Author: stephenhague

Academic Dean and a Professor of Biblical Studies at Faith Seminary in Baltimore.

Head or Heart?

For a pdf, see The Head, Heart, and Moral Knowledge.docx

If any knowledge is “just head knowledge,” and not “heart knowledge,
are we accountable for it?

If all knowledge is moral knowledge, can our ignorance ever be any excuse?

Can the head know something the heart cannot?
Can the heart know something the head cannot?
Or, is there a “head and heart” dichotomy?
Can we have “just head knowledge” or just “heart knowledge” about anything?
Is there something to be said for seeking “heart knowledge” in contrast to “head knowledge”?


” . . . intellect and emotion are simply two aspects of human nature that together are fallen and together are regenerated and sanctified. Nothing in Scripture suggests that either is superior to the other. Neither is more fallen than the other, neither is necessarily more sanctified than the other.” John Frame[1]

A common assumption is that the “head” is inferior to the “heart” because feelings are superior (more real or relational) than thoughts or ideas (or beliefs). But if all knowledge can be understood as moral, and that all moral knowledge is by its nature emotive (oriented by the human will), then the head/heart dichotomy does not stand.

In short, if it can be established that all knowledge is moral knowledge, then for everything that we know, we are accountable for it, yes, morally responsible. That is, all knowledge involves moral motions (and emotions). For instance, whenever we ignore the truth of anything in God’s creation, we are trying to think and live contrary to God’s order of creation, regardless of what it is. Indeed, to live contrary to God’s order is to live contrary to God himself; it also creates profound complications in our lives, as in for example when people try to defy the laws of physics and jump off cliffs, knowing that the reality of gravity means that people who jump off cliffs go down, but they do so anyway in the vain hope that they can fly. In this case, the knowledge of gravity is true knowledge, but the foolish “heart” ignores it. This being the case, how could we say that the knowledge of gravity is less significant (inferior), less true, less emotive, or less moral, as in just a lesser “head” knowledge? To be sure, that knowledge of gravity was indeed categorically moral (i.e., “heart”) knowledge, because it is true knowledge of God’s created world that was summarily ignored. It follows then that this knowledge is significant, of great value, true, emotive, and moral. This silly example could be applied to all other knowledge possible about the universe, and I would add to that the knowledge of God himself. There can be no, properly speaking, inferior “head”(intellectual) knowledge in the lower story, and a superior “heart” (moral/emotional) knowledge in the upper story, as follows:

Heart (emotion) – higher, superior (feelings/motions?)  faith?

Head/mind (reason) – lower, inferior (thoughts/ideas?) reason?

In response to this dualism, I propose that any knowledge about God is moral knowledge, as even in the case of one who has no proper relationship with God, or one who rejects God as Lord (as also “the demons believe, and tremble” James 2:19). Despite the fact that a person may have a broken relationship with God, the knowledge they have of God is still moral and requires of them a “heart” response (emotive), which is always either towards faith or unbelief. There is no amoral (non-moral, just “head,” or non-emotive) response to God possible. Could it then not be affirmed that all knowledge about all things is moral knowledge and therefore real, true, actual knowledge? And thus, strictly speaking, there can be no lower story (inferior) “just head knowledge” (without the heart) of God, nor of anything in God’s creation. Conversely, there can be no upper story (superior) “just heart knowledge” (without head knowledge) of God, nor of anything in God’s creation. This may be reflected in, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Mtt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lu 10:27). There does not seem to be any duality or dichotomy here between superior heart versus inferior head knowledge, but a moral imperative that governs the whole person, described in heart, soul, mind, and strength. Indivisibly, the thoughts and feelings of the whole person govern the will, perspectives, attitudes, and path of life.[2] We cannot “follow our heart” as we are so often advised, that is, emotively without our head or our reason/rationality.

By extension, we can assert that 2+2 is a moral equation, no less so than to say that God is triune, three Persons in One God. All truth statements and all true knowledge are by definition theological knowledge, since they show to us God himself. This does not mean that such “knowledge of God” itself can save us from our sin or our condemnation by God’s perfect law.  Indeed, in Romans 1, Paul describes the accurate knowledge of God and his attributes, that all people have through their observation of nature, in order to say that such knowledge does not save us from darkness nor give us a properly restored (“heart”) relationship with God. In fact, that knowledge of God causes people to suppress the truth they know because of their unrighteousness. Even more, this rejection of a true knowledge (without faith) of God leads people to create false gods out of created things and bow down and worship them! This true knowledge of God that is suppressed is not simply somehow a kind of “head” knowledge unrelated to the “heart” of a person; they are inseparably one motive-function of the whole person (emotive and cognitive). This is a good case in which we can see that the response of a person is most certainly also emotive (or emotional in the heart) and not just intellectual (cognitive in the head). The human head-heart dynamic must include moral-motions that necessarily, and indivisibly, involve both emotive sentiment and cognitive understanding.

Admittedly, standing alone, the abstract equation 2+2=4 does not seem at first glance to be a moral equation, though as a true statement it is. And, the moment you apply it to your grocery tab, or when weighing gold bullion, it is evidently moral. Can it then be concluded, as a case in point, that there is no nonmoral (“head”) knowledge here, but entirely true knowledge that has a moral application in every case. For purposes of discussion, not ontological definitions, the “heart” always integrally interrelates with the “head” because they both reside in the core of the human person as one thing: the soul (or today, the whole person). This being the case, the “heart” may be said to describe the emotive moral-motions of the “head,” but the one can never be said to function independently of the other, since they are not separate entities; that is, if all knowledge is moral knowledge. To be clear, the math equation can never be understood as just a matter of either head or heart knowledge.

The foundational principle of all reality is the law of non-contradiction, that A cannot be non A. This is the irrepressible fact of reality: that all things have unity and diversity. All things are in relation, but all things are necessarily differentiated from all other things. This is the truth of the unity and diversity of all created reality, since all things reveal and reflect the triune nature of God who has unity and distinction, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all knowledge about anything in God’s universe is in this sense moral knowledge for which we are accountable. In other words, to say we know about God, but that we are not responsible for that knowledge (as just “head knowledge”) of God implies a false dichotomy between moral and non-moral knowledge (as in the “head and heart” dichotomy).

To expand on that thought, to reject, deny, or live contrary to the fundamental truth of God’s universe, that A cannot be non A, that 2+4 cannot equal 5, that male cannot be female, that good cannot be evil, that God cannot be not God, that we humans cannot be non-human, is to reject God’s order of reality, since all things are differentiated by their nature. Considering the seriousness of this, it follows that evil originates from those created good with true knowledge of God and his creation, