Sin, Autonomy, and Biblical Critical Theory
If I alone can determine what is right and wrong, true and false, just and unjust, I will always be bumping heads with all the others who also think and act this way. With no higher objective absolutes that transcend my and your judgments and assessments, we will always clash. Real human dignity and community can only come from recognising who God is and how we share in the image of God.
There are many ways to describe and discuss sin. Perhaps one definition of major significance is to speak in terms of autonomy. In its simplest form this means self-law or self-government. However, if there is a God who created us and seeks to govern us for our own best good, then autonomy is the height of folly – as well as sin. It is idolatry on steroids.
We perhaps see this especially played out in the radical trans movement. Here we have folks who have so deified autonomy that they believe they can – at will – redefine morality, redefine biology, redefine truth, and redefine reality. Talk about playing God! Talk about kicking God off his throne and elevating mere man in his place.
Last week I penned a piece featuring the important new book by Christopher Watkin: Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Zondervan, 2022). As I said there, this is such a wide-ranging and significant volume that a short review will hardly do it justice.
So instead I will feature aspects or chapters of the book in a number of articles. The first one focused on Ch. 23 and is found here.
What I want to highlight today is found in Ch. 5: “Sin and Autonomy.” The Australian Christian philosophy professor also stresses autonomy as the heart of sin, and shows why it is so very destructive. And let me preface this by citing a paragraph from the previous chapter, “Sin and Society”:
The absence of a sustained emphasis on sin and judgment in Christian cultural engagement is, at least, a little odd and, at most, a heinous omission that leaves Christian cultural theory limping and unbalanced. After all, sin is such a crucial figure in the biblical rhythm of creation, fall, and redemption, the rhythm that taps out the distinctively Christian approach to all things from identity and ethics and the environment to culture, the economy, and politics. 108
Exactly right. So it is vital that we speak about sin and identify it properly and accurately. Autonomy is key to all this. And it is the perfect descriptor of what happened in the garden with our first parents:
Adam and Eve choose to live by their own law, their own code of what is permitted and not permitted, rather than by God’s law, and they choose to do so in a world that God has created and sustains, as the creatures God has created and sustains. In the context of Genesis 3, autonomy manifests itself as deciding for oneself what is to be counted as good and evil. It is not, of course, deciding for oneself what is good and evil, because God has already settled that question, and any new legislation that Adam and Eve pass down from their DIY parliament does not annul God’s royal decrees. 133
All this should be sensible enough to understand, but sin of course twists everything, including our understanding. So it is like a toddler telling his parents that he knows what is best, that he can fend for himself, and that he is able to determine what is right and wrong. Or as Watkin expresses it:
It is hard to underestimate the extent to which many in our society today fail to consider what the Bible has to say about God on its own terms because that would require admitting that our own autonomous reason may not be the most reliable truth-discerning tool in the universe. One of the crucial pennies to drop in the minds of those who find their way to faith in their adult years is often the realization that, if there really is a God such as the Bible reveals him to be, then he is smarter than I am and his judgement is more reliable than mine: if he and I differ on a matter, and if he is really God and I am really a creature, then it is more than reasonable to assume that he is correct and I am mistaken. To reach any other conclusion would require a bizarre routine of epistemological gymnastics. Either God is God and I am not, in which case his judgement is to be trusted over mine, or else God is not God, in which case there is no reliable way of satisfactorily arbitrating at all between what is reasonable and what is not.
-
3 Misunderstandings of Christian Contentment
Godliness with contentment is great gain, but we must not misinterpret what it is to such a degree that we turn this wonderful doctrine into something wretched. Godly contentment is not incompatible with feeling the pain of affliction, making our complaints known to God, or seeking lawful ways of escape.
As Jeremiah Burroughs puts it, Christian contentment is a rare jewel. Every believer should strive to possess it, but often, we misunderstand what it is and expect it to do things it will never do. To summarize Burroughs, here are three things Christian contentment does not include.
Firstly, Christian contentment does not mean we will not feel the weight of our afflictions. The crosses we must bear, whether persecution, illnesses, or any other trial, will cause our hearts to ache. As Peter indicates, being “grieved by various trials” is part of the Christian life (1 Peter 1:6-7). When you feel the pain of suffering, it does not mean you lack contentment in God. On the contrary, if we could not feel our afflictions, contentment would not be needed.
Secondly, contentment, which is submission to God’s sovereign will in hardship, is not in opposition to making our complaint known to Him or fellow Christians. However, when we make our lament, we must make it with humility. We show deference to God instead of being rebellious in heart and will. A godly complaint or lament will acknowledge the affliction is upon us and let God and other believers know in order to seek relief from the God of all comfort.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Why Woke “Christians” Support Abortion
Woke “Christians” who support abortion have become friends with the world and enemies with Christ. They’ve become enemies with vulnerable pre-born babies, enemies with the pro-life movement, enemies with real Christians—and especially, enemies with Christ.
If you’re surprised that the most outspoken Christians on social media for “justice” are not rejoicing over the most important Supreme Court ruling in our lifetime—you shouldn’t be.
If you’re surprised that many woke “Christians” are angry that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—you shouldn’t be.
