Taylor, Chuck Yeager... all could have gone either way. Destruction or Greatness. I would move the discussion forward with the question, "Must it? Is this the only path to greatness?"

Jesus would say lose your life find it. So maybe...

Stephen Hawking versus John Calvin

Stephen Hawking, in his new book, finally pushes God out of his universe. No surprise really and not a surprise to John Calvin either.

Eureka magazine of The Times of London quotes Hawking as saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." See the report here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

A blow, perhaps, to Science as well as Creation-Science. Truth is (as Calvin has been saying all along) that...

"To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun and moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon." John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis One

Science and now Hawking, by "proving" that God is not necessary for creation falls into the trap that Calvin and Genesis One makes clear: human beings assume that creative power (all power really) must be tied to created things. Calvin, however, shows that it is God and not the sun who gives light its "lightness". The same can be said about gravity or electricity or biological systems.

Creation Science also falls into the trap of "needing" to find evidence of God or at least a Designer in created things. While such evidence may exist, Calvin's comment on the creation of light before the sun shows that finding evidence is not necessary to prove God's hand in creation and that find it may distract us from God's intent in creating... "that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us with out the sun and moon."

So where Hawking's thought moves towards a universe that must explain everything by natural processes, and Creation Science moves towards a universe that can only be explained by God's "fingerprints" being all over it, Calvin would say that beyond evidence or non-evidence for God in the world creation firstly teaches that God is not dependent on creation to reveal his glory but instead chooses to reveal himself through his Son by it.

"The work, such as we now see it, was approved by God. Therefore nothing remains for us, but to acquiesce in this judgment of God. And this admonition is very useful. For whereas man ought to apply all his senses to the admiring contemplation of the works of God, we see what license he really allows himself in detracting from them." John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis One

Taken with Calvin's thoughts on God (not the sun) as the source of light, this second statement's implications are profound... we all, Stephen Hawking included, are asked to declare with God that the universe is good, not neutral, but good. Proving "design" or disproving design actually morally neutral but our response is not.

"The heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19:1) not so that we might find God, but so that we might be given opportunity to respond to that glory in the same way that God responds to what he has created and declare it good. This response is, in fact, how the Psalm ends... "May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord." (Psalm 19:14)

That he doesn't see God in the universe anymore as Hawking has now shown us, is not as eternally dangerous, it turns out, as whether his heart is responding to God's creation acceptably. These cards he still hold close to his chest and we pray that God would give him and all of us a heart that meditates on and is drawn to the Glory of which God's good good creation declares.

Death, in a word, Is Good

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive...When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. ~1 Corinthians 15:22,54

"That which was God's ordinance for the infliction of judgement becomes an effectual means for the communication of mercy. It is by virtue of the death of Christ alone, that the souls of believers are freed by death from all impressions of sin, infirmity, and evils, which they had had from the flesh; which were their burden, under which they groaned all thie days... With wicked men it is not so. Death to them is a curse; and the curse is the means of the conveyance of all evil, and not deliverance from any. In what way they have been warmed and refreshed by the influences of the flesh, they shall be deprived of it." ~John Owen

Just read this last night... even death is good news now.

Phone blogging

Blogging from my phone this morning.

Location : 3800-3966 Arbor Dr NW, Rochester, MN 55901,

The John Owen Quote I Want on My Tombstone

After a long sincere endeavor for the mortification of all sin, I find it will never be absolutely perfect, but by this reduction into the dust. ~John Owen, The Glory of Christ

Willard Quote

From a 2004 discussion of "discipleship" with Dallas Willard

The leading assumption in the American church is that you can be a Christian but not a disciple. That has placed a tremendous burden on a mass of Christians who are not disciples. We tell them to come to church, participate in our programs and give money. But we see a church that knows nothing of commitment. We have settled for the marginal, and so we carry this awful burden of trying to motivate people to do what they don't want to do. We can't think about church the way we have been.
We need to be clear in our heads about what discipleship is. My definition: A disciple is a person who has decided that the most important thing in their life is to learn how to do what Jesus said to do. A disciple is not a person who has things under control, or knows a lot of things. Disciples simply are people who are constantly revising their affairs to carry through on their decision to follow Jesus.

I think he frames the problem well in the first paragraph. How many people especially in the Midwest can tell you what church they "go to" with complete disregard for whether or not they actually attend?
However, his second paragraph has me raising a question. I do like his definition "the most important thing in their life is to learn how to do what Jesus said to do." Does this line up with Jesus discipleship denials in Luke 14? Let's see...

Luke 14:25-26 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple..."
Jesus in this passage talks about discipleship in terms of priorities. These days we say "values." Those days Jesus would've said "treasures." Oh wait, he did Luke 12:33-34 Willard would be saying the same thing when he refers to "constantly revising [your] affairs" and it would seem he is right on track with what Jesus is trying to communicate as well. Look at the second discipleship denial Jesus lists.

Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."
This process of putting Jesus above family, is expanded upon in Jesus' encouragement to deny our self through cross-bearing. Which, is also what Willard explains as the purpose of revising and reprioritizing our affairs: so that we can carry through on our decision to come after Jesus. The first mention of a "cross" in Luke also comes in the context of discipleship. If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23

Somehow we have got it into our heads that we can follow Christ with out moving our feet and Willard's definition of discipleship is challenging to our modern independent notion of a Christianity unlinked to practice. But I still have this nagging question. Is "discipleship" really all about us? Notice that if you change the word "Jesus" in Willard's definition to "Bill Gates" you still have discipleship, just not "Christian" discipleship. Duh... you think. "If you don't follow Jesus it's no longer "Christian" discipleship." But the issue is slightly deeper than just choosing who you follow. What Willard's definition, I think, lacks is a recognition that for discipleship to be Christian it must begin as a work that Christ does first of all in us before it becomes a work we do. It is all well and good to take Jesus' words seriously, as Willard always does, but he seems to gloss over Jesus' third discipleship denial:

Luke 14:33 "Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."
Where Willard says a disciple is not one "under control" or one who "knows a lot of things" but one who "revises" their affairs, Jesus emphatically states that no one can be a disciple of Jesus Christ without the renunciation of all that they have. Jesus' disciples trust no one else, no other things, except Jesus and Jesus alone, not even themselves... Luke 9:23

In context this statement of Jesus follows his parables about being able to finish construction or making peace with the large army. In other words, it would be foolish to trust anyone else except Christ. But in a larger context Luke connects the idea of renunciation to the work of God in regeneration. (He may be doing that here as well by preceding and following the passage with parables about seeking out the lost.)

Remember Jesus' words to the rich young ruler? Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Luke 18:22 Can't you just hear the echoes of Luke 14 here? Discipleship being about denial, renunciation, revising. Obviously Jesus gave the ruler his instruction in a way that was meant to be heard by his disciples, just like he gave his instructions on discipleship to the "great crowds" that followed him in chapter 14. We know that his instructions were meant to be heard, because he comments on the instruction he gives. "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God. For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:24-25

The people who hear Jesus say this are shocked! "Who can be saved?" they ask, and Jesus answers them with a call. Not to repent and renounce but to be regenerated. He says, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." 18:27 and again in response to Peter's statement on renouncing ("We have left out homes and followed you." Jesus says this "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life." 18:29-30 Again, if you should be able to get past the idea of "receiving many times more in this time" as referring to material wealth in the present age (this was a response to a rich young ruler remember?!) it is plain to see that Jesus is referring to the regenerative nature of the Spirit. Receiving often refers to the spirit... Acts 1:8 We must be reborn, regenerated, renewed by the Spirit before we can renounce, reject, revise our life and all that traps us in it. Leaving everything to follow Jesus is good, but in itself it is not enough to bring about salvation. We as Christians strive for holiness as disciples. Discipleship is repentance and following and cross-bearing, but discipleship is not complete in these things. It must include a recognition of and reliance upon the renewing work of the Spirit of Christ. On the one hand, how can you walk on water if you don't get out of the boat? But on the other hand only Christ can walk on water, no amount of trusting will complete the task unless he works it in us.

Learning Christ

When Paul switches gears in Ephesians moving from orthodoxy to orthopraxy (big words I know) it seems that he introduces the second half of his letter with a summary statement that melds and mingles the two; he connects thought to practice, theology to action in 4:1-20. In other words, instead of making a clean break and just starting into the "so this is how you are supposed to live" he connects the two. (He does a similar thing with Romans 11:30-12:2)
His summary idea, so to speak, in connecting theology to practice is found in 4:20 But that is not the way you learned Christ! For Paul, "learning Christ" is the action which leads the disciple towards sanctification. It is what Christians "do".
He first of all defines "learning Christ" in the negative. Learning Christ is not: walking as pagans with their futile-darkened-alienated-ignorant minds (v.17-18), it is not callousness, has nothing to do with sensuality, greed or impurity. So what is it? What does it mean to "learn Christ." How do we grow as Christians?

