In his book, ‘The Beauty of the Lord’, Jonathan King makes a wonderful case that Beauty can be properly identified as a synonym for the glory of God. The implication is that Beauty is a divine attribute. King mentions such passages as Psalm 27:4; 96:6; and 145:5,12 which portray images of the crown, kingdom, and sanctuary of the Lord. These passages directly link to the theological concepts of God’s sovereignty and the kingship of Christ. This connection between the glory of God and Beauty is important because it generates a category for us to objectively evaluate whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Technology shapes the character of our everyday lives. Without it, we would have great difficulty getting to work, having our morning cup of coffee, and reading this article. My problem with technology is not that we have it, but that we have allowed it to shape our lives in a way that we barely recognize. What I mean is that technology is no longer a means of Godly stewardship, but that it now establishes its own worldview. 
The technological worldview urges us to buy, build, trade, and relate with the world in a way that resembles a vending machine. I put x in and out comes y. For example, many people go to work not because they know that it will stimulate the economy by producing valuable goods and services, but rather because it will give them a paycheck. Perhaps another example: the contemporary evangelical scene sees people attending church either because of the spiritual experience or to manipulate God by doing their Christian duty. In an extreme example, one could think of the use of pornography in American culture. Such a phenomenon arises out of a technological impulse that demands ease of access to something that—in a God ordered society—takes time, commitment, and genuine relationship to obtain. 
In a word, the technological worldview is bland. It’s ugly; and it’s ugly for some very specific reasons. My point in this article is to show that the only antidote to the technological worldview is a return to the classical and protestant vision of Beauty. 
Art, Technology, and Idolatry
At the outset, I want to make it clear that when I am discussing technology, I do not necessarily mean technological tools. These are things that can be genuinely useful and fall in line with the biblical notion of stewardship. I readily admit that technological tools have a place in God’s world, but it is the worldview behind the creation of tools that we ought to question. 
As I mentioned above, the technological worldview is ugly and in light of statements about beauty and ugliness it’s appropriate to turn to the topic of art. While art can certainly ascend to true beauty, there is an inherent danger in the human pursuit and use of it. In fact, it is the dangerous temptation that art poses to humanity that has aided in the development of the technological worldview. Technology has emerged out of a desire to reach the highest of human potential. While this aspiration is not entirely bad—think of all the lovely devices that you and I use to our genuine benefit—it has also caused us to become extremely self-centered and goal oriented. 
It is for this reason that I have taken to calling the technological worldview “the idol of the self.” This idolatry arises in the sphere of art as well. In his work of public theology, Abraham Kuyper writes about art and its dominion over humanity. While he does not directly correlate his work on art with technology, a retrospective eye sees the point clearly. He argues that, 
The human race cannot exist without a king. Once it has closed its eyes to the glory of Jesus’ kingship, the presence of sin could mean only one thing: humanity would proclaim itself king over nature, the world, and all of human life…what sets the tone and acts as the instrument for the new enthroned-humanities dominion is art, and it is through art that modern life attempts to satisfy its thirst for the ideal.1
Here we can see that the sphere of art and the sphere of technology occupy the same space. They both seek to “satisfy the thirst for the ideal.” By observing Kuyper’s further remarks, we notice an even stronger correlation between the two. He writes, “What art and religion have in common is that they depend on inspiration.”2 Here, Kuyper exposits the defining feature of art, religion, and technology. Even though he does not mention technology, its origin and the arts’ have a strong correlation. 
Both technology and its devices are derived from inspiration. This claim is rather obvious in regard to devices as they require an inventive mind to create them, but technology’s inspiration may not be so clear. Technology, unlike its subsequent devices, relies on inspiration not as a process, but as a fountainhead. The technological worldview presupposes inspiration by inventors, scientists, and the like in order to fuel their creation of inspired art: their devices. Thus, technology is not a virtueless endeavor, as it rises from human creativity to taking the place of religion as the inspired worldview. 
Herein lies the root of the problem. The technological worldview is a form of idolatry. Art, technology, and religion always derive their inspiration from the divine, but that “does not mean that art—or technology—itself acknowledges and recognizes this circumstance.” In its purest form, the quest for technological tools is not an unworthy pursuit in the realm of God’s created order. However, as Craig Gay notes in his work on Christian interaction with technology, it is an abandonment of the Christian worldview that drove the technological worldview into its idolized position.3 
When the technological worldview takes root in a society, it takes on the role of divinity. No longer is technological progress achieved in light of God’s inspiration, but technology itself becomes the inspiration for human creativity. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes, “whenever scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to divinity be applied to any other.”4 In North America, the technological worldview is widely assumed and left unquestioned. The problem with this disposition is that it passively allows technology to take on the role of inspirator, where the bible attributes inspiration to God alone. It is, therefore, idolatrous. 
Read More
Related Posts:

There is no legal “right” to compel others to say things they don’t believe. Until the Supreme Court explicitly reaffirms the foundational protections of religious liberty and free speech, there will be no end to the state compulsion or harassment.

By the time I visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2016, Jack Phillips, the man who had famously refused to bake a specialty cake celebrating the wedding of a gay couple, had been the victim of a four-year campaign of harassment by the authoritarians at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission intent on punishing him for a thought crime.
Now Phillips is back in the news, as his lawyers attempt to get new charges against him dismissed on appeal from a Colorado judge’s decision last year.
For the past decade, the media and lawyers and judges and leftists have misrepresented Phillips’ position. No, the baker never turned a gay couple away from his shop. Or a transgender person. Or anyone else. No, he never refused to sell anyone a wedding cake (ceremonial, in the case that made him famous, as the request predated both Obergefell and Colorado’s recognition of gay marriage). Philips refuses to create any specialty item from scratch that features any message that conflicts with his long-held religious beliefs. He will refuse to create such cakes for any customer, gay or straight or black or white.
After years of fiscal hardship, Phillips finally won a 2018 Supreme Court decision, in which the Court ruled that the Colorado commissioners had displayed “a clear and impermissible hostility toward [Phillips’] sincere religious beliefs” in their efforts to punish him—by which the justices meant members had compared Phillip’s faith to that of Nazis and segregationists. While it was a personal victory, it did almost nothing to preserve religious liberty or free expression rights.
Really, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission wasn’t much of a personal victory, either. All the commission now had to do was avoid openly attacking faith. A person can still walk into a business in Colorado and demand the proprietor create a message that conflicts with their sincerely held convictions — as long as that message comports with the contemporary left’s evolving virtues.
Read More
Related Posts:

Church history will help you live the Christian life and be faithful to Christ. It will provide you with clarity in an era of confusion. It will help you be consistent while many others waver. The faithful examples and arguments of giants from the past gives you credibility when other people doubt you. The courage displayed by other soldiers of Christ exhorts us to not be ashamed of the Gospel.

At the conclusion of his epistle, the author of Hebrews exhorts us, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the Word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” (Heb 13:7). The author calls Christians to remember what they heard in the past from faithful leaders. Leaders with proven faithfulness give us examples worthy of emulation. Many of us can look back to the examples of faithful pastors and Christians who have discipled us and shaped our theology.
This corresponds with Hebrews 13:7: “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” The command here calls for obedience to present leaders. So, based on these passages, leaders from our past should continue to direct us as well as those presently leading us in the church. We remember and imitate past leaders and obey present leaders.
Learning from the past benefits our Christian life. In the reading and study of church history, we remember the teachings and deeds of faithful Christians and leaders. Church history helps us in a myriad of ways to follow Jesus our Lord. In a previous post I shared some ways church history helps us live a life of godliness. This post offers more ways church history aids us in having clarity, consistency, credibility, and courage.
Church History Helps Us Have Clarity
Church history presents a rogue gallery of false teachers and heretics who have threatened the church. From Arius to Joseph Smith to the modern prosperity preachers, many wolves have stalked Christ’s sheep. Faithful Christians have responded to their heresies with clear articulations of Biblical teaching.
The creeds of the ancient church clarify such important doctrines as the trinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. The confessions which emerged after the Reformation provide churches and Christians with articulate summaries of Biblical doctrine. These creeds and confessions contain very careful wording to help us understand and explain the teachings of the Bible. Numerous Christian leaders labored together in the study and discussion of God’s Word to produce these helpful documents. Use the creeds from church history as tools to know the truth and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
Referring to the Second London Confession of 1689, Spurgeon wrote, “This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby you are to be fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of Scriptural proofs, will be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.”
Church History Helps Us Have Consistency
We need to be cautious when others suggest new interpretations of Scripture. Especially if these seek to alter commonly accepted/held doctrines. If no one else has ever held a new interpretation, it may be right, but it’s probably wrong. Church history shows us we’re not the only people who have read, studied, and interpreted the Bible. It provides helpful guardrails to keep us from veering far afield from the original meaning/teaching of Scripture.
The Reformed interpretation of election and predestination was held by Augustine, then Luther and Calvin, then many of the Puritans. Many different Christians codified these doctrines in confessions like The Belgic Confession (1567), The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), The London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1689. These consistent statements on specific doctrines help us remain on a steady and faithful course in our teaching, preaching, and discipleship.
Church history provides us with a legion of Bible commentaries written throughout the centuries. Here we can read and consider the interpretations and applications of Christian leaders from the past. In a lecture to his students, Charles Spurgeon says, “In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition.” Notice he calls those who have written about God’s Word “a glorious army” that will lead to your “delight and profit.” Spurgeon also rebukes those who think themselves wise enough to handle the Scriptures without aid.
Read More
Related Posts: