KD_Winter2015.pdf

7/25/2019 KD_Winter2015.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kdwinter2015pdf 1/32

Winter 2015 A Teaching Quarterly fo r Discip leship of Heart and Mind

C . S . L E W I S I N S T I T U T E

K NOWINGD

OING&

IN THIS ISSUE Contemporary science is a wonderfullycollaborative activity. It knows no bar-riers of geography, race, or creed. At its

best it enables us to wrestle with the problemsthat beset humanity, and we rightly celebratewhen an advance is made that brings relief tomillions. I have spent my life as a pure math-ematician, and I often reect on what physicsNobel Prize–winner Eugene Wigner called “theunreasonable effect iveness of mathematics.”How is it that equations created in the head of

a mathematician can relate to the universe out-side that head? This question prompted AlbertEinstein to say, “The only incomprehensiblething about the universe is that it is comprehen-sible.” The very fact that we believe that sciencecan be done is a thing to be wondered at.

Why should we believe that the universe isintelligible?

After all, if, as certain secular thinkers tellus, the human mind is nothing but the brainand the brain is nothing but a product of mind-less unguided forces, it is hard to see that any

kind of truth, let alone scientic truth, could beone of its products. As chemist J.B.S. Haldanepointed out long ago: if the thoughts in mymind are just the motions of atoms in my brain,why should I believe anything it tells me—in-cluding the fact that it is made of atoms? Yetmany scientists have adopted that naturalisticview, seemingly unaware that it underminesthe very rationality upon which their scienticresearch depends!

It was not—and is not—always so. Scienceas we know it exploded on to the world stage inEurope in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-turies. Why then and why there? Alfred NorthWhitehead’s view, as summarized by C.S. Lew-is, was that “men became scientic because theyexpected Law in Nature, and they expected Lawin Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”It is no accident that Galileo, Kepler, Newtonand Clerk-Maxwell were believers in God.

Melvin Calvin, American Nobel Prize laure-ate in biochemistry, nds the origin of the foun

dational conviction of science—that nature isordered—in the basic notion “that the universeis governed by a single God, and is not the prod-uct of the whims of many gods, each governinghis own province according to his own lawsThis monotheistic view seems to be the histori-cal foundation for modern science.”2

Belief in God, far from hindering sciencewas the motor that drove it. Isaac Newton,when he discovered the law of gravitationdid not make the common mistake of saying“now [that] I have a law of gravity, I don’t need

God.” Instead, he wrote Principia Mathematicathe most famous book in the history of science,expressing the hope that it would persuade thethinking reader to believe in a creator.

Newton could see what, sadly, many peoplenowadays seem unable to see, that God andscience are not alternative explanations. God isthe agent who designed and upholds the uni-verse; science tells us about how the universeworks and about the laws that govern its be-

(continued on page 12

Science and Faith:Friendly Allies, Not Hostile Enemiesby John Lennox, Ph.D.

2 Notes from thePresident by

Joel S. Woodruff

3 Is Bigger Better? C.S.Lewis, Atheism, andthe Argument fromSize by Paul M.Gould

4 Leveling the PlayingField: A Strategy forPre-Evangelism byRandy Newman

6 Who is God? Part 1by Thomas A.Tarrants, III

8 God’s Job, Our Job: Knowing theDifference MakesAll the Differenceby Michael William

Schick

10 The Legacy of John Hus by TomSchwanda



• K NOWING & DOING | Winter 2015

Heaven has been on my mind lately.A few weeks ago, I sat by my sweetmother’s bedside as she breathed her

last breath and entered the presence of God. Igrieved deeply at the time and know that I’llshed tears the rest of my life when I reflectupon her loss (that is, my loss) here on earth.At the same time, I have a deep peace, a peacethat passes all understanding, for I believe thepromise of Jesus, that He has prepared a placein heaven for those who put their trust in Him(John 14:1–3). I know that my mom knew andloved Him, has entered glory and is now expe-riencing all of the joys of heaven.

While the Lord was preparing a room inheaven for my mom, I believe that He was alsopreparing me this summer for her passing as Itraveled with my wife and thirty other lovelypeople on the C.S. Lewis Institute’s study tour,featuring the “life and faith of C.S. Lewis.” Onour last day in Belfast, the birthplace and child-hood home of Lewis, Sandy Smith, our knowl-edgeable and engaging tour g uide, related aconversation between two Belfast natives thattook place in Oxford, England. These two sonsof Northern Ireland were David Bleakley, a

young electrician who had won a trade unionscholarship to attend Oxford University, and anOxford don by the name of C.S. Lewis.

The two met when Lewis heard Bleakley’sUlster accent from across the room at a stu-dent café in Oxford and introduced himself tothe younger man. They soon discovered thatBleakely had grown up in Belfast, not far fromLewis’s childhood home. Lewis immediatelyinvited Bleakely to come visit him sometime at

Magdalen College, and added, “Although thesefunny English people call it Maudlin College.”

The two of them struck up a friendship thalasted through the years even though therewas a large dierence in age and Lewis hailedfrom a middle-class home while Bleakley hada working-class background. Deeper bondsexisted between them: the common heritage otheir native Ireland and their commitment tofaith in Jesus Christ.

On one occasion, when the student Bleakleywas preparing for a theology exam, the professor Lewis asked him, “What is your denitionof heaven?” Bleakley’s mind raced as he reached

for a solid, theologically minded answer to thisprofound question. He paused and then eventually mumbled a few academic statements lledwith erudite words. Lewis replied, “My friendyou’re far too complicated; an honest Ulstermanshould know better. Heaven is Oxford liftedand placed in the middle of the County Down.”I imagine that all of my fellow travelers on theC.S. Lewis Institute study tour, after seeing the“dreaming spires of Oxford” and the magicalemerald hills of County Down, Northern Ireland, understood what Lewis was talking about

On the tour, we learned that Lewis grew upoutside of the shipyards of Belfast in a largehome called Little Lea. It was in this home thaLewis and his brother, Warnie, discovered theattic that would allow their imaginations torun wild and create the fictional kingdom otalking animals, called Boxen. This home waalso situated near the Church of St. Marks oDundela in the County Down and aectionatelyknown as the Lion on the Hill, the lion being thetraditional symbol of St. Mark. On the door o

(continued on page 25)

What Is Your Definition of Heaven?

NOTES FROM THE PRESIDENT

by Joel S. Woodruff, Ed.D.

President, C.S. Lewis Institute



Winter 2015 | K NOWING & DOING •

Man exists on a little blue speck, hur-tling through space, in a vast cosmosthat is lled with billions and billions

of planets, stars, and galaxies. Given the im-mensity of the universe and the smallness ofEarth, it would seem foolish of humans to thinkthey are somehow the focus of God’s creativeactivity, the pinnacle of His love, and the imageof His very character. It is far more likely, arguesthe atheist, that man is merely the accidental(and lucky) product of chance and necessityover time.

While reecting on an image of Earth taken by Voyager I in 1990 from the vantage point of 4 billion miles, the astronomer Carl Sagan pushedthis point when he said, “Our planet is a lonelyspeck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. Inour obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no

hint that help will come from elsewhere to saveus from ourselves.”1 More recently, given all thehoopla about the so-called multiverse, the lateatheist scientist and philosopher Victor Stengeropined,

The picture of the multiverse today startswith our own visible universe of 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars,13.8 billion years old…Besides that we alsohave the eternal multiverse containing anunlimited number of other bubble universes of

comparable size…Surely, then, it is ludi-crous to think that humanity…is the specialcreation of a divinity that presides over thisvast reality.2

Some try to nd a silver lining to it all, argu-ing that, well, even though we are a tiny partof a vast universe, still, we are a part of it. Con-sider the science popularizer Neil deGrasse Ty-son, who in 2014 hosted the television reboot ofSagan’s 1980 series, Cosmos. He has oered this

balm of comfort: “Many people feel small, be-cause they’re small and the Universe is big, butI feel big, because my atoms came from thosestars.” While this might make some of us feel better, it does not move me. If we are just the“outcome of accidental colocations of atoms,” as

the clear-eyed, old-line atheist Bertrand Russellput it, then all we can do is build our lives “onthe rm foundation of unyielding despair.”

Can I Get an Argument?

The “Argument from Size” seems to be invogue today among New Atheists and popu-larizers of naturalistic science. But what exactlyis the argument? Or, more to the point, is therean argument to oer? How, exactly, would it go?The key premise would be something along the

lines of “bigger is better” or “value is propor-tional to size,” as in a creator God, if there weresuch a thing, would value the big, the whole,not the individual planet or creature. But amoment’s reection helps us see that that lineof argument is pure folly. Value is not propor-tional to size. As C.S. Lewis argues in his book

Miracles, “we are all equally certain that only alunatic would think a man six-feet high neces-sarily more important than a man ve-feet high,or a horse necessarily more important than aman, or a man’s leg than his brain.”5 Moreover,many of the things we value most in life, suchas goodness, truth, and beauty, are not, strictlyspeaking, measurable in physical terms at all.


Is Bigger Better? C.S. Lewis, Atheism, and the Argument from Size

by Paul M. Gould, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologeticsat Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Paul M. Gould is an Assistant Professor of Philosophyand Christian Apologeticsat Southwestern BaptisTheological Seminary in FtWorth, TX. He is the authorof The Outrageous Ideaof the Missional Professor and editor or co-editorof several books, including

Beyond the Control oGod? Six Views on theProblem of God and Abstract Objects and LovingGod with Your Mind: Essays in Honor of J. P. Moreland. Paul blogs at www

paul-gould.com.

Tat is, everything that exists—every truth

discovered, every beauty (and every corruption

of beauty), and every good (and perversion

of good)—points to and illuminates the divine.




Not long ago, I watched a hockey gameand marveled at how the ChicagoBlackhawks dominated play against

the Tampa Bay Lightning. No matter how hardTampa Bay tried to intercept the puck and cleartheir zone, the Blackhawks relentlessly pum-

meled the Lightning goalie. After what seemedlike an eternity, the worn out goalkeeper hungon to a shot to stop play with the hopes of reset-ting the game in a more balanced way. I smiledwhen the play-by-play commentator tried tomake sense of this lopsided contest by announc-ing, “It seems like the ice is tilted!”

Of course, the ice was not tilted, but thephrase got my imagination running. What ifthe players came out from their locker rooms before the game and saw a ti lted ice rink? Iimagine one team would rejoice while the oth-er would call its lawyers. No hockey player in

his right mind would even put his skate on theice to compete until the rink was leveled. Thesame would be true for any athlet ic contest. Ifthe playing eld isn’t level, you shouldn’t evenstart the competition.

I wonder if our world today, spir ituallyspeaking, doesn’t resemble a tilted ice rink or anuneven playing eld. Before we even start someevangelistic conversations, the deck is stackedagainst us, as nonbelievers assume they’remorally or intellectually superior to us. Manyoutside the faith see us as narrow-minded, in-tolerant, homophobic simpletons. Before telling

people the good news of God’s love, perhaps weneed to level the playing eld so our words areconsidered rather than dismissed.

I believe Paul employed a version of thisstrategy when he began his oration on Mars Hillwith the provocative words, “Men of Athens,I perceive that in every way you are very reli-gious” (Acts 17:22 ESV). Given what we knowabout his audience, made up of Epicureans andStoics who liked to talk about whatever was thelatest idea, they might have argued with Paul.

They might have insisted that, in fact, they moscertainly were not religious. They were intellec-tuals who didn’t fall for such silly superstitionslike the majority of Athenians who erected althose statues and monuments. But Paul knew—as we need to realize—that everyone is religiousabout something. All people base their lives on

something that gives them meaning, purposehope, or a reason to get out of bed. And somepeople hold some aspects of their worldview“by faith” even if they would never use thatterminology.

So Paul began by leveling the playing eldso his hearers could consider that they, just likePaul, hold some presuppositions without veriable proof. In our day, people may tell us thatthey believe only what can be “proven” by sci-ence. They would never believe anything “byfaith.” But consider that their assumption—that

science is a better way of knowing truth than byfaith—is something they could never prove byscience! It’s a leap of faith. (This might take a bitof reection, but I think it’s worth the investment of time.)

I also wonder if Jesus sought to level theplaying eld before proclaiming the gospel tosome of His skeptical hearers. Why else wouldHe refuse to give a straight answer to the manwho asked Him, “Good teacher, what must Ido to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17 ESV). If

Leveling the Playing Field: A Strategy for Pre-Evangelismby Randy Newman, M.Div., Ph.D.

Senior Teaching Fellow for Apologetics and Evangelism, C.S. Lewis Institute

Randy Newman is SeniorTeaching Fellow for Apolo-

get ics and Evange lism atthe C.S. Lewis Institute. Heis also an adjunct facultymember for Trinity Evan-

gelical Divinity School andPatrick Henry College. Hereceived his M.Div. andPh.D. from Trinity Evan-

gelical Divinity School. Af-

ter serving for over 30 yearswith Campus Crusade forChrist, he established Con-nection Points, a ministryto help Christians engage

people’s hearts the way Je-sus did. He has written threebooks and numerous articlesabout evangelism and otherways our lives intertwinewith God’s creation. He andhis wife Pam live in An-nandale, VA and have three

grown sons. Randy blogs atwww.connectionpoints.us.




ever there was a perfect set up for a gospel pre-sentation, that was it. But Jesus chose to answerthe man’s question with a question, “Why doyou call me good?” In addition to other goals behind this question, Jesus aimed to level theplaying eld by getting the man to see he wasn’tas righteous as he assumed he was. The rest ofthe dialogue bears this out. And we should notethat Jesus never got around to telling the manabout His impending sacrificial death on the

cross. Until the man’s heart had been “leveled,” Jesus knew His words would be “pearls beforeswine.”

We need to do the same thing today. We needto show people that their atheism, agnosticism,naturalism, or any variety of unbelief rests onfoundations that cannot be proven in a labora-tory. We want them to be honest about theirfaith position so we can compare it to our faithposition.

Timothy Keller models this well in his best-selling book The Reason for God. In his introduc-tion, he urges Christians and non-Christians toadmit their doubts. For believers, “such a pro-cess will lead you, even after you come to a posi-tion of strong faith, to respect and understandthose who doubt.” Skeptics, on the other hand,“must learn to look for a type of faith hiddenwithin their reasoning. All doubts, howeverskeptical and cynical they may seem, are reallya set of alternate beliefs.”1

This is difficult but necessary preparationfor a proclamation of the gospel. It can soundsomething like this:

You: I’d like to talk to you about your reli-

gious beliefs.Your sister: Oh, I don’t have any religious be-

liefs. I’m not religious like you are. I only acceptthings that I can prove rationally or scienti-cally.

You: But that sounds like a very religiousthing to say.

Your sister: What do you mean?You: Why do you think science and reason

are better ways to determine truth than religionis?

Your sister: Because they just are.You: Can you prove that scientically?Your sister: Can I prove what scientically?You: That scientic beliefs are more sound

than religious ones.Your sister: Well, no. I can’t. But it’s just obvi-

ous, isn’t it?You: Not to me. And not to a lot of other peo-

ple either. In fact, it takes a fair amount of faithto believe in science the way you do.

Your sister: Are you criticizing me?You: Not at all. I just think we have more in

common than you think. We both accept certainthings by faith. You have faith in science. I havefaith in religion. I’d just like to compare our twofaiths.

Your sister: Hmmm. I never thought of it thatway.

I realize some scenarios might not go so well.But it’s worth a try. Especially if you face an-tagonism to your faith that starts o the wholeconversation in a bad direction. If people beginwith unfair jabs like “Why are you Christiansso intolerant?” or “Why do Christians hate gays

so much?” or “You’re not one of those anti-sci-ence idiots, are you?” you should not take the bait and start to answer their question. You’reabout as likely to see success as a hockey teamagreeing to play uphill on a tilted rink. Levelthe playing eld rst and see if the conversationmoves along better—and seems more amicable.Here are some other ways this strategy mightstart:

Your non-Christian friend: Why are youChristians so intolerant?


Our society has become more polarized and

argumentative than ever. Te very tone ofmost radio talk shows should cause most

people to blush—and then switch stations.




Tom Tarrants has lived inthe Washington, DC areasince 1978 and served asPresident of the C.S. LewisInstitute from 1998 to April2010. He is currently VicePresident for Ministry &Director, Washington AreaFellows Program. Prior tocoming to the Institute, he

served as co-pastor of ChristOur Shepherd Church andDirector of The School forUrban Mission, both basedin Washington, DC, Tomholds a Master of DivinityDegree, as well as a Doc-tor of Ministry Degree inChristian Spirituality. Heis an ordained minister inthe Evangelical ChurchAlliance.

In the West today, and in America especially,we live in a time when humanity is largeand God is small. Man is the measure of

all things. It has not always been this way, ofcourse, but this is the reality of our day, a reality

that exerts a pervasive and powerful inuenceon us.The greatest need of every true believer (and

nonbeliever) today is the recovery of a rightview of God. From this ows everything else.As A. W. Tozer said, “What comes i nto ourminds when we think about God is the most im-portant thing about us.”1 This is so, says Tozer, because, “We tend by a secret law of the soul tomove toward our mental image of God. This istrue not only of the individual Christian, but ofthe company of Christians that composes theChurch.”2

We don’t have to look far to see a quintes-sentially American example of this today. Mor-alistic Therapeutic Deism, widespread amongmillennials, is a view of God they seem to havepicked up from their baby-boomer parents. Itsmain tenets are as follows: (1) A God exists whocreated and ordered the world and watches overhuman life on earth; (2) God wants people to begood, nice, and fair to each other, as taught inthe Bible and by most world religions; (3) Thecentral goal of life is to be happy and to feelgood about oneself; (4) God does not need to be

particularly involved in one’s life except whenGod is needed to resolve a problem; (5) Goodpeople go to heaven when they die.3

This reductionist and narcissistic view ofGod is very comfortable and easy to live with. Itmakes no real demands, has no cost, and allowsone to live as one pleases with no concern aboutone’s sin and accountability to God and there-fore no concern about forgiveness and recon-ciliation with God. This recently invented god

is certainly not the God of the Bible, and it hasthe extremely serious eect of keeping peoplefrom the true God and the salvation He oersin Christ. This is only one of many substitutegods on oer in the American “marketplace of

religion.”It is not too much to say that the lack of the

knowledge of the true God lies at the root ofthe problems that beset our personal lives, thechurch, and the culture. In this article, I wouldlike to briey describe the picture that God hasgiven us of Himself, His Son and His creationI will follow the gradual progression and formof God’s self-revelation found in Scripture. In anarticle of this size, I can only sketch some of themain contours of God’s attributes and hope thatyou will be inspired to seek broader and deepe

understanding in some of the good books thatare readily available.4

Our Approach to Learning WhoGod Is

As we seek to learn more about God, we needhumility. It is good to remind ourselves that ourCreator is innite and we are nite. That meansHe is ultimately incomprehensible, in the sensethat although we can indeed know Him per-sonally, we can never fully comprehend Him

He says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts/ neither are your ways my ways, declares theLORD. / For as the heavens are higher thanthe earth, / so are my ways higher than yourways / and my thoughts than your thoughts”(Isa. 55:8–9).5 God doesn’t tell us everythingwe might want to know about Him (we cannothandle it); but He does tell us everything weneed to know. He does this by accommodatingHimself to our nite limitations. With that wemust be grateful and content.

Who Is God? Part 1by Thomas A. Tarrants, III, D.Min.

Vice President for Ministry & Director, Washington Area Fellows Program,C.S. Lewis Institute




The Bible nowhere attempts to prove the exis-

tence of God. Rather, it begins with the simple,

majestic declaration that “In the beginni ng,

God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen.

1:1). This implies that God has innite knowl-

edge, understanding, and power. Or, to put it inslightly dierent terms, it shows God to be an

all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful Creator,

who is sovereign over His creation.

This fundamental starting point of God’s rev-

elation of Himself is what we must embrace ifwe are to know God, and we do so by faith.

The Bible says it is “by faith we understand

that the universe was created by the word of

God, so that what is seen was not made out

of things that are visible” (Heb. 11:3). Faith is

essential, because “whoever would draw near

to God must believe that he exists and that he

rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6). This

is not blind faith, nor is it a leap into the dark.

Rather, it is a leap into the light, the light of evi-

dence, for God’s creation bears His ngerprints.The psalmist says,

The heavens declare the glory of God

and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech,

and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words

whose voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out through all the earth and

their words to the end of the world

(Ps. 19:1–4).

Drawing on this, the apostle Paul says that

God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal

power and divine nature, have been clearly

perceived, ever since the creation of the world”

(Rom. 1:20). This evidence is obvious to every

human being, giving an awareness that there is

a God. That awareness may be strong or weak,

bright or dim. It can be suppressed by wil lful

choice, or it can be embraced by faith.

God Reveals Himself as Spiritual,Personal and Good

The God of the Bible is a spiritual being (John4:24) and does not have a physical body, thoughon rare occasions He has manifested Himselfin physical form to interact with human beings.These manifestations are considered by manytheologians to be appearances of the pre-incar-nate Christ. God is also a personal being, and He

is loving, good, and gracious to His people. Unlikethe impersonal god of pantheism, God cares

deeply for His people and is actively involvedin their l ives. His relationship with Adam andEve displays this love. The rich, abundant bless-ings He confers on them in the Garden of Edendemonstrate His goodness. His grace is seen inforgiving their horrendous sin and sparingthem from immediate death and destruction.It is also shown in the way He tempers justicewith mercy in their punishment. The fact ofpunishment alerts us that God takes sin veryseriously and that righteousness and justice arealso among His attributes.

God Reveals Himself asRedemptive

As people multiplied on the earth and be-came utterly corrupt, God’s righteousness and justice are seen again: “The LORD saw that thewickedness of man was great in the earth, andthat every intention of the thoughts of his heartwas only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). Human-


God’s holy, awe-inspiring response is the

high point in his self-revelation in the Old

estament. God said, “I will make all my

goodness pass before you and will proclaim

before you my name.”





“I have made two important discoveries:rst, there is a God; second, I’m not Him.”

This quip, while humorous in its deliv-ery, is amazi ngly profound in its es -sence. With a culture that increasingly

encourages self-absorption, it’s not surprisingthat many people act like “little gods” whoare confused about their role in life versusGod’s role over all of life.

While many well-meaning men and wom-en may believe in God, there is a tendency tousurp His function. People try to act like Godall the t ime, attempting in their own powerto achieve that which only God alone can ac-complish. We try to control circumstances,manipulate situations, prevent mishaps, re-dene morality, exalt ourselves or avoid theinevitable. In the end, we must face reality: we

are mere mortals who are l imited, nite, andpowerless. We do a lousy job of playing God,and the sooner we realize this, the better.

It is not my intention to write about God’sattributes, as there are already many greatclassics that brilliantly address the natureand character of God by looking at who Godis. Instead, I want to focus on what God doesand what we are to do accordingly.

Our society glories self-suciency, intel-lectual prowess, personal ach ievement, cre-ative genius, and survivor insti ncts. We aretold to “just do it,” but do what? And for whatpurpose?

In the 1980s movie “Chariots of Fire,” EricLiddell, on his journey to participate in the1924 Olympics, shares a key observation abouthis call to missionary service and his passionfor running. He told his sister: “God made mefor a purpose – for China – but He also mademe fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure.”I believe there can be pleasure in doing whatGod made us to do, but we must remember

God’s priorities for His k ingdom, as well ashis provisions for His people.

A monk once overhead St. Francis of Assisrepeatedly praying, “O God, who are You, andwho am I?” In a similar fashion, we might dowell to pray, “O God, what are You doing in

the world, and what am I supposed to do?”Or, more precisely, “What is Your Job, andwhat is my job?”

I would be naïve and arrogant to thinkI could even scratch the surface of the infi-nite activities of God in His universe. But Ido believe the Scriptures give us an excitingglimpse into what He’s working on as Heunfolds His divine plan for His most-prizedcreation, His image bearers—people just likeyou.

Consider one reflection on the difference between one of God’s “jobs”— to reveal, and

one of our corresponding “jobs”—to discoverOne of the traditions of Easter Sunday is

the egg hunt whereby excited and energeticchildren scurry about in search of brightlycolored eggs hidden by the grown-ups. Someare placed in easy-to-nd locations, and othersrequire the help of a mom or dad giving thekiddies a hint on where they might be. (Someeggs still haven’t been found to this day.)

Life is like the ultimate hunt. God has manyhidden mysteries, and yet He also intends formankind to constantly make new discoveriesDid man invent gravity, electricity, relativitythermodynamics or even cures to polio andother diseases? No, humans merely uncoveredthem. God revealed them to the seeker.

As much as we’d like to take credit for ourdiligent searches, the Almighty always hasa hand in helping us discover all kinds oftruths. We can be glad that He shares the joywhen men and women uncover amazing newfacts and artifacts. It’s all a part of His planto use human ingenuity to benet mankind.

God’s Job, Our Job: Knowing the DifferenceMakes All the Difference Adapted from the book by the same title

by Michael William Schick

Michael William Schick was a member of the firstC.S. Lewis Fellows class in1999. An honors graduateof the University of SouthCarolina, he is a strategiccommunications consultantin Washington, DC. He hasbeen a spokesman for thePresident Pro Tempore ofthe United States Senate, a

television producer/directorand a senior executive at a global public relations rm. Michael enjoys serving asa guest teacher at the men’sCommunity Bible Study at

McLean Bibl e Church. Heis married to Diana Schick,author of 25 Creative LivingBible Study books (which

Michael also edits). They livein Reston, VA and have twowonder ful daughters ,Tiany and Jessica.




The more we get what we

now call “ourselves” out of

the way and let Him take

us over, the more truly

ourselves we become…

He invented—as an author

invents characters in a

novel—all the different men

that you and I were intended

to be… It is when I turn to

Christ, when I give myself

up to His Personality, thatI first begin to have a real

personality of my own.

C.S. Lewis

R ECOMMENDED R EADING

Michael Wm. Schick, God’s Job, Our Job: Knowing the Difference Makes All theDifference (Credo House Publishers, 2012) A practical compilation of thirty-one insights that focus on some of the most important roles God

plays in our world and what we are to do in light of these truths. This book provides powerful and

thought-provoking insights that help to see God and oneself in a new light.

Let’s explore ways to diligently pursue our jobs while humbly

remembering we are not God!

God’s Job: Declare

God’s Job: Sanctify

God’s Job: Reign

God’s Job: Know

God’s Job: Transform

God’s Job: Convict

God’s Job: Exalt

God’s Job: Deliver

God’s Job: Provide

God’s Job: Send

God’s Job: Defeat Evil

God’s Job: Restore

Our Job: Proclaim

Our Job: Glorify

Our Job: Serve

Our Job: Know God

Our Job: Conform

Our Job: Confess

Our Job: Humble Ourselves

Our Job: Wait

Our Job: Praise

Our Job: Go

Our Job: Resist Evil

Our Job: Rejoice

Consider other pairings of God’s “job” and our “job”:

v




At the center of the spacious Old TownSquare in Prague stands the John Hus1 monument. This massive statue, erected

in 1915, commemorated the ve-hundredth an-niversary of the great Czech reformer’s death.His notable words are inscribed around t he base of this monument: “Love each other andwish the truth to everyone.” This has often beensuccinctly summarized as “the truth prevails!”The year 2015 marked the six-hundredth anni-versary of Hus’s martyrdom and provides animportant reminder of his life and ministry. Yetmany people hardly recognize his name or hissubstantial contributions to the church and theChristian life.

John Hus (c. 1372–1415) was a pastor andchurch reformer born into poverty in southernBohemia. He was educated at the University ofPrague, now known as Charles University, and

received his master’s degree in 1396. He becamea faculty member that same year and taught un-til 1412. Hus served as both dean of the facultyand later rector at the university. During thisearly formative period, Hus read the writingsof the English reformer John Wycliffe. WhileHus identied with the Augustinian theologyof Wyclie and was indebted to his thinking,especially on the nature of the church, nearbyBohemian writers also inspired Hus.

In 1402 Hus took on an additional role, aspastor at the Bethlehem Chapel, the center ofthe growing Bohemian Reform movement. Sig-nicantly, the name Bethlehem was chosen forits meaning, “house of bread.” The chapel was

established as a site for preaching in the vernacular rather than the traditional Latin. This wasa period of rampant immorality and corruptionamong the priests and ocials within the Western Catholic Church. Hus’s sermons frequentlyaddressed the corruptions, most notably theancient ongoing practice of simony or the pur-chasing of church oces. Wealthy parents andothers would secure ecclesiastical positions toensure the lucrative and stress-free livelihoodsfor their sons. Not surprisingly, these menrarely took their leadership seriously, creatinga spiritual vacuum. Hus’s messages, marked byspiritual zeal, also addressed critical issues ofmoral purity, including priestly celibacy and theabuse of indulgences, often angering the clergyand church hierarchy.

Unfortunately, similar to the situation with John Calvin, we know little of Hus’s persona

life, including specics about his conversionHowever, at some point early in his ministryHus was convicted by the truth claims of Scrip-ture and thereafter stressed the importance ofobeying the pope or church decrees only to theextent that they agreed with Scripture. The bestwindow into Hus’s inner life and motivation isthrough his letters. Repeatedly he remindedhis friends, “We ought to obey God rather thanmen.”2 These are the words of Peter from Acts5:29. Hus’s resistance to following the teachingsof the Church further irritated the leadershipand brought frequent condemnation and led to

his excommunication.After his fourth excommunication, Hus vol-

untarily went into exile from 1412 to 1414 andlived among wealthy nobility in southern Bo-hemia. During this period, he wrote numerous books, including his most inuential treatise onthe church, De Ecclesia, written in 1413. Othermajor writings included On Simony, expositionson the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, and a short de-votional work known as The Daughter, or How

PROFILE IN F AITH

The Legacy of John Hus

by Tom Schwanda, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Christian Formation and Ministry at Wheaton College

Tom Schwanda is Associ-ate Professor of ChristianFormation and Ministryat Wheaton College, andteaches a doctor of ministrycourse each summer. He hasalso been an editor for BakerBooks and Zondervan. Tomreceived a Ph.D. at DurhamUniversity, a D. Min. fromFuller Theological Semi-

nary, and his M. Div. atNew Brunswick TheologicalSeminary. He also studied atGordon-Conwell Theologi-cal Seminary and received aB.A. from Moravian College.He and his wife, Grace, havetwo grown children, and

four grandchildren.

But our condition is even more disappointing

when we compare the behavior of Christians

with that of unbelievers and recognize how

little observable difference sets us apart.




to Know the Correct Way to Salvation. This waspenned for a community of women, known by Hus through one of his friends. In 1414 Husagreed to travel to Constance, Germany, to at-tend the council that had been convened todeal with him, but also to resolve the embar-rassing dilemma of the multiple popes; 1378 hadmarked the beginning of the Great Schism inwhich initially two and eventually three rival

popes fought for exclusive supremacy. Hus’steaching had been condemned as heretical, andhe naively thought he would have the opportu-nity to defend himself before the learned doc-tors of the church. Instead he was imprisonedand later condemned as a follower of Wyclie.After frequent attempts to coerce Hus to re-cant, he was removed from the priesthood and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415, charged with being an obstinate heretic.

The Protestant Reception of JohnHus

As early as Martin Luther, prominent Prot-estants have embraced the teachings of Hus.Luther’s perception of Hus was marked bygrowing appreciation and deep respect. Hisoriginal rejection of Hus was transformed whenin his monastery l ibrary he discovered—andwas astonished by—some sermons by Hus. Lu-

ther shocked his opponents with his growingapproval of Hus. This led to Luther’s famousconfession in February 1520: “I have taught andheld all the teachings of Jan Hus, but thus fardid I not know it . . . In short, we are all Hussitesand did not know it.”3 More recent examples il-lustrate the continuing Protestant approval ofHus. Harry Emerson Fosdick’s Great Voices of theReformation, written in 1952, singles out, as be-ing critically important, Hus’s dedication to theBible. He writes:

Behind all else in Huss’ teaching stood his de-votion to the Scriptures as the ultimate guideof life and thought. Here we run decisivelyupon one of the major issues dividing RomanCatholicism from the whole movement whichissued in the Protestant Reformation. Ac-cording to Roman dogma one did not believein the church because Scriptures say so, butbelieved in the Scriptures because the churchsays so.4

Even more amazing are the authors that

claim Hus to be an “evangelical.” David OtisFuller’s Valiant for the Truth: A Treasury of Evan- gelical Writings (1961) incorporates a section fromHus’s work on the church. Hus clearly satisesthe prerequisite for this volume that “each manpossessed the same erce conviction––that alltruth is absolute, never relative . . . in theology,their absolute authority was the Bible.”5 In thesame year, James McGraw wrote Great Evangeli-cal Preachers of Yesterday. This book begins withWycliffe and moves to Hus and Luther. Mc-


Profile in Faith

Image Courtesy of Google Images




Science and Faith: Friendly Allies, Not Hostile Enemies

havior. God no more conicts with science as anexplanation for the universe than Henry Fordconicts with the laws of the internal combus-tion engine as an explanation for the motorcar.The existence of mechanisms and laws is notan argument for the absence of an agent whoset those laws and mechanisms in place. Onthe contrary, their very sophistication, downto the ne tuning of the universe, is evidencefor the Creator’s genius. For Johannes Kepler,German seventeenth-century mathematician,astronomer, and astrologer: “The chief aim ofall investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has beenimposed on it by God and which he revealed tous in the language of mathematics.”3

As a scientist, then, I am not ashamed or em- barrassed to be a Christian. After all, Christian-ity played a large part in giving me my subject.

The mention of Kepler brings me to anotherissue. Science is, as I said earlier, by and largea collaborative activity. Yet real breakthroughis often made by a lone individual who has thecourage to question established wisdom andstrike out on his or her own. Johannes Keplerwas one such. He went to Prague as assistant tothe astronomer Tycho Brahe, who tasked himwith making mathematical sense of observa-tions of planetary motion in terms of complexsystems of circles. The view that perfect mo-tion was circular came from Aristotle and haddominated thought for centuries. But Kepler just couldn’t make circles t the observations.He took the revolutionary step of abandoningAristotle, approaching the observations of theplanets from scratch, and seeing what the orbitsactually looked like. Kepler’s discovery, that theplanetary orbits were not circular but elliptical,led to a fundamental paradigm shift for science.

Kepler had the instinct to pay careful atten-tion to things that didn’t t into established the-ory. Einstein was another such groundbreaker.Things that don’t t in can lead to crucial ad-vances in scientific understanding. Further-more, there are matters that do not fit intoscience. For, and it needs to be said in the faceof widespread popular opinion to the contrary,science is not the only way to truth. Indeed, the

very success of science is due to the narrownessof the range of its questions and methodology.

Nor is science coextensive with rationalityIf it were, half our university faculties wouldhave to shut. There are bigger matters in life—questions of history and art, culture and musicmeaning and truth, beauty and love, moralityand spirituality, and a host of other importantthings that go beyond the reach of the naturasciences, and, indeed, of naturalism itself. Jusas Kepler was initially held back by an assumedAristotelianism, could it not be that an a priorinaturalism is holding back progress by stoppingevidence from speaking for itself?

It is to such things that my mind turns whenI think of Jesus, the human, above all otherswho did not t into the preconceptions of thisworld. Just as Johannes Kepler revolutionizedscience by paying close attention, observingwhy the planets did not t in to the mathematical wisdom of the time, I claim that my life andthat of many others has been revolutionized by

paying close attention to Jesus and why He didnot, and still does not, t in to the thinking ofthis world. Indeed, the fact that Jesus did not in is one of the reasons I am convinced of Hisclaim to be the Son of God.

For instance, Jesus does not t into the category of literary fiction. If He did, then whatwe have in the Gospels is inexplicable. It wouldhave required exceptional genius to have in

(continued from page 1)




vented the character of Jesus and put into Hismouth parables that are in themselves literary

masterpieces. It is just not credible that all fourgospel writers with little formal education be-tween them just happened simultaneously to beliterary geniuses of world rank.

Furthermore, there are relatively few char-acters in literature who strike us as real people,whom we can know and recognize. One of themis my intellectual hero, Socrates. He has struckgeneration after generation of readers as a realperson. Why? Because Plato did not invent him.So it is with Jesus Christ. Indeed, the more weknow about the leading cultures of the time, the

more we see that, if the character of Jesus hadnot been a historical reality, no one could haveinvented it. Why? Because He did not t in toany of those cultures. The Jesus of the Gospelsdidn’t t anyone’s concept of a hero. Greek, Ro-man, and Jew—all found Him the very oppositeof their ideal.

The Jewish ideal was that of a strong mili-tary general, fired with messianic ideals andprepared to fight the Roman occupation. Sowhen Jesus eventually oered no resistance toarrest, it was not surprising that His followers

temporarily left Him. He was far from the Jew-ish ideal leader.

As for the Greeks, some favored the Epicu-rean avoidance of extremes of pain and pleasurethat could disturb tranquility. Others preferredthe rationality of Stoicism, which suppressedemotion and met suffering and death withequanimity, as Socrates had done.

Jesus was utterly dierent. In the Garden ofGethsemane, facing such intense agony that Hesweat drops of blood, He asked God to let Himskirt the torturous cross. No Greek would haveinvented such a gure as a hero.

And the Roman governor Pilate found Christunworldly and impractical when Jesus told him:“My kingdom is not of this world . . . For thispurpose I was born and for this purpose I cameinto the world—to bear witness to the truth”(John 18:36–37).

So Jesus ran counter to everyone’s concept ofan ideal hero. Indeed, Matthew Parris, an athe-ist, suggested in the Spectator recently that if

Jesus hadn’t existed not even the church couldhave invented Him! Jesus just did not t in.

Nor did His message. St. Paul tells us that thepreaching of the cross of Christ was regarded by the Jews as scandalous, and by the Greeks asfoolish. The early Christians certainly could nothave invented such a story. Where, then, did itcome from? From Jesus Himself, who said, “TheSon of Man came not to be served but to serve,and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt.20:28). Jesus did not t into the world. So they

crucied Him and tried to t Him in a tomb. Butthat did not work either. He arose from the deadon the third day.

But doesn’t this go against the grain of thescience I was praising earlier? Aren’t such mir-acles impossible because they violate the lawsof nature?

I disagree. To use an illustration based on oneoffered by C.S. Lewis, on each of two nights,if I put ten pounds (British currency) into mydrawer, the laws of arithmetic tell me I havetwenty pounds. If, however, on waking up I ndonly ve pounds in the drawer I don’t conclude

It would have required exceptional genius

to have invented the character of Jesus and

put into His mouth parables that are in

themselves literary masterpieces.




Science and Faith: Friendly Allies, Not Hostile Enemies

that the laws of arithmetic have been broken but possibly the laws of England.4 The laws of

nature describe to us the regularities on whichthe universe normally runs. God, who createdthe universe with those laws, is no more theirprisoner than the thief is prisoner of the laws ofarithmetic. Like my room, the universe is not aclosed system, as the secularist maintains. Godcan, if He wills, do something special, like raise Jesus from the dead.

Note that my knowledge of the laws of arith-metic tells me that a thief has stolen the money.Similarly, if we did not know the law of naturethat dead people normally remain in t heir

tombs, we should never recognize a resurrec-tion. We could certainly say that it is a law of na-ture that no one rises from the dead by naturalprocesses. But Christians do not claim that Jesusrose by natural processes, but by supernaturalpower. The laws of nature cannot rule out thatpossibility.

Philosopher David Hume said that youmust reject a miracle as false, unless believ-

ing in its falsity would have such inexplicableimplications that you would need an even big-

ger miracle to explain them. That is one goodreason to believe in the resurrection of JesusThe evidence of the empty tomb, the characterof the witnesses, the explosion of Christianityout of Judaism, and the testimony of millionstoday are inexplicable without the resurrectionAs Holmes said to Watson: “How often have Isaid to you that when you have eliminated theimpossible, whatever remains, however improb-able, must be the truth?” As Russian Chris-tians say at Easter: “Khristos Voskryes. VoiistinuVoskryes! Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!”

Notes:1 C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study , London: Col

lins, 1947), 110.2 Melvin Calvin, Chemical Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1969), 258.3 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Astronomis Nova de Moti

bus (published in 1609).4 Miracles, 62.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not

only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

C.S. Lewis

R ECOMMENDED R EADING

John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion Hudson, 2009) This captivating study evaluates the evidence of modern science in relation to the debate between

the atheistic and theistic interpretation of the universe, addressing such topics as the origin of life;

the genetic code and its origin; the nature and scope of evolution; and the scope and limits of sci-

ence. Gripping and thoroughly argued, it is an illuminating look at one of man’s greatest debates.

v

Joh n Carson Lenno x is aProfessor of Mathematics atthe University of Oxford andEmeritus Fellow in Math-ematics and the Philosophyof Science at Green Temple-ton College. John is a SeniorFellow of the Trinity Forumand has written a numberof books, including God’s

Undertaker: Has ScienceBuried God? (2009), Gun-ning for God, on the newatheism (2011). His lat-e s t b o o k , A g a i n s t t h eFlow (2015), looks at the les-sons for today’s society thatone can draw from the lifeof the biblical figure, Dan-iel. John and his wife Sallylive near Oxford.




Sure, there are good cookies and kids, truestatements and beliefs, and beautiful paintingsand platypuses, but these are concrete instancesof something transcendent, something beyondthe cookies and kids, statements and beliefs,paintings and platypuses. Goodness, truth, and beauty—values one and all—nd their source beyond nature, beyond space. They cannot bemeasured by a yardstick, scale, or tachometer.In short, there is no philosophical “Argumentfrom Size” to atheism.

Modern Man’s Obsession withBigness

If there is no argument, what gives? Again,C.S. Lewis provides insight. This popular dif-culty advanced by atheists is gaining traction, because in modern times, according to Lewis,“the imagination has become more sensitive to bigness.” Lewis suggests that this new sensitiv-ity to bigness is a by-product of the eighteenth-century Romantic movement in poetry. Maybeso. What is clear is that modern man is fasci-nated with bigness. We want a bigger phone, a bigger home, a bigger car, a bigger paycheck,a bigger Twitter following. We supersize our burgers and fr ies and sip seventy-two–ounceBig Reds. (I am mindful of the fact that I writethis while living in Texas—a big state—full of big trucks, big highways and byways, and milesand miles of bigness masquerading as cattleranches.)

But this aair with size, Lewis points out, isnot an aair of reason but of emotion. We beholdthe immensity of a mountain range, or canyon,or the night sky and our imagination awakens.

We attach some quality—sublimity, greatness,

big-league-ishness—to quantity and are thusly

overcome by immensity; we look upon the nightsky with awe. And rightly so. We ought, when

face to face with reality, whether it be the vast

universe or our own shadow, be moved to awe

and wonder. As Lewis so eloquently puts it:

It is a profound mistake to imagine that

Christianity ever intended to dissipate the

bewilderment and even the terror, the sense

of our own nothingness, which come upon us

when we think about the nature of things. It

comes to intensify them. Without such sensa-

tions there is no religion.

Is Bigger Better? C.S. Lewis, Atheism, and the Argument from Size(continued from page 3)




When we see things in their proper light, weare moved to awe. We catch a glimpse of theenchanted world, imagination awakens, and thetranscendent breaks into the mundane.

But modern man has mistaken this sign oftranscendence for a philosophical principle.Since nature is all there is, this sense of awe andwonder in the face of immensity cannot point to

something beyond. It must help us understandsomething about nature. Yes, that’s it. The big-ger the better; size and importance are propor-

tionally related.

An Argument in theNeighborhood

The emotional response elicited f romsize points in the opposite direction from theArgument from Size. The feeling of awe, theawakened imagination, the sheer terror of ournothingness in a vast cosmos serve as a kindof religious experience that is suggestive of atranscendent Other. It is one of many signals of

transcendence. It is an echo of the divine foundwithin the domain of our “natural” reality thatcries out for attention and points beyond thatreality.

In fact, I believe these signals of transcen-dence are everywhere, even in the mundanegestures of our everyday human experience.Clear the dust, point the nger, shine the light,and they are easy enough to see. They are rightin front of us; no excavation from the depths ofour experience or mind is required. They are

hidden in plain sight. Perhaps this blindness toreality is responsible for many of our problemsPerhaps the spiritual lethargy that characterizes many of us is a result of our disenchantedoverly materialistic, and hedonistic view of theword. Perhaps our evangelism so often falters because we fai l to attend to, in our own li feand in the lives of others, the deep mysteriesenchantments, and beauties that exist hiddenin plain sight and point beyond us to God. Thegood news is that the solution to these prob-lems and perhaps others is not far from us norso hard.

Sociologist Peter Berger, in his excellent bookA Rumor of Angels, is of some help, noting vesignals of transcendence from our everydaylives and experiences.8 First, there is the humanpropensity for order. Every society is burdenedwith the task of bringing order out of chaosEven such commonplace acts as mowing thelawn, making a to-do list, and a mother assur-ing her upset child that “everything is in order,everything is all right” point to humanity’s faithin order. What best explains the observable hu-

man propensity to order reality? If there is noGod, if there is nothing beyond nature, theneverything is not in order, everything is not alright. Yet we take it upon ourselves to representreality as ultimately in order and trustworthy“This representation,” Berger argues, “can be

justied only within a religious (strictly speak ing a supernatural) frame of reference.”9

Second, Berger notes the ubiquity of human play. In play, time is suspended, the seriousnessof the world is set aside, and a separate universeof intense joy and delight is created and enteredThe experience of joyful play can be readilyfound in ordinary life even as it points beyondto a world where all is as it should be, the goodtriumphs over evil, and everyone in the end isknown by his or her true name.


Moreover, many of the things we value m

in life, such as goodness, truth, and beau

are not, strictly speaking, measurable in

physical terms at all.




Third, there is the unconquerable humanpropensity to hope. Humanity is essentially“future directed,” looking forward to the ful-llment of all desires and to a day when the dif -culties of the here and now will be no more.We think innite happiness is really there. Wehope that one day we will reach the rainbow’send. Such hope is absurd if there is no God, noafterlife. As C.S. Lewis famously argued, “If Ind in myself a desire which no experience inthis world can satisfy, the most probable expla-nation is that I was made for another world.”10

The human characteristic of hope, again, points beyond itself and this world. It is a signal oftranscendence.

Fourth, in the face of horrendous evils, suchas the massacre of the innocent, rape, or mur-der, there is the human demand for not onlycondemnation, but damnation. In our hearts wecurse the perpetrators of such monstrous evils.No human punishment seems enough. Onlyeternal banishment of the guilty from Godseems appropriate. Horrendous evil “raises thequestion of the justice and power of God. It also,however, suggests the necessity of hell—not somuch as a confirmation of God’s justice, butrather as a vindication of our own.”11 Both thehuman gesture of protective reassurance and

a human counter gesture of damnation pointus to a reality of something beyond this world.

Finally, there is the reality of humor. Life isfull of the unexpected, the unforeseen. Whowould have expected to nd the great and seri-ous philosopher Socrates hanging in a basket,contemplating the air (as Aristophanes portrayshim in the Greek comedy The Clouds)? Whowould have foreseen Wile E. Coyote, run over by a truck, emerge unharmed? The comic pointsto a discrepancy between our understandingof the world and another possible interpreta-tion of it. We are forced to ask: which picture of

the world is true to the way things are? Bergerargues that at its most fundamental level, thecomic reects the “imprisonment of the humanspirit in the world” and “implies that this im-prisonment is not nal but will be overcome.”12

Comedy is a foretaste of things to come and, assuch, another signal of transcendence.

Admittedly, much more could and should besaid about each of Berger’s signals of transcen-dence. But here I want us to notice that there isan argument in the neighborhood of the athe-

ist’s Argument from Size, pointing in the otherdirection, and grounded in the Christian doc-trine of creation. The core premise of the argu-ment is quite simple: everything points to God, tosomething beyond nature. That is, everything thatexists—every truth discovered, every beauty(and every corruption of beauty), and everygood (and perversion of good)—points to andilluminates the divine. Since God is the Creatorof everything distinct from Himself, everything

bears His stamp. Moreover, each of the signalsof transcendence we’ve considered—bigness,order, play, hope, damnation, and humor—andmany more that we have not, point not only toa transcendent reality but to the gospel storyas the true story of the world. For in the gos-pel we nd an enchanted, supernatural world

where love is eternal, death is cheated, victory issnatched out of the hands of defeat, and, in theend, all turns out for the good.

Bigger isn’t always better. What bigness doespoint to, however, if we pay attention, is God.But so does everything else, if properly fol-lowed. My proposal is one of re-enchantment.We must begin to see everything in its properlight, not as ordinary, mundane, familiar, but assacred, holy, a gift from our Creator. In doing so,like John the Baptist in the Gospels, we will be

We ought, when face to face with reality,

whether it be the vast universe or our own

shadow, be moved to awe and wonder.

Stephen Maxwell photo courtesy of Google Images




pointing others to the King and Creator of it all.That is big news! That is good news!v

Notes1 Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (New York: Ballantine, 1994),

7.2 Victor Stenger, “Faith in Anything Is Unreasonable,”

in Is Faith in God Reasonable? Debates in Philosophy, Science,

and Rhetoric, ed. Corey Miller and Paul Gould (New York:

Routledge, 2014), 66–67.3“10 Questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson,” Time vid-

eo, po sted June 27, 2008, https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=wiOwqDmacJo.4 Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York:

Touchstone, 1957), 107.

5 C.S. Lewis, Miracles (1947; reprt., New York: Touch-

stone, 1975), 72.6 Ibid., 73.

7 Ibid., 70.

8 Peter Berger, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and

the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (New York: Doubleday,

Anchor Books, 1970), 61–94.

10 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952: reprt., San Fran-

cisco: HarperCollins, 2001), 136–37.

11 Berger, Rumor of Angels, 86.

12 Ibid., 87.

R ECOMMENDED R EADINGAlister E. McGrath, Surprised by Meaning: Science, Faith, and How WeMake Sense of Things (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011) In thirteen short, accessible chapters, McGrath leads the reader through a nontechnical

discussion of science and faith. How do we make sense of the world around us? Are

belief in science and the Christian faith compatible? Does the structure of the universe

point toward the existence of God?

Many a man, brought up in the glib profession of some

shallow form of Christianity, who comes through reading

Astronomy to realise for the first time how majestically

indifferent most reality is to man, and who perhapsabandons his religion on that account, may at that

moment be having his first genuinely religious experience.

C.S. Lewis





Leveling the Playing Field: A Strategy for Pre-Evangelism

You: Well, everyone’s intolerant of somethings, right? Aren’t you? I think the question

for all of us is, how do we determine what weshould tolerate and what should we reject?

orYour non-Christian friend: Why do Chris-

tians hate gays so much?You: Hate? That’s a pretty strong word. I

think both gays and Christians today have apretty serious challenge. We’ve got to nd dif -ferent ways to address this very sensitive issue,and there’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Some people certainly are homophobic. But I think there may also be a fair amount

of people who are Christophobic.orYour non-Christian friend: You’re not one of

those anti-science idiots, are you?You: Is that a real question? It doesn’t sound

like the kind of even-handed way a scientistwould investigate things. I’d love to talk about

science and faith. But could we try to avoidwords like idiot?

Our society has become more polarized andargumentative than ever. The very tone of mostradio talk shows should cause most people to blush—and then switch stat ions. We need tond ways to lower the temperature while chal-lenging people to think clearly. Leveling theplaying eld may be one of those ways that helppeople move from “you’ve got to be kidding”to “maybe I should consider this” and then,prayerfully, to “this is the best news I’ve everheard.”

Portions of this article rst appeared in the book, Bring-

ing the Gospel Home: Witnessing to Family Members, Close

Friends, and Others Who Know You Well, by Randy Newman,

published by Crossway (2011).

Notes1 Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Penguin

Group USA, 2008), xvi–xvii.

Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the

right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. Itwill not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.

C.S. Lewis

R ECOMMENDED R EADINGThe Engaging with … series (The Good Book Company, 2014) A new series of short books (96 pages each) that helps Christians understand the beliefs

of people of different religions and worldviews, and how to reach out to them with the

good news of Jesus in a relevant and clear way. These titles are now available: Engaging

with Atheists, by David Robertson; Engaging with Muslims, by John Klaassen; Engaging

with Hindus, by Robin Thomson.

(continued from page 5)

v




Who is God? Part 1(continued from page 7)

kind had become so irreversibly wicked thattotal destruction was the only option left. Theensuing ood graphically illustrates that thereare limits to God’s mercy and that persistent,unrepented sin and deliberate rejection of God’sgracious warnings can bring catastrophic judg-ment on a massive scale. Yet even in judgment,God showed mercy where He could. We readthat “Noah was a righteous man, blameless inhis generation. Noah walked with God.” And“Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD”(Gen. 6:8–9). He was spared, along with his fam-ily.

As God’s redemptive work in the worldprogressed. His personal, gracious love waspowerfully demonstrated in His choosing the

patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to bethe ancestors of Israel, a special people with aunique destiny. Through provision, protection,and extraordinary promises of blessing, Godrevealed His grace and love and future plansto them. His grace continues to unfold as Hereveals Himself to one of their descendants,Moses.

God Reveals Himself as Holy andSelf-Existent

At the burning bush God commissions Mo-ses to deliver His people, Israel, from Egyptian bondage, and at the same t ime reveals His ho-liness. God said to Moses, “‘Moses, Moses!’And he said, ‘Here I am.’ Then he said, do notcome near; take your sandals o your feet, forthe place on which you are standing is holyground” (Exod. 3:4–5). In this encounter, Godaccentuates His holiness, the most emphasizedof His characteristics and one of the central

themes of the Scriptures. It is one that we knowlittle of today.

The essence of God’s holiness is

His separateness, i.e., His uniqueness, Hisdistinction as the Wholly Other, the One whocannot be confused with the gods devised bymen (Ex. 15:11), the One who stands apart from and above the creation. Secondarily theholiness of God denotes His moral perfection,His absolute freedom from blemish of anykind.6

Because of God’s holiness, even the groundin His presence was holy, that is, set apart, sep-arated from normal use to divine use, whichrequired Moses to remove his sandals. Peopleand material things that are set apart and de-voted to God are also designated as holy. Mosesencounter with God’s blazing holiness made aprofound impact on him, one that would pow-erfully shape his life and produce a deep, lasting humility in him. So much so that we are told“the man Moses was very meek, more than althe people who were on the face of the earth”

(Num. 12:3). The impact of God’s holiness waslasting and is still seen when, near the end ofMoses’ life, he exclaims, “Who is like you, OLORD, among the gods? / Who is like you, ma jestic in holiness, / awesome in glorious deedsdoing wonders?” (Exod. 15:11).

God emphasized His holiness not just toMoses, but through him to the entire nation ofIsrael. He did this by giving laws, statutes, andprecepts, in which everything is in some wayconnected to holiness. He commanded, “Youshall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy

and have separated you from the peoples, thatyou should be mine” (Lev. 20:26). Because Godis morally pure, these requirements includehuman moral and ethical behavior, includingtruthfulness, fair dealing, and sexual purityThe response God sought from His covenanpeople is summed up by Moses in what is calledthe Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our Godthe LORD is one. You shall love the LORD yourGod with all your heart and with all your sou

We tend by a secret law of the soul to move

toward our mental image of God. Tis is true

not only of the individual Christian,

but of the company of Christians that

composes the Church.




Who is God? Part 1

and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4). The con-crete expression of this wholehearted love wasobedience to God’s commands. God’s call for ho-liness continues throughout the Old Testamentand into the New Testament, where it is em-phasized by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others. Petersums it up well: “As obedient children, do not beconformed to the passions of your former igno-rance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in a ll your conduct, since it is written,‘You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:14–16).The seriousness of the call to holiness is high-lighted by the writer to the Hebrews, who sayswith simple directness, “Strive for peace with

everyone, and for the holiness without whichno one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).

As his encounter with God continued, Mosesasked to know God’s name in order to answerthe Israelites when they asked. In response,“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ Andsay to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me toyou” (Exod. 3:14). This mysterious, enigmatic re-sponse was in fact God’s personal name, whichHe had not disclosed, even to Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob. In Hebrew it is represented by thefour consonants YHWH and comes from a verb

meaning “to be.” It represents the idea of self-existent being and could also be translated “theOne Who Is.” God does not depend on anyoneor anything for His existence. He needs nothingand is entirely self-sucient.

God Reveals Himself as Eternal

Moses also comes to understand that theGod of Israel, YHWH, is eternal. He had no be-ginning and will never have an end. He is not bound by time, which he created, but rather ex-

ists outside of time. From God’s vantage point of“the eternal present,” He sees the end of thingsfrom the very beginning. Many years later, Mo-ses would pen the words “Before the mountainswere brought forth, / or ever you had formedthe earth and the world, / from everlasting toeverlasting you are God” (Ps. 90:2). And in hisnal blessing to Israel, he assured them, “Theeternal God is your dwelling place, / and un-derneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27).

God Reveals His Glory and Grace

Moses’ growing relationship with God in-spired in him (as it should in us) a deep de-sire to know God even better and led him topray, “Please show me your glory.” God’s holy,awe-inspiring response is the high point in Hisself-revelation in the Old Testament. This newrevelation “proclaimed that God is love, butthat kind of love in which mercy, grace, long-suering, goodness, and truth are united withholiness and justice.”7 God said, “I will make allmy goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name.” But “you cannot see my

face, for man shall not see me and live,” there-fore “I will cover you with my hand until I havepassed by. Then I will take away my hand, andyou shall see my back, but my face shall not beseen” (Exod. 33:18–23). The Lord then passed be-fore Moses, proclaiming His name and saying,

The LORD, the LORD, a God mercifuland gracious, slow to anger, and abound-ing in steadfast love and faithfulness, keep-




Who is God? Part 1

ing steadfast love for thousands, forgivinginiquity and transgression and sin, but who

will by no means clear the guilty, visiting theiniquity of the fathers upon the children andthe children’s children, to the third and fourth generation (Exod. 34:5–7).

This became the classic description of God inthe Old Testament, reappearing over the centu-ries in other passages such as Numbers 14:18;Nehemiah 9:17, 31; Psalms 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jo-nah 4:2; and Joel 2:13. It is also the view of Godthe Father held by the writers of the New Testa-

ment and has enduring value for God’s people,so we will examine it more closely.

Of the specific Hebrew words with which

God describes Himself, in Commentary on theOld Testament, Keil and Delitzsch note:

here grace, mercy, and goodness are placedin the front. And accordingly all the wordswhich the language contained to express theidea of grace in its varied manifestationsto the sinner, are crowded together here, toreveal the fact that in His inmost being God islove. But in order that grace may not be per-verted by sinners into a ground of wanton-ness, justice is not wanting even here with its

solemn threatenings, although it only followsmercy, to show that mercy is mightier thanwrath, and that holy love does not punish tilsinners despise the riches of the goodness,

patience, and long-suering of God.8

Let’s examine what these words mean:• Merciful, or compassionate,9 meaning that

He “genuinely cares about humans and holds

toward them a tender attitude of concern andmercy.”10

• Gracious, meaning He “does things for people they do not deserve and goes beyond whamight be expected to grant truly kind favor toward people, favor of which they are not necessarily worthy.”11

• Slow to anger, meaning He is “ready, anddisposed, to pardon, but that He patiently waitfor those who have sinned, and invites themto repentance by His long-suering…as if He

would abstain from severity did not man’s wickedness compel Him to execute punishment onhis sins.”12

• Abounding in steadfast love and faithfulnesstranslates the Hebrew word hesed, and “connotes long-term, reliable loyalty of one membeof a covenant relationship to another. Howeveckle and unreliable humans may be in theirelationship to God, he is nothing of the sort bucan be counted on in every situation and at altimes to be completely faithful to his promisefor his people.”13

• Keeping steadfast love for thousands, meancertainly thousands of persons, but more likelythousands of generations and assures that Hewill not forsake His people as long as they donot abandon Him and give themselves over toevil that demands punishment.

• Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sinmeans that His forgiveness encompasses thefull range of human sin and “thus the greatness of His clemency is set forth, inasmuch a

It is not too much to say that the lack of the

knowledge of the true God lies at the root of

the problems that beset our personal lives,

the church, and the culture.




Who is God? Part 1

He not only pardons light oences, but the verygrossest sins; and again, remits not only sin inone case, but is propitious to sinners by whomHe has been a hundred times oended. Hence,therefore, appears the extent of His goodness,since He blots out an infinite mass of iniqui-ties.”14

• Who will by no means clear the guilty, visitingthe iniquity of the fathers upon the children and thechildren’s children, to the third and fourth genera-tion applies to those who would presume uponGod’s mercy and stubbornly persist in the wick-edness of their forefathers in disregard of God’slaw: “After God has spoken of His mercy, Headds an exception, viz., that the iniquity is by no

means pardoned, which is accompanied by ob-stinacy…The words, therefore, may be properlyparaphrased thus: Although God is pitiful andeven ready to pardon, yet He does not thereforespare the despisers, but is a severe avenger oftheir impiety.”15

The eventual fate of the rebellious nation of

Judah is an example of how God, who is mer-

ciful, gracious, abounding in love, and slow to

anger, is compelled to bring judgment againstthose who stubbornly persist in the wickedness

of their forefathers and reject His compassion,patience, and repeated overtures of mercy:

The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent per-sistently to them by his messengers, becausehe had compassion on his people and on hisdwelling place. But they kept mocking themessengers of God, despising his words andscong at his prophets, until the wrath of

the LORD rose against his people, until therewas no remedy (2 Chron. 36:15–16).

Like the ood, this is another illustration ofthe fact that there is a limit to God’s mercy. Fi-nally, God unleashed His wrath and broughtagainst them the Chaldeans, who captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, killed manypeople, and took the rest into exile in Babylonfor seventy years. From this catastrophic event,we can see that God’s wrath is not arbitrary andcapricious or an expression of bad temper suchas humans often display. Rather, it is the vis-ceral reaction of a holy God against persistent

and outrageous moral evil.Much more remains to be said about who

God is, and in part 2 of this article we will ex-plore those things further, including additionalmajor attributes as well as His Trinitarian life,and how we can come to know Him throughHis Son, Jesus the Messiah, and be transformed by His Holy Spirit.

Until then, let us remember that no matterhoUntil then, let us remember that no matterhow well we may know God, there is alwaysmore. And let us press on to better know this

great, glorious, and awesome God of holy love,who is a redeemer, father, and shepherd to Hispeople. He has loved us with an everlastinglove and has drawn us to Himself and contin-ues faithfully to love and care for us and desiresfellowship with us (Jer. 31:3; John 6:44). And Heinvites all who do not yet personally know Himturn to Him and to experience His holy love

Did you see the article onScience and Faith: Friendly Allies,Not Hostile Enemiesby John Lennox?

He’s our banquet speaker this year on April 14, 2016!




R ECOMMENDED R EADINGA.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (HarperOne, 2009) A modern classic of Christian testimony and devotion, The Knowledge of the Holy shows us how we can rejuvenate our prayer life, meditate more reverently,understand God more deeply, and experience God’s presence in our daily lives.

through faith in His Son and Savior, Jesus theMessiah: “Turn to me and be saved, / all theends of the earth! For I am God, and there is noother” (Isa. 45:22).

Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise manboast in his wisdom, let not the mighty manboast in his might, let not the rich man boastin his riches, but let him who boasts boast inthis, that he understands and knows me, thatI am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. Forin these things I delight, declares the LORD”(Jer. 9:23–24).

Notes

1 A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (1961; reprt., San

Francisco: HarperCollins, 2009), 1.2 Ibid.3 Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, Soul

Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teen-

agers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 162-163.

4 J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar

sity, 1973); R.T. France, The Living God (Downers Grove, IL

InterVarsity, 1970); Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy.5 All Scripture quotations in this article are f rom the

English Standard Version.6 Georey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard

Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

1979–1988), s.v. “Holiness, Holy” (E.F. Harrison).7 Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary

on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrick son, 1996)

1:478.8 Ibid.9 This is how the NIV and NASB translate the Hebrew

word.10 Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, The New American Com

mentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006),11 Ibid.12 John Calvin and Charles Bingham, Commentaries on

the Four Last Books of Moses (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible

Software, 2010), 3:386.13 Stuart, Exodus, 715–16.14 Calvin and Bingham, Commentaries, 3:387.15 Ibid., 3:388.

There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good

when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him.

C.S. Lewis

v

Who is God? Part 1




this church’s rectory is a doorknob in theshape of a lion, which would have met Lew-is eye to eye when Lewis visited this home.And Lewis would have come fairly often as

a child, since his grandfather served there asthe parish priest of St. Mark’s.

Just down the road from Little Lea, in theother direction from the church, Lewis andhis brother were able to see the mystical andintriguing hills of County Down. They lovedto ride their bikes through these hills and lettheir minds dream of castles, knights, talk-ing beasts, and adventure. County Down forLewis evoked fantastical and joyful memoriesof childhood, which were in stark contrast tothe sad and painful experiences Lewis faced

following the death of his mother when Lew-is was only nine years old. Two weeks afterthe loss of his mom, Lewis’s father, unable tocope emotionally, sent Lewis and Warnie oto face the horrors of English boarding school.His childhood would never be the same.

Knowing this about Lewis’s childhoodworld, is it any wonder that later in his life,when Lewis sought to communicate truthand joy to children, he would write of a lionnamed Aslan who roamed the green hills ofNarnia? County Down represented the idyllicpart of Lewis’s childhood and inuenced the

ctional world that we now know as Narnia.For Lewis as an adult, the history, beauty,

and intellectual stimulation of Oxford createda place in which he would shine and excel. Asa student at University College and as a tuto-rial fellow at Magdalen College, Lewis wasable to explore literature, philosophy, classics,and eventually, in a search for truth fall onhis knees, and become, “the most dejectedand reluctant convert in all of England.”3 Ox-ford represented for Lewis a place in which both his reason and imagination could our-

ish as he was challenged and encouraged byfriends such as J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Wil-liams, among others.

Lewis became a very popular lecturer,and following his conversion he would pub-lish more than thirty books in thirty years inthe areas of science ction, children’s ction,Christian apologetics, and literary criticism.Oxford was a wonderful place for Lewis, andyet it also was a place in which he experi-enced great pain and sorrow. At Oxford he

recovered from the nightmares of World WarI. He experienced jealousy and animosity ashe was denied a chaired position at Magda-len College due to political inghting even

though he was one of the most brilliant teach-ers of his day. He also experienced the joy ofmarriage and the extreme grief of losing hiswife, Joy Davidman, to cancer. And so Lew-is’s life in Oxford, like that of his childhood inCounty Down, was lled with great joys andgreat sorrows. Within the ideals of Oxfordand County Down, however, were window-panes that oered glimpses into heaven andgave Lewis hope that this sinful world wouldone day be redeemed.

In his book Mere Christianity, Lewis writes,

“If I nd in myself a desire which no expe-rience in this world can satisfy, the mostprobable explanation is that I was made foranother world.”4 After visiting the emeraldhills of County Down of Lewis’s childhoodand the dreaming spires of Oxford from hisadult world, I can see why Lewis definedheaven as “Oxford lifted and placed in themiddle of the County Down.” It’s not thatLewis experienced a perfect world in theseplaces, but rather, the Lord used the temporal beauty and grandeur of these places to givehim the desire for another world.

What is your denition of heaven?

Gratefully,

Notes1 James O’Fee, “Lewis and Ireland: Two New Books”

(book review published in Kathryn Lindskoog’s The

Lewis Legacy [The C.S. Lewis Foundation for Truth in

Publishing], Spring 2000, accessed September 2015, Dis-

covery Institute, C.S. Lewis Web, http://www.discovery.

org/a/801.2 Bruce L. Edwards, ed., C.S. Lewis: Life, Works, and

Legacy, Vol. 1, An Examined Life (New York: Praeger, 2007),

19.3 C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York: Harcourt,

1955), 228.4 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; reprt., New York:

Touchstone, 1996), 121.

v

What is Your Definition of Your Heaven?(continued from page 2)




Graw’s denition of evangelical reects greaterprecision. For him

the term “evangelical” means “preaching the good news”…Such preaching as was doneby the subjects studied in this book was notbound by form or method, but was guided byneed. It was done for a purpose––the exalta-tion of Christ and the nurture of faith in his power to save.6

Later he adds, “Wyclie and Hus seemed to be good subjects with which to begin. They rep-resent the preaching which awakened interestand focused attention upon truths Luther and

the others were able to portray during the Ref-ormation times.”7

Timothy Larsen has also included Hus in hishighly regarded reference work, BiographicalDictionary of Evangelicals (2003). His classicationwas based on David Bebbington’s well-accept-ed denition of evangelicals (i.e., conversion,Scripture, cross, and activism) that places theorigin for this movement in the 1730s. ThoughLarsen quickly adds, “Nevertheless, the inclu-sion of a ‘pre-history’ of evangelical forebearswas thought to be useful—those by whose workevangelicals have often been shaped and with

whose examples they have identied.” Larsen’sinclusionary decisions were also determined by individuals’ sign icance of inuence, andthis “book has been biased towards figureswho have had a substantial impact in the widerevangelical movement.”8

Regardless of this strong Protestant identi-cation with Hus, we must be honest and realizethat Hus was certainly not a Protestant! ThomasFudge, the foremost English-speaking scholaron Hus, articulates it more firmly: “Jan Huswas a medieval Catholic reformer rather thana premature Protestant.”9 Hus held to the tradi-tional Western Catholic teachings on transub-stantiation, belief in purgatory, and intercession

to the Virgin Mary.10 Yet Hus was a signicanreformer and has much to teach the contemporary church about how to live and follow Jesus

John Hus’s Message for Today

First, Hus would challenge us to be groundedin Scripture. Writing to his friends in Bohemiathe day before he was executed, he declaredwhat was a constant reminder throughout hisministry: “Be diligent in the Word of God.”11 Instead of being diligent, we are often distractedand inattentive to the Word of God. Readinghabits of many contemporary followers of Jesus are embarrassing. But our condition is even

more disappointing when we compare the behavior of Christians with that of unbelievers and recognize how little observable dierence sets us apart. Hus speaks personally thaScripture has been his “foundation and food by which my spir it is refreshed, that it may bestrong against all adversaries of the truth.”1

This is why he hungered after the Word andencouraged his friends to be equally zealousand conformed to its teachings, and always to“stand rmly in the love of the Word of Godand cleave to it with the greatest desire.”13

Hus would certainly arm the name of thisperiodical: Knowing & Doing. Beyond his emphasis on knowing Scripture, he practiced andexhorted “doing” and living out its truth. Hewrote to his friends at Prague with great ur-gency: “I beg you…that you gladly attend thepreaching, diligently hear it; and hearing itunderstand it; and understanding it, keep itand keeping it, learn to know yourselves; andlearning to know yourselves, know rightly yourdearest Saviour.”14 This strong rel iance uponhearing the Word created an equal responsi bility on preachers, and Hus urged them to be

likewise diligent in their preaching. He wasdeeply grieved during his exile when he wasunable to preach and candidly confessed that “preach the sacred Scriptures––not I, but principally the Holy Spirit.”15

There is considerable scholarly debate regarding the extent of Hus’s contribution to therevisions of the Czech Bible; he was involved asome level, providing increased access for thecommon person. Hus devoted himself, much

The Legacy of John Hus(continued from page 11)

Once again we see the powerful link of the

responsibilities of a Christian nation in

response to the prevalence of sin in its midst.




Profile in Faith

like Luther and Calvin later, to study the Scrip-tures and discover the truth.

A second challenge from Hus is to keep Je-sus Christ as the head of the church. Hus for-mulated his understanding of the nature andpurpose of the church from Scripture, in par-ticular the writings of the apostle Paul, throughthe lens of Augustine. For Hus the church wasthe gathering of all predestined believers inheaven and earth who confessed their faith inthe Lord Jesus Christ and not a corporation ofpeople controlled by the pope or church coun-cils. However, if the church leadership followedScripture, Hus would gladly conform to itsteachings: “Whatever the holy Roman Church

or the pope with the cardinals shall decree ororder to be held or done according to the law ofChrist, that I, humbly and as a faithful Chris-tian, wish to respect and reverently to accept.”16

Hus’s understanding of t he nature of thechurch also emphasized true inner convictionsrather than a polished external veneer, por-trayed in the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. His com-munal emphasis on the church seems foreign tomuch of our American individualized practice,which has contributed to the secularization ofthe body of Christ. Instead of cooperating with

other Christians, even within our own denom-inations or close-knit associations, we tend todivide from one another. Inherent within Hus’steaching on the church is the principle of consis-tency. Hus struggled with following the decreesof the pope who “lived contrary to Christ” whowas “the supreme head” of the church.17 Hereagain, Hus would proclaim the critical need toknow and defend the truth. While Hus was areformer, he recognized that his desired goalof church unity was possible only through truefaith that was elusive if church-goers were notdevoted to Scripture. As we critique programsor ministries today, we likewise can be chal-lenged to base our actions on Scripture and notpersonal power or pride.

Third, Hus recognized the centrality of wor-ship to connect people to God. This would be-come more developed in Luther’s teaching onthe priesthood of all believers, intended to in-crease the person’s focus on God. Unfortunatelythere is a trend today in many churches to cre-ate a more horizontal focus in public worship.

Hus would be alarmed to discover that moretime is devoted to announcements than thereading of Scripture in a representative crosssection of churches.18 A similar diminishment ofprayer is also detected in some worship experi-ences. Likewise, musically, large robed choirspresenting polished oratorios or high-poweredpulsating praise bands can divert the proper

focus from God to the singers or the worship-ers who feel the performance is for their ben-et. Hus desired to increase participation andcreate a vertical ow of worship by preachingand translating the liturgy and hymns into thevernacular, allowing the people to participatemore fully.

During this period, only the priest receivedthe wine while the laypeople were limited toreceiving the Eucharistic bread. Central to theCzech Reformation that followed Hus’s deathwas to return the cup to the laity. This was sym- bolized by a chal ice placed on an open Bible,communicating the free proclamation of Scrip-ture and the celebration of the Lord’s Supperwith both bread and wine. Hus’s motivationagain was derived from Scripture. In writingto his replacement at the Bethlehem Chapel,Hus asserted: “Do not oppose the sacrament ofthe cup of the Lord which the Lord institutedthrough Himself and through His apostle [i.e.,Paul]. For no Scripture is opposed to it, but onlya custom which I suppose has grown up by neg-





ligence. We ought not [to] follow custom, butChrist’s example and truth.”19

Fourth, another important challenge fromHus concerns cultivating the spiritual life.He would have been shocked to discover ourcontemporary gap in understanding betweenthe nominal term Christian and a disciple whoseriously dedicates his or her life to following Jesus.20 Speaking to one of his closest friendsand supporters, Hus exhorted him to “rmlyand steadfastly love the Lord Jesus Christ,” not-ing that Christ suered and provided this as anexample in following Him. After citing, “If any-one would come after me, let him deny himselfand take up his cross and follow me” (Luke 9:23

ESV), Hus frankly confessed something thatany honest disciple recognizes: “O most kindChrist, draw us weaklings after Thyself, for un-less Thou draw us, we cannot follow Thee!”21

Jesus’ earthly years serve as a model; believ-ers are to “follow Christ’s life in poverty, purity,humility.” Realizing the realities of persecutionfor the truth, he writes less than a month be-fore his death: “Do not fear to die for Christ if

you wish to live with Christ.” Similarly Husasserted, “It is better to die well than to livewickedly.”22 Given the unrestrained immoralityand corruption among some priests and otherchurch leaders, Hus’s emphasis on followingthe Ten Commandments i s understandable.Whether he is writing to priests or lay people,he exhorts all to “live a devout and holy life.”23

Additionally Hus, reminiscent of Jesus,warns against constructing the exterior of yourhouse without similar attention to your soul.This is reinforced by the ethical mandate “thatif you are a builder of a spiritual building, [be]kind to the poor and humble.”24

Beyond the continual message of readingScripture and seeking to live out that truth, Husmentions the importance of praying devoutly,especially using the Psalms, to cultivate the

spiritual life.25 Hus is also pastoral and realisticwhen he writes that the Christian life is a jour-ney: “Always keep in mind what you are, whayou were, and what you will be.”26

Fifth, Hus would be very quick to warn usof the reality of temptation. Many people seemunaware of the formative nature of culture. Wenaively think that our environment is neutralwhen actually it is continually shaping us inways that are typically opposed to the gospelHus preached against seeking wealth for itsown sake and ignoring the needs of the poorIn writing to an unnamed monk, he remindedhim that “the basic rule for clerics concerningthe owning of property, particularly those who

have vows, is to possess all things in commonaccording to Acts 2: ‘They had all things in com-mon.’” In the same letter, he marshals supportfrom “blessed Bernard” [of Clairvaux] who de-clared: “A monk owning a farthing, is not wortha farthing.”27 The Bohemian reformer reveals hispastoral wisdom in writing to two friends. Herst counsels them to perceive “how the wheeof worldly vanity spins.” Initially it may lift aperson with the fleeting pleasures of sin butsoon after crushes that person to destructionthat can, if unchecked, lead to “eternal tormentin re and darkness.”28

Often Hus would speak of the three traditional categories of the world, the flesh, andthe devil and the necessity for Christians to be vigilant and persevere in the face of suchseductive temptations. On other occasions hewas more explicit in naming specic temptations. For example, in an epistle to an unknownpriest, Hus counsels him to preach fervently“against debauchery, for that is the most fe-rocious beast which devours men for whomChrist’s humanity suered” and that furtherhe should “guard himself against fornication.”He concludes this letter on spiritual combat by

declaring: “Whatever you do, fear God and keepHis commandments. You will thus walk rightlyand not perish, tame the esh, spurn the worldvanquish Satan, put on God, nd life, conrmothers.”29 Hus learned this personally, throughthe school of aiction, that suering and temptation can arise at any moment. Among otherthings, he faced the heart-wrenching senseof betrayal when some of his one-time closefriends in his ministry became his most vocif-

Hus’s sermons frequently addressed the

corruptions, most notably the ancient

ongoing practice of simony or the purchasing

of church offices.





erous accusers at Constance. Throughout hisvaried experiences, Hus always placed his hopein God. Writing to his close associate just twoweeks before his execution, Hus armed: “Godalmighty will strengthen the hearts of His faith-ful whom He has chosen before the foundationof the world that they may receive the unfadingcrown of glory.”30

Clearly the life and teaching of John Hus wassignicant not only for Luther and other earlyProtestants, but also for us today. It is tting toconclude with the famous words for which Husis often remembered: “Therefore faithful Chris-tian, seek the truth, listen to the truth, learn the

truth, love the truth, speak the truth, adhere totruth and defend truth to the death.”31

Notes1 Czech and European writers typically refer to Hus as

Jan Hus. Most Americans call him John Hus or Huss. I will

follow the lead of most American publications and use Hus.2 Matthew Spinka, trans., Letters of John Hus (Totowa, NJ:

Rowman and Litt leeld, 1972), 51, cf. 53, 36, etc.3 Ľubomír Batka, “Jan Hus’ Theology in a Lutheran Con-

text,” Lutheran Quarterly 23 (2009): 1. Luther’s approval is

further demonstrated by the prefaces he wrote for various

editions of Hus’s writings. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works:Sermons on the Gospel of St. John chapters 17–20, ed. Christo-

pher Boyd Brown, vol. 69 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1958), 25

n 53.4 Harry Emerson Fosdick, ed., Great Voices of the Refor-

mation: An Anthology (New York: Random House, 1952), 40.

Huss chapter at 37–65.5 David Otis Fuller, ed., Valiant for the Truth: A Treasury

of Evangelical Writings (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), ix.

Huss chapter at 81–92.6 James McGraw, Great Evangelical Preachers of Yesterday

(New York: Abingdon, 1961), 7, 8. Huss chapter at 19–23.7 Ibid., 9.8 Timothy Larsen, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Evangeli-

cals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 1. Hus entry

at 321–22.9 Thomas Fudge, “Hussite Theology and t he Law of

God,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology,

ed. David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2004), 25.10 Ibid., 24; Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus: Religious Reform

and Social Revolution in Bohemia (London: I.B. Tauris,

2010), 49, 50, 51, 60.11 Spinka, Letters of John Hus, 209.12 Ibid., 103, cf. 186, etc.13 Ibid., 77, 93, 107.14 Ibid., 115, cf. 93, 122, where Hus reinforces the neces-

sity of both knowing and living out the truths of Scripture.15 Ibid., 90, 34.16 Ibid., 100–01, cf. 36, 52, 53. Hus is adamant that Jesus

Christ is the true head of the church. Spinka, ibid., 96, etc.17 Ibid., 99.18 See, e.g., Constance Cherry, “My House Shall Be

Called a House of . . . Announcements,” Church Music Wor-

ship (January–April 2005).19 Spinka, Letters of John Hus, 181.20 See Michael J. Wilkins, In His Image: Reecting Christ in

Everyday Life (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), 35; Dallas

Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: HarperSan-

Francisco, 1998), 282.21 Spinka, Letters of John Hus, 187, 43.22 Ibid., 23, 170, 102.23 Ibid., 153, 170, 128, 132.24 Ibid., 121.25 Ibid., 9, 153.26 Ibid., 168.27 Ibid., 69, 71.28 Ibid., 177.29 Ibid., 128, 129.30 Ibid., 186.31 Cited by Fudge, Jan Hus, 28.

v

Profile in Faith





I hope, by God’s grace, that I am truly a Christian, not deviating

from the faith, and that I would rather suffer the penalty of a terrible

death than wish to affirm anything outside of the faith or transgress

the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John Hus

R ECOMMENDED R EADINGTimothy George, Theology of the Reformers (25th Anniversary Edition),(B&H Academic, 2013) Timothy George proles ve principal gures from the period of the Reformation:Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, Menno Simons, and William Tyndale.He establishes the context for their work by describing the spiritual climate of theirtime, and does justice to the scope of their involvement in the reforming effort.


Please go to www.cslewisinstitute.org for a list of cities offeringthe Fellows Program




James A. PhillipsAnnapolis

Bill Smith, M. Div.Atlanta

Royce O. Johnson, II,M.D.Belfast

Neil Olcott, D. Min.Central Pennsylvania

Michael A. Milton, Ph.DCharlotte and the Carolinas

Karl Johnson, Lt.Col.,USMC (Ret.)Chicago

Stephen D. Eyre, M. Div.Cincinnati

Francis Orr-Ewing, M.A.London

Tim Bradley, M.A., M. Phil.Loudoun County

Bruce J. BeardNE Ohio (Area Director)

Daniel E. Osborn,M.A.NE Ohio

Steven AndersonSeattle(Interim-City Director)

Joseph A. Kohm, Jr.,J.D., M.B.A.Virginia Beach

Thomas A. Tarrants,III, D.Min.Washington, DC

CITY DIRECTORS

K NOWING & DOINGis a publication of theC.S. L EWIS INSTITUTE, INC.

SENIOR FELLOWS James M. Houston, Ph.D.William L. Kynes, Ph.D.Arthur W. Lindsley, Ph.D.Randy Newman, Ph.D.

TEACHING FELLOW Stuart McAlpine, M.A.

PRESIDENT Joel S. Woodru, Ed.D.

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Thomas W. Simmons

VICE PRESIDENT FOR MINISTRY Thomas A. Tarrants, III, D.Min.

WASHINGTON, DC FELLOWS

PROGRAM COORDINATOR

Melanie A. Sorli

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Betsy JohnsonStephanie SmithBessi Tarrants

FINANCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGER Austin Suter

PROJECT ASSISTANT

Ed Glancy

OFFICE VOLUNTEER

Connie Phelps

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Joel S. Woodru (President) John ChowBill DevenLynn Turpin-Hendricks

James R. HiskeyKerry A. Knott

Jimmy Lin, M.D., Ph.D.Arthur W. Lindsley, Ph.D.,

(Emeritus)Bruce H. Matson, J.D.Richard ParkerChris T. MorrisMarlise StreitmatterSusan WardKathy Wills WrightCarl Wylie

KNOWING & DOING

PRODUCTION EDITOR

Crystal Mark Sarno

:



KNOWING & DOING is published by the C.S. Lewis Institute and is available upon request.A suggested annual contribution of $50 or more is requested to provide for its production

In the legacy of C.S. Lewis, the Institute endeavors to develop disciples who canarticulate, defend, and live faith in Christ through personal and public life.

Speaker: John Lennox, Professor at Oxford University,Internationally renowned speaker on Science and Religionand Apologetics.

The C.S. Lewis

Institute is

supported through

the gifts of those who

recognize the vital

need for authentic

discipleship in

current culture.

Gifts are very much

appreciated and

can be mailed or

made via a secure

online donation.

The C.S. LewisInstitute is

recognized by theIRS as a 501(c)(3)

organization. All gifts to theInstitute are tax

deductible to the extent

provided under law

C. S. LEWIS

INSTITUTE

E S T A B L I S H E D

1 9 7 6

Discipleship

of

Heart

and

Mind

40th Anniversary | 15th Fundraising Banquet

April 14th – Save the DateC.S Lewis Institute

KD_Winter2015.pdf

Documents

Transcript of KD_Winter2015.pdf