In beginning to explain Christian living Paul moves from generalities to specifics:
In general he states that those who have heard about Christ and were taught Christ (the truth is in Jesus), to them the Christian life consists of three things:

1. Putting off the old self, which belongs to the former manner of life, corrupt through deceitful desires (4:22)
2. Becoming renewed in the Spirit of the mind (4:23)
3. Putting on the new self, after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (4:24)

Specifically, "putting off", "become renewed by the Spirit", "putting on" manifests itself in a variety of ways. It is a work of the Spirit after all.

• "Put off" lying and falsehood (4:25)
• When you are angry "put off" sin (4:26)
• "Put off" the devil, don't give him opportunities (4:27)
• "Put off" stealing; instead "put on" hard work and generosity (4:28)
• "Put off" corrupt speech; instead "put on" gracious, encouraging speech (4:29)
• "Become renewed by the Spirit" (4:30)
• "Put off" bitterness, anger, malice, wrath, slander, clamor (4:31)
• "Put on" kindness, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness (4:32)

The last encouragement comes with and continues with this caveat... remember that when you are kind, when you are tender-hearted, when you forgive you are imitating God in Christ Jesus and by implication (and v. 30) we accomplish this not on our own power but in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Paul summarizes before continuing on with encouragement toward right practice... Imitate God just as Christ did.
Be imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 5:1-2

It's not as simple as WWJD? to grow in grace and Learn Christ. In a real way we also have to turn our backs on or "put off" the sin that so easily entangles us. WWJND? (What would Jesus not do?). But, and praise God, that it's even simpler than that... because, in reality my soul has not inherent ability to answer either question. WWJD? WWJND? My soul is "dead in it's trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) and by the accomplishment and the grace of this same Christ who I am "learning" His Spirit empowers, renews, regenerates, and brings to life in me a renewed mind that now wants to love what Jesus love and wants to hate what Jesus hates. My life is seeking his have his passion through His Spirit.

The Curios Case of N.T. Wright

Some quotes from N.T. Wright's new book, in which one reviewer has said, "N.T. Wright has out-reformed the neo-Reformed."

"...It is because God will be true to that outward-facing generous, creative love that he must also curse those ways of life, particularly those ways of life within his covenant people, which embody and express the opposite. It isn't that God basically wants to condemn and then finds a way to rescue some from that disaster. It is that God longs to bless, to bless lavishly, and so to rescue and bless those in danger of tragedy--and therefore must curse everything that thwarts and destroys the blessing of his world and his people...

"...God made humans for a purpose: not simply for themselves, not simply so that they could be in relationship with him, but so that through them, as his image-bearers, he could bring his wise, glad, fruitful order to the world. And the closing verses of Scripture, in the book of Revelation, are not about human beings going off to heaven to be in a close and intimate relationship with God, but about heaven coming to earth...

"...Within the logic of love is the rich, theological logic of the work of the Holy Spirit. This brings us back to a point made much earlier. When, by clear implication, I am charged with encouraging believers to put their trust in someone or something 'other than the crucified and resurrected Savior,' I want to plead guilty - to this extent and this extent only: that I also say, every time I repeat one of the great historic creeds, that I trust in the Holy Spirit...N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision

Wright is has such an amazing talent to say things that sound so true and almost feel right. Look at quote two. What is the purpose of life? According to Wright, for humans to be used by God in order that He might change the world. Sounds as good as any Eric Clapton tune, especially when you put it into the context of Revelation 21. But it is simply not true, and not true to the passage. The wise, glad, fruitful order God brings to the world is a result of "the dwelling place of God is with man". We only become image-bearers as we are able to gaze upon and display the image which we bear. 2 Corinthians 4 And in Revelation 21 there is no indication that heaven comes to earth "through us" at all. Heaven arrives at earth by the power of the One sitting on the Throne at the end of chapter 20, to the glory of the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (21:22-26). In fact, there is less of an indication that God comes down to earth to bring Himself to earth and more of an indication that God in the Heavenly Jerusalem descends upon the earth in order to be glorified by the kings of the earth and the nations.

Must Something Be Said?

Michael Jackson is dead. Just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, in the same way Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Hebrews 9:27 I have always been a fan of Jackson's music. Seeing the look on Lincoln's face when he stumbled upon Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough on the radio the other day has been one the highlights of the last few weeks. Jackson's death was sudden, not having suffered long like Farrah Fawcett or Ed McMahon. This is how he is being remembered:

Mr. Jackson’s brand of pop knew no borders and needed no translation, linking listeners around the world through the accessible corridors of rhythm, beat, and dance. New York Times

How do you memorialize a man who was at the same time so obviously out of touch with the realities of life and death and wealth and power and fame and sin and obligation. Must something be said? Of course. Anyone who can cause this reaction among inmates at the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu, Philippines must be memorialized.
Having Philippine prisoners do a choreographed dance to the music of an American Pop star could be classified as unusual punishment. Not cruel just a little unusual. Isn't this the response that Jackson and his music had on us all? Talent and dedication and the perfection of the crotch-grab. A scrambled egg for sure.
So, for me, I will not "always remember Michael Jackson" as anything. He is unclassifiable because he held on to the extremes of the human condition in a way that exposed himself to be, under all the pretense, to be a base, vile, sinful man. If Manson had more talent, a lot more people would have been sucked in. Where as Mason was megalomaniacal, Jackson's sins were more "private." We who are comparatively poor, ordinary, untalented and couldn't moonwalk ourselves across the floor of our kitchen in our socks, we love the possibility of a Jackson who can inspire people and are attracted to the boy who sings ABC with his brothers. But as we draw near and shrink back at discovering that it's Wacko Jacko who has produced such a following.
The guy is a freak, a Rick Jamesian superfreak and an elephant-man loving freak of neverland. Love the music. Afraid of the "man in the mirror". Why did he never change his ways? Must something be said or does the fact that his goodness and philanthropy was nothing more than a myth, created to hide a deep, original, all consuming pain convince us to leave well enough alone? Must something be said or do we live and let live, die and let die and move on to the next person of significance without considering the havoc that an unfocused, unprincipled, self-seeking life will cause to the soul? How can you say anything bad about the Bad One? How can you disrespect and discount We Are the World? Who else do you know that has his own videogame?
Opportunities abound if you ask the question. Was he basically good, but confused? Are we? Was he basically evil and unable to shake it? Are we evil but unable to shake it, and yet, scrambled as we are, do we yet eagerly awaiting the return of Christ. (I will avoid making a comparison between king of Pop and king of Kings here.) I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Must something be said?

Good Augustinian Coffee, Part Two

If God gave forth no oracles from His human temple, but communicated everything that He wished to be taught to men by voices from heaven, or through the ministration of angels... love itself, which binds men together in the bond of unity, would have no means of pouring soul into soul, and, as it were, mingling them one with another, if men never learnt anything from their fellow men.
The eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, he was not sent by the apostle to an angel. Nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand. Nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man. On the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, in human words, with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures. Didn't God talk with Moses? And yet even he, with great wisdom and entire absence of jealous pride, accepted the plan of his father-in-law, a man of a foreign race, for ruling and administering the affairs of the great nation entrusted to him? Moses knew that a wise plan, in whatever mind it might originate, was to be ascribed not to the man who devised it, but to Him who is the Truth, the unchangeable God.-Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Preface, parts 6-7

I like my coffee shared, savored with friends. Which is to say that we were created in and designed for community and our coffee should contribute to this. Now, the warning must be sounded because talk about "community" easily de-volves into something that God did not intend. A reminder:

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 1 Corinthians 10:21 (cf. 5:9-12)

The wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them. Ephesians 5:6-7

There is fellowship that we were created for and good coffee contributes to it. There is also a fellowship that we were not created for that good coffee obscures. Augustine would go as far as saying that God's love is shared by means of fellowship with one another, and so infer from scripture that only when our fellowship realizes (actuates?) Him who is the Truth, do we do what God intends for us. Anything else is a distraction: the weather, the NFL, quilting, talking about ministry, American Idol, farming... anything else that draws away from, the unchangeable God, yes even good coffee breaks commandments one and two. Probably all of them in a way. But, praise God, the Biblical example is that each of these things (except maybe Idol. I never was a fan) can, and should be used, utilized, and put under our dominion, in order that God, the God, the Truth might be glorified forever through its sharing. This is why we say grace out loud at meals. This is why I say "God bless you " when you sneeze. This is why we give produce from our garden, why we love, why we buy cars with good gas milage, frisbee golf with friends, paint the baby's room, do the dishes with the kids, and I pray, why we share good coffee at Black Sheep on 12th st.... I need to hear from God through His Word in you.

Source of "Idol Factories" in Calvin

A quick survey of the web reveals that the idea of our hearts being "[perpetual?] idol factories" has been extensively attributed to John Calvin. I just cannot find it anywhere in Calvin specifically. What follows are some (I think) relevant quotes from his Institutes with my own comments.

Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is no wonder, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views...

...If men are only naturally taught, instead of having any distinct, solid, or certain knowledge, they fasten only on contradictory principles, and, in consequence, worship an unknown God. Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure religion (and this must be the case with all who cling to their own views), make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they will allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe, since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates, who, in the blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were “without God,” (Epheisans 2:12), until they had learned from the Gospel what it is to worship the true God. John Calvin, Institutes Book I.V.10

Calvin speaks most clearly here about the human condition. Summarized often as "Total Depravity". (Great name for a [non-Christian?] ska band!) We, without God, have no idea how twisted our minds really are, and yet we show so much undue respect and pay so much undue honor to science, education, learning, business, talent, creativity, etc., etc., etc. Not that we should show disrespect or dishonor these fields, but that we should realize that at any point it is likely that human accomplishment may "worship an unknown God" and at the same time "make a departure from the One God."  

[Persons] have in their own persons a factory where innumerable operations of God are carried on, and a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value—instead of bursting forth in his praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the contrary, are the more inflated and swelled with pride. They feel how wonderfully God is working in them, and their own experience tells them of the vast variety of gifts which they owe to his liberality. Whether they will or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and yet they inwardly suppress them. They have no occasion to go farther than themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as their own that which has been given them from heaven, put out the light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds. At this day, however, the earth sustains on her bosom many monster minds—minds which are not afraid to employ the seed of Deity deposited in human nature as a means of suppressing the name of God. Can any thing be more detestable than this madness in man, who, finding God a hundred times both in his body and his soul, makes his excellence in this respect a pretext for denying that there is a God?John Calvin, Institutes Book I.V.4

Total depravity is shown to be the totality that it is. Where we have been created in glory and majesty and honor (Psalm 8) we have traded that glory for ignorance of the One Creator Lord. "How majestic is Your name in all the earth." Instead of "living up to our potential" (or "living before our potentate") we live down to our "monster mind", which intently destroys and dis-recongizes God in all arenas of its life.

This, however, I the closest that Calvin comes to saying "idol factories." 

The human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. There was a kind of renewal of the world at the flood, but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will... The human mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own capacity; as it labors under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place of God. To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the example of the Israelites: “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exodus 22:1). They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they had no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes behold a corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to his actual government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it may vainly solace itself as a representation of God... After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them.Institutes Book I.XI.8-9

Our hearts are not "perpetual idol factories" exactly. The idea is there, our desires, wants, and passions, always seeking after other gods. So, with Jonathan Edwards, we must be dilligent in forming our passions towards the One true God. However, Calvin seems to indicate that it is not passions that must be formed first but our perception of God in our thoughts first. A correct thinking about God, will result in a correction worship of God.
So where the idea of "idol factories" is sound, it would seem that its usage is incorrect. Calvin wants us to have a correct and pure view of God (a God who is Spirit, and cannot be served or fashioned by human hands). A corrected (opened?) mind will lead its heart towards the proper affections.
It think this is reflected in the first two commandments. We are to "worry about" worship second, only after we have a right view of God. "You shall have not other God's before me" or in the Hebrew "You will not have any other god in my face." God doesn't want us to even see any other god, but for us to see Him and him alone. Only then will we be able to properly worship (the second command).
Anything "worshipped in place of God" is sin. But I don't think this is Calvin's point. I think that Calvin is warning not to trust our hearts at all, depravity is total. He might even be leery of our evangelical talk about "putting God on the throne of our heart." He might even warn that because our hearts/minds are idol factories/forges, even this (well intentioned and seemingly innocuous) is dangerous. Or I might just be putting words in his mouth.

Our minds all too easily place something on our heart's throne and we call it "god." When in reality what we do is [commandment 2!] fashion and bow down to it.

Seeking the One God in scripture and prayer and (more scripture and prayer) will naturally reveal to our monster minds that power of the divine is not ours to randomly move about at will. Only God is God [commandment 1!]. The divine lies only in Him and is not something that our hearts can comprehend. He must rescue us from slavery... [commantment 0!]
Romans 7:24

Inspiration

Free D.A. Carson Books

Free D.A. Carson Books here.