Christian (or biblical) counseling is a topic that deserves more attention at places like Old Life that are lean sap and well-stocked seeking discernment. It strikes me that biblical counseling is another example of worldview, pietistic thinking that requires a biblical answer for each and every human problem. It also appears to suffer from a pietistic piety that runs roughshod over the regular ministry of pastors and elders who are ordained for the purpose of providing counsel, instruction, and exhortation — and they don’t even charge a fee for it.
Another part of the challenge of Christian counseling is the attempt to turn a human woe into a spiritual opportunity. I don’t mean to drive too great a wedge between the human and the spiritual sides of human existence, but since we do go to non-Christian physicians for help with ulcers and tumors, why do we need to go to Christian counselors for help with psychological problems or even broken relationships? What would be so awful if a person trained in certain areas of human existence wound up having a fund of knowledge about problems that Christians share with non-Christians? Are these problems the result of sin and the fall? Of course. Isn’t cancer or appendicitis also the result of sin and the fall? Of course. So why only go to Christians for help with the non-material parts of human misery? Why, I remember a time not too long ago when Christians thought treating depression with drugs was sinful. It is as if regeneration has powers that extend well beyond forgiveness, or as if sanctification leads to well-adjusted believers who will out perform non-believers in most areas of life — including happiness and well-adjustedness.
The Christian Curmudgeon reminded me of the dilemmas surrounding Christian counseling with his own reflections on depression. He writes:
Cowper’s depressions began when he was young. At his best, he was probably holding it at bay. He had at least four major depressive episodes in his life. On occasion he intended, though he failed, to end his own life. He died in despair, believing himself reprobate. His last poem, The Castaway, expresses his hopelessness with regard not just to this world but the world to come.
John Newton, with whom Cowper lived for a season and with whom he collaborated in the production of a book of hymns, testified that he did not doubt Cowper’s salvation. More recently, John Piper has given a similar assessment.
Despite the tragic course and sad end of his life, his hymns are given an important place in evangelical Christian hymnody. Six are included Trinity Hymnal. Just yesterday I sang with God’s people Jesus, Where’er Thy People Meet. Moreover, he is an object of sympathy, even of admiration, because of his affliction. He is sometimes held before depressed Christians, if not as an encouragement (how could a man with his end encourage) at least as a fellow sufferer.
Contrast that with Nevin. Several years ago, I wrote a review of a fine modern biography of this German Reformed theologian. It was not published by the media outlet to which it was initially submitted. (Happily it was published in Modern Reformation.) One of the reasons I was given for the review not being used was that it was not desired to call attention to him. And one of the reasons for not doing so was that he had been suicidal.
What? We sing despairing, suicidal Cowper but we suppress Nevin? I wonder why? Well, Nevin was not a poet, and he did not have a friend like John Newton. But, I think there is more. Cowper was a friend of Calvinist experientialism and Nevin was not. Nevin wrote The Anxious Bench while Cowper wrote O, For a Closer Walk with God.
Of course, the Curmudgeon’s point has less to do with Christian counseling than with experimental Calvinism. But he does point to another facet of the echo chamber affect that afflicts evangelicalism and its Reformed friends. And this affliction extends to Christian counseling. Even when we know that pastors and elders are supposed to be delivering pastoral oversight, which includes counseling of a basic kind, and even though we gladly receive the care of non-Christian specialists when it comes to a variety of human ailments, we generally refuse to subject Christian counseling to tough questions. The reason is that their models of human flourishing appear to point to a form of Christian piety that fits the conversionist ideal of a spiritual reorientation that radically changes a person’s entire being — from psychological make-up and worldview to plumbing.
Old Life 
Zrim,
Ok, but if you would like to be challenged a bit, read Milbank’s “Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Political Profiles).”
What do you have to lose?
LikeLike
Sorry, I wrote that post without proper focus. I’ll come back to this tonight to clarify.
LikeLike
Have you considered the possibility that your view disregards the cosmic nature of God’s salvation; and assumes that salvation is limited to individuals collectively referred to as the Church. This type of thinking is inevitable since the enlightenment has bequeathed us with an individualistic perspective of the world, as well as many truly beneficial outcomes.
Don, it isn’t unusual for worldviewers to think of salvation expansively instead of narrowly. Certainly there will be a new heavens and a new earth, but have you considered how the expansive view means that Jesus lived and died for more than the imago Dei (like fish and education)? But all of inanimate creation moans for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that there is an order to things. God has made a covenant with his people alone, not them and their stuff or hobbies or interests or pets. Speaking of Pentecostalism, this is where Reformed worldviewism and it have something in common: both don’t seem very content with salvation narrowly conceived or with waiting for final consummation. It’s the cross-as-kickoff syndrome or what others have called an immanentize the eschaton.
LikeLike
Lily,
I took the test and it turns out I’m a Piglet-ie., a bit shy and uncomfortable in new situations but I will do anything for a friend in need.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I wish I could get it through ya’ll’s heads that the LCMS and many other Lutheran denominations do not believe in consubstantiation. As for the difference in beliefs about the Real Presence, I wish I hadn’t been careless and made an inside joke about it, and for that I apologize. Can we steer clear of the differences here since neither one of us is going to budge a nano on this subject?
Ah… John – you’re a keeper. 😉
LikeLike
It was all in friendly jest, Lily. But say more about Lutherans not holding to consubstantiation.
LikeLike
Zrim,
So you are saying that because we alone are created in God’s image, that therefore, Jesus died only to redeem people, not His creation.
But even Wikipedia acknowledges that for humans to have a conscious recognition of having been made in the image of God means that they are aware of being that part of the creation through whom God’s plans and purposes best can be expressed and actualized. It appears that you want to separate humanity from the realm in which they were made to express the imago Dei.
You are affirming John Millbank’s summary of the modern (he would say erroneous) assumption that because the order of the world we live in is not ordained and established directly by God (it is a product of human labor and experimentation), it is contingent (i.e.,not natural and ordained by divine authority.) Therefore, according to modern belief, it is secular, and the realm of human manufacture is a secular realm.
Millbank says that the other assumption which underlies this erroneous modern belief is that human making has a purely instrumental purpose. We make things in order to achieve ends of efficiency and self-preservation. We build houses simply in order to keep out the elements,airplanes and automobiles for faster travel. We make things only as means to achieve the ends of efficiency, self-preservation, or comfort. The realm of the made is not thus a realm of a human striving after God, but an arena of instrumental reason and egotistical pursuit of self-interest. Thus, again, the realm of the made is secular.
Milbank challenges this equation of the made and the secular, but he does it first by
conceding that the realm of the “made” is contingent and not natural. Our social
order, our technological achievements, did not drop from heaven. They are
products of human labor and experiment. But in Christian theology, this creative
effort of man is a human “cooperation” with the creative work of God. Milbank
acknowledges that humans do not create ex nihilo, and he admits that history is the
outworking of what is already in the mind of God. But he also insists that human
creativity is truly creative, not merely an organization of matter, but a real making of
new things. Seeds do “create” new plants, humans produce new humans, humans
build bridges, roads, etc. In Van Tillian terms, he is combating a univocal, zero-sum
understanding of creation, that would assume that if God is creative, we cannot be.
Rather, he insists (very explicitly) on analogy: because God is creative, so are we.
This is one of the fundamental aspects of the imago Dei that cannot be realized apart from God’s creation. The new heavens and earth then are new because sin and death have been defeated, not through an escape from creation into some immaterial world. Yes there will be discontinuity, like the fact that there will not be marriage, but this is no argument that there will not be significant continuity.
LikeLike
MM,
I thought we got past organic. Let me know when you’re ready for cosmic.
I’m not sure how to answer your quesiton about defining my position on how to describe who is saved? Were you talking to me when you said you wrote that post without proper focus. If so, I’ll wait for clarification. In the meantime, perhaps my post to Zrim may be relevant in understanding where I’m coming from.
I must admit, though, your question reminds me of a former pastor whose subscriptionist church I was once a member of. Because my understanding of the WCF did not conform exactly to his predisposed, narrow interpretation, he asked me if I still believe the Gospel, after telling me he thought that I would probably be happier in another church. He was right about being happier in another church.
LikeLike
Don, I’m not saying that broader creation has no part in redemption so much as the unique aspect of creation, the imago Dei, has a privileged and unique place in that program, which is to say that as goes the imago Dei so goes the wider creation.
I affirm that the order of the world we live in is indeed ordained and established directly by God, so I’m not sure how I’m affirming Millbank’s summary of the modern assumption otherwise. And while I agree that humans do not create ex nihilo yet truly create, I think the Creator-creature distinction is important to maintain. For example, I don’t have any problem saying my wife and I uniquely made our children, but it still was a matter of mining the materials God alone created ex nihilo. So in some sense we re-created our kids, but that just doesn’t roll of the tongue right since they didn’t exist pre-conception.
And I do affirm both dis/continuity in the new creation. But my sense is that where worldviewism emphasizes continuity, 2k emphasizes discontinuity, as in no eye has seen and no ear has heard and no mind has conceived what God is preparing for those who love him.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The key word in the statement “the order of the world we live in is not ordained and established directly by God” is “directly’. I should have italicized it. In other words, the order is established indirectly through man. By “order”, he does not mean things like trees and rivers, but rather things like roads and buildings, and working from 9 to 5.
LikeLike
Don, you realize that by saying creation needs to be redeemed, you are guilty of Manicheanism — namely, that the world and creation are sinful and therefore need grace for salvation?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Redeemed in the sense that God’s curse is removed as Isaac Watt’s hymn “Joy to the World” proclaims:
I love the Christmas season. Its the only time the “secular” world acknowledges Christ, though it tries hard not to.
LikeLike
Don, concerning your Ecclesiastes proof text for a command to delight in work, I can only find “So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot.” (3:22). Note, other “better” passages “Better is a handful of quietness than two hands full of toil and a striving after wind.” (4:6) and “better than both is he who has not yet been and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.” (4:3) and So I guess you can also tell me to obey the commands to be quiet and retroactively cease existence. OK, a little jest there, but I’m just going to say that, though I am glad you find enthusiasm for your work, we may not command others to match your enthusiasm on the basis of Ecclesiastes.
But I really sense proof-texting or the lack thereof is not going to resolve things for you. I don’t have a solid sense of where you’re coming from. It’s like there’s an immense experience in the background or some perspective that is just alien to me. No offense, I’m just at a loss for how to constructively dialogue with you. So I’ll just bow out of our dialogue for now.
LikeLike
MM,
No sweat. Its time to move on anyway. And for the record, I often find my work to be very frustrating. So, I think I will follow Lily’s advice to read Song of Solomon and drink wine, instead of bourbon. I can’t handle the hard stuff.
LikeLike
Thanks Zrim, I love joking around. If you would like an accurate explanation of what Lutherans believe, The Book of Concord explains what we believe, confess, and teach about the Lord’s Supper. Hermann Sasse’s book, “This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar,” is the gold standard for more depth in understanding. I think Sasse addresses the difference between consubstantiation and what we believe. If you choose to accept this mission, I can only suppose we won’t hear from you for a few months and who knows… Sasse may convince you that we’re absolutely, positively, terrifically spot on and you MUST convert!!! 😉
Yeah… I couldn’t resist that last line. Waaaaay too much temptation for this sinner. ;P
LikeLike
Zrim,
You can also consult Lloyd Cadle over at the Riddleblog- I do remember him getting all up in arms about you Reformed types misunderstanding the Lutheran doctrine of the “Sacrament of the Altar” and the accusation of consubstantiation. If I recall, he pointed me to the Wisconsin Synod Web site which had an essay on the very topic- probably not as indepth as Sasse’s book. The following is a pretty indepth discussion of the Lutheran view of the Supper from October 22, 2009:
http://issuesetc.org/2009/10/22/thursday-october-22-2009/
LikeLike
Don, so you and Millbank think it’s erroneous to say that roads and buildings were established indirectly through man? It seems to me that the word that might serve better here is “im/’mediately.” But even so, how is it erroneous to say that? I watch a work crew–not Jesus–around the corner level land and raise up another Walmart (because heaven knows we need more of those) and they rip up and replace roads in my neighborhood. Man was the mediate instrument God used to establish roads and buildings. So I wonder if it’s another weakness in worldviewism to not grasp im/mediacy. It certainly isn’t grasped in Pentecostalism.
As for creation needing to be redeemed, I’ll see Manicheanism and raise medieval Romanism.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Sorry about the confusion. He and I would say that the assumption is correct, i.e., that the world order is contingent in that it is the outcome of man’s labor, etc. but the conclusion is erroneous, i.e., based on the above assumption that therefore, according to modern belief, the world order is secular, and the realm of human manufacture is a secular realm.
Regarding your other points, I will gladly take a whack at the same straw men that you do. But if you really want to wrestle with the view of DGH and those like him, you need to deal with the real issues raised by men like John Millbank, WIlliam Cavanaugh and others whose arguments are far more compelling, at least to me — and I am knowledgeable about both. If you are content with where you are, by all means, stay there.
LikeLike
Don, I am familiar with the arguments of Millbank and Cavanaugh and I appreciate their critiques of modernity and secularism. But I don’t follow their proposals for overcoming the problem. Plus, I read Augustine (not to mention Paul) in such a way that living with a tension between Christ’s rule as redeemer and his Lordship as creator is what God’s people are called to do, especially now that Jerusalem (and the holy land) is over.
So what do you find so compelling about Millbank et al? And do you already have your mind made up when reading them?
LikeLike
Don, you seem to be working with a worldviewist’s definition of “secular” that means something akin to “godless” or “anti-religious.” But Christian secularists take the classic Latin understanding, which is to say “seclorum,” which actually means “an age or generation” and conveys a specific period of time that is particularly provisional in nature and temporary and not at all devoid of religious belief. Worldviewers are prone to mistaking Christian secularists for legal secularists, for whom “secular” does tend to mean something irreligious. But for a more exhaustive treatment of the differences I’d recommend the host’s “A Secular Faith,” if you haven’t already picked it up.
So, what you’re saying is that until I agree with you I’ve not really engaged the real issues? Sheesh, what is it with you worldviewers?
LikeLike
Darryl,
My mind was not made up while reading them, in fact my reading of them came well after my understandiing of the modern 2k notion. I was simply convinced that Millbank, et. al. sufficiently demonstrated the novelty and modernity of the 2k assumption that we can separate the world neatly into sacred and secular realms, and that this is a new idea with dubious political and metaphysical origins (some of which I have expressed in previous posts.)
I appreciate your disagreement with their proposal, but my concern is that a bar the doors confessionalist approach will result in a very small and curmudgeonly tent, exacerbation of the tension, and irrelevancy of the church.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I am familiar with the book and the views expressed. The disagreement is not over the understanding of secular as temporal or provisional, or that it is religious. It is all of these. And, you don’t have to agree with me to engage with guys like Millbank — I’m just saying that there are some convincing arguments that challenge some of the basic assumptions upon which the modern 2k notion is built.
LikeLike
Michael Mann – THanks for this comment! A hearty “AMEN”! https://oldlife.org/2011/09/in-christ-on-paxil/comment-page-2/#comment-37548
LikeLike
Don, you’re losing me on just what bothers you in 2k. But now it seems it’s the alleged compartmentilization of it all. I think you may have missed that 2k isn’t quite as dualistic as that. In fact, it’s more triadalist. In “God of Promise,” after briefly sketching out the narrative of Cain in his “stay of execution that allows Cain to build a city,” Horton explains that:
…we begin the story with one creation, one covenant, one people, one mandate, one city. Then after the fall, there is a covenant of creation (with its cultural mandate still in effect for all people, with the law of that covenant universally inscribed on the conscience) and a covenant of grace (with its gospel publicly announced to transgressors), a City of Man (secular but even in its rejection of God, upheld by God’s gracious hand for the time being) and a City of God (holy but even in its acceptance by God, sharing in the common curse of a fallen world). Just as the failure to distinguish law covenant from promise covenant leads to manifold confusions in our understanding of salvation, tremendous problems arise when we fail to distinguish adequately between God’s general care for the secular order and his special concern for the redemption of his people.
Religious fundamentalism tends to see the world simply divided up into believers and unbelievers. The former are blessed, loved by God, holy, and doers of the right, while the latter are cursed, hated by God, unholy, and doers of evil. Sometimes this is taken to quite an extreme: believers are good people, and their moral, political, and doctrinal causes are always right, always justified, and can never be questioned. Unless the culture is controlled by their agenda, it is simply godless and unworthy of the believers’ support. This perspective ignores the fact that according to Scripture, all of us—believers and unbelievers alike—are simultaneously under a common curse and common grace.
Religious liberalism tends to see the world simply as one blessed community. Ignoring biblical distinctions between those inside and those outside of the covenant community, this approach cannot take the common curse seriously because it cannot take sin seriously…everything is holy.
…[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.
LikeLike
Thanks, DJ, but you might recant after Lily has plied you with bourbon and the Song of Solomon.
Seriously, I appreciate many of your posts as well.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The cultural mandate, which Horton acknowledges as existing before the fall, is not eliminated by the covenant of grace, but rather fulfilled by Christ in heaven as the head of all Creation and on earth by His body, the Church. This “common” category that you/Horton define leads to the all-sovereign nation-state becoming the head and keeper of the common good and repository of sacred values that demands sacrifice on its behalf. The longing for genuine communion that Christians recognize at the heart of any truly common life is transferred onto the nation-state. Civic virtue and the goods of common life do not simply disappear; as Augustine saw, the earthly city flourishes by producing a distorted image of the heavenly city.
Your thinking subjugates the sovereignty of God to the sovereignty of the state. The Church thus becomes a private, voluntary institution that can no longer challenge that authority. Instead, it sets up its own little private realm ruled by the confessions and those who jealously guard it as the precise and unquestionable rule over its voluntary citizens, much to the delight of the sovereign nation-state, soon to be swallowed up by the global nation-state.
LikeLike
Don, it isn’t clear to me how contending for the common category “leads to the all-sovereign nation-state becoming the head and keeper of the common good and repository of sacred values that demands sacrifice on its behalf.”
But it sounds like you have trouble with civil authority having more power than one is used to in the great white west. Again, not uncommon for worldviewers. But what to do with the command to “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” What one has to ask himself is what sort of theology informs a statement like Paul’s that seems less unconcerned with the limits of government than for the civil obedience of believers. I know, you’re all for civil obedience. But I can never quite understand why worldviewers want to play the big government fear card when all it’s really good for is nurturing something less than obedience and submission. I just can’t see worldviewers speaking the way Paul does by demanding such unflinching obedience to a civil magistrate that conceived of himself as head and keeper of the common good and repository of sacred values that demands sacrifice on its behalf.
LikeLike
Don, where exactly in the Bible were God’s people big, agreeable, and relevant? Sure, if you want the British empire and the Church of England, or the glories of Rome, I can see how 2k throws a wrench into the works. But God has a history of working through the ordinary and out of the way.
LikeLike
Don, I believe you have expressed favorable views about Leithart and his book on Constantine. So what exactly is the problem with the nation-state? Didn’t Constantine contribute a little bit to that problem? What’s that, you say, he was a Christian? Well, what happens if his son isn’t? That’s why we have governments that don’t rest so much power in one person and don’t have religious tests for holding office. It really is possible to try to put together a government that is not bound by theology. It works for computers and baseball teams.
LikeLike
Darryl and Zrim,
Let’s start over. Did God abandon His commitment to the cultural mandate when He instituted His covenant of grace? Does the cultural mandate only apply to all people as they exist in this “secular” and temporal city of man who share in the common lot of “pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death.”
Don’t such things as a beautiful piece of music, art, or architecture have any place in the city of God?
God has not neatly divided His Kingdom this way. Of course He has given certain responsiblilities to the civil authority (those are clearly stated in Scripture) but this is not equivalent to establishing a separate “secular” realm over everything that is not covered by Scripture. Wisdom is regulated by natural law as much as it is by divine law. Without natural law, how would we know how to worship God in the beauty of holiness (Scripture doesn’t give a formuala for this). Does holiness only relate to our hearts and minds and not our bodies. How do we express love, wisdom, community, etc. if not through our bodies. How do you propose to perform this neat divide of God’s rule.
Just because something is not decided by Scripture it is still subject to natural law. Both must work together in God’s Kingdom. The only problem with Creation is Satan, death, and sin — not the cultural mandate or natural law.
In the end, I have no fear of the government. My only fear is to view the ordering of God’s creation as though it can be somehow separated from God’s Kingdom as a provisional thing that will have no place in eternity. That is utter hogwash.
LikeLike
Don, what I hear you suggesting is that the great commission includes the cultural mandate. But I don’t see how “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” correlates with “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Not any more than how law correlates with gospel.
And neither does the church, if something like Belgic 29 which follows the order of Matthew 28:19 is any measure: “The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults.” If the cultural mandate is included in the great commission then wouldn’t we expect to read something about officers subduing the earth and having dominion over it? So 2k doesn’t think that the cultural mandate is defunct at all. It still stands as plain as it always has. It just has nothing to do with the great commission.
LikeLike
Don, the cultural mandate is not the same as natural law. What needs to be addressed is the relation between the cult. mand. and the covenant of works. If the cult. mand. is part of the CofW, and Christ fulfilled the latter, then he also fulfilled the cult. mand. You don’t need, btw, some kind of postmill understanding of cultural development to affirm the goodness of vocations and also to see that our works in culture and society, don’t matter for the world to come. Luther affirmed vocation and was one of the most otherworldly Protestants this world has known.
As for worshiping God in the beauty of holiness, you’ve entered a world where the Regulative Principle rules. Reformed Protestants don’t do beauty in worship because the Bible gives no guidelines for beauty in worship. We do simplicity in worship even if we surround ourselves with beauty in personal life. Again, that distinction between the holy and common that you and I have discussed before regarding the Sabbath — building bridges on Monday is good but building them on Sundays is a no no — keeps running up against your denial of such distinctions.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Nice evasion. Christ declared His authority over heaven and earth before giving the commission. Christ is man (as well as God). The mandate is fulfilled in seed form. The seed must grow to be the largest tree. (Take a look at the Kingdom parables of Jesus, again.)
The gospel is not just for our hearts and minds — its for all of creation, bodies and souls.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I never said it was. You want to take Kline’s path and associate the CM with the CW. Kline necessarily leads to dualism which is not supported by Scripture. Just because we don’t build bridges on Sunday doesn’t mean that bridges are not good.
I think you like Wendell Berry. What Christian philosophers if any do you read?
LikeLike
Don, if the gospel is for all of creation then I think there are a lot of apology letters to be written to the Protestant Liberals. I wonder what you think social gospel is? If you’re like every other worldviewer I know, maybe you think there is a good kind and a bad kind and the bad kind is whatever isn’t your kind. But I understand it to be categorically erroneous no matter whose kind.
But I also find your categorizing curious. The heart is the culmination of mind, will and affect, so how can we distinguish between “hearts and minds”? And I agree that the gospel is for body and soul, but only those bodies and souls made in the image of God, which excludes dogs and cats and fish and trees. Ok, maybe for dogs, but definitely not cats.
LikeLike
Don,
And you don’t seem to acknowledge that the cultural mandate becomes a bit of a problem after the fall. I never said building bridges was bad. Why is it if you don’t say they are redeemed, then the fallback is they are bad? Do you know that fundies also live in such a dichotomous universe? Something may be good but not saved. Unfortunately, there are lots of writers who fall into that category, such as Michael Oakeshott and Roger Scruton, from whom I profit. I also think David Simon, the creator of the Wire, has his philosophical moments.
LikeLike
Zrim – absolutely dogs go to heaven.
Friday Palate Cleanser – The Original Motorcycle Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xdj67XknFrM#t=5
LikeLike
Lily, until then it’s fun to tease them:
And if Don’s right then this panda could use the peace that passesth understanding deep down in the depths of his heart (where? Down in the depths of his heart!):
LikeLike
Re: Dogs
Great video! Now that puts an exclamation on dogs going to heaven! Who could resist that fella?
Re: Pandas
Bears have always been suspect, haven’t they? Though I suspect that Koalas will make the cut.
Re: Horses
You didn’t mention them, but absolutely they are heaven bound! Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WarHorseMovie?v=B7lf9HgFAwQ&feature=pyv&ad=8347700437&kw=music%20for%20war%20horse
LikeLike
The dog tease was the best!!
LikeLike
Just found this on a PCA congregation’s website:
“Jane Doe” (real name omitted)
Pastor of Mercy & Counseling
What do you do at Grace?
Counseling for individuals, couples and families
Oversee development of projects such as Grace in Action and support other systems of care
Help teach or facilitate classes through GSOD
I am a Nationally Board Certified Counselor (NBCC) and will be completing my North Carolina professional licensure (LPC) in 2010
…I completed a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Masters of Community Counseling from Western Carolina University after moving to North Carolina.
What’s relevant to this post is having a staff “Pastor” with special training specifically to do counseling with no preaching from that Pastor. The gender does make it more interesting insofar as having this specific role in the church was deemed important enough to endure the criticism they surely knew would ensue.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I was wondering if Paul ever pulled a Panda on ya?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’ll check them out. I just don’t see the need to save creation. It was good when God made it, and it never sinned, but was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. Thus it waits for the revealing of the sons of God. Then, the cultural mandate won’t be a problem at all.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Labels are not arguments. But I do agree that dogs are better than cats, though we recently took in a stray cat whom our two dogs are only beginning to tolerate.
LikeLike
Don, not to be too repetitive, but if you are going to argue for continuity from the cultural mandate, through the history of redemption, to glorification, isn’t procreation and marriage a big wrench to break down the continuity machine. I mean, the cultural mandate was about procreation and being fruitful. Since that won’t be happening in glory, isn’t there going to be some gap between what we know now and what we’ll be like then?
LikeLike
Don, I take it you don’t care for the implication of social gospel. But I don’t see how that isn’t the result of saying the gospel is for all of creation (instead of being much more qualified and saying it’s for that particular aspect if his creation, the imago Dei). And if you “don’t see a need to save creation and that it was good when God made it and never sinned” then what does it mean to say that it is a target of redemption? Didn’t Jesus say it is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick?
LikeLike
John, sure can feel like it. But I thought Pandas were Chinese, not Italian.
LikeLike
Michael M,
If you really want to withhold a name, you have to de-Googlify the info…
LikeLike
Jeff,
If you really want to withhold a name, you have to de-Googlify the info…
Sigh, if only that were possible.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I thought the info was significant to understand the situation. Plus I didn’t go through a file cabinet to get that information – they posted it all online, so presumably they want millions of people to be able to see it. I just didn’t want to make this about a particular person, so I omitted her name. Subjectively, I don’t like picking on women unless they’re attorneys. That’s just me.
So, maybe I played it wrong but that was my thinking.
LikeLike