You shouldn’t be surprised many woke “Christians” support abortion.
As a pro-life advocate and a critic of woke ideology within the Church—I’ve been warning about Woke Christians’ implicit support for abortion for many years.
Three years ago, I said:
“One of the biggest indictments against the social justice movement within evangelicalism today is that it hasn’t produced a greater passion against the biggest human rights violation of our time—abortion. In fact, it’s producing more apathy and support for abortion.”
Woke “Christians” were implicitly supporting abortion years before they revealed their explicit support last week.
For years they claimed they were “holistically pro-life” to conceal their pro-abortion views. In fact, I know woke “Christians” who say they’re “holistically pro-life” on social media, but privately—they’ve told me they’re pro-abortion.
For that reason one of the best things about Roe v. Wade being overturned—other than hundreds of thousands of babies being rescued from murder—is that it’s exposing what many woke “Christians” really think about abortion and justice.
As the Bible says, “When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” (Proverbs 21:15)
With that in mind, some of the woke “Christians” who’ve revealed some level of support for abortion are people like Dante Stewart (a regular writer at Christianity Today), The Truth’s Table podcast hosts ( Ekemini Uwan, Christina Edmondson, Michelle Higgins), and Mika Edmondson ( a pastor and a regular contributor at The Gospel Coalition).
In reaction to Roe v. Wade being overturned, Dante Stewart said:
“What makes me most sick is that Christians will celebrate and believe that God made it so. No, this is not God. It is years of Christians waging religious war. It is not about protection, love, or morality. All of this is about one thing only: power. White power.”
Ekemini Uwan said: “America is a failed state.”
Michelle Higgins said:
“Dear Black Christians who support reproductive justice and believe that abortion is healthcare, it is time to be more vocal in the places where we have been shamed, even if those places are the ones we call home.”
And Mika Edmondson said:Related Posts:
-
Irony & the PCA: The First Fifty Years
The conclusion of the 1982 Assembly marked the end of an era of expansion, optimism, and pioneering. Most of those initial leaders would pass on by the time of the half-century mark. Still, the Church had now absorbed an entire denomination with its various agencies, missions, presbyteries, and churches. Most realized that true union was not merely organizational and that large sub-cultures would need to continue in mutual trust for the PCA to grow as wished. The next decade would test those values and unity.
Below is another excerpt from TE David Hall’s new book, Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. Hall has graciously provided a few samples of his latest volume to give the readers of Mid the Pines a fresh look at the first history published in conjunction with the PCA’s 50th Anniversary.
David Hall joins a long line of scholars to chart God’s faithfulness to His Church. The excerpt below details the efforts to build on the union between the PCA with the RPCES in joining and receiving. The now larger PCA experienced growth and growing pains as new questions regarding confessional subscription emerged. Read on below or purchase TE Hall’s volume available as kindle or hardcopy.
The 1982 (10th) Assembly: Union to Avoid Duplication
By David W. Hall
By the time that the 10th GA convened, returning to the campus of Calvin College with several other NAPARC partners, it was clear that enough PCA presbyteries had approved joining with the RPCES. Leading up to this Assembly, though, proponents on both sides of the issue were recruiting supporters to the very beginning of RPCES Synod. The new denomination had nearly quadrupled its membership in its first decade and doubled the number of presbyteries. Teaching elders, as had become the norm, had a nearly 2:1 ratio to ruling elders for these important debates.
When the Assembly began, Francis Schaeffer was invited to give a keynote address to this Assembly as part of the celebration of the J&R. Retiring Moderator Paul Settle announced that by more than a 3/4 margin the RPCES had approved the J&R with a 322-90 vote. Similarly, the PCA had obtained the requisite votes to effect union (25 presbyteries in favor, with none opposing); thus, the RPCES commissioners were soon included as registered commissioners of the 10th GA. Notwithstanding, by an 18-7[1] vote of the PCA presbyteries, the invitation to the OPC failed by one presbytery vote to receive the needed supermajority support and was discontinued for a time.[2]
Before Dr. Schaeffer spoke to the now-united churches, a few border disputes among presbyteries needed adjustment, and this was assigned to a sub-committee to reconcile as soon as possible. The other largely formal matters below (Min10GA, 320) were approved as this committee concluded its work and was dissolved.
The Committee requested the Committee on Administration also to appoint legal counsel to work with the general counsel of the RPCES to assure that wills, trusts, corporations, and property matters are properly cared for in the transition process.
Steps were taken to assure that trustees in the RPCES with fiduciary responsibilities will not be placed in jeopardy when their responsibilities are transferred to corresponding members in the PCA.
The Ad Interim Committee wishes to thank the Coordinators, staff members, committee chairmen and others in the PCA who cooperated so willingly and fully with the efforts to facilitate the transition procedures of the Joining and Receiving. Appreciation is also expressed to our brethren in the OPC and RPCES who have so graciously worked with us as we have explored the possibility of ‘effecting one church.’
Though we regret that the OPC will not at this time be participating in the Joining and Receiving process, we pray that our sovereign God will allow us to continue already successful joint efforts in ministry and to expand our common witnessunto a day when we may indeed realize the hope of organizational unity to His glory.
Read More
Related Posts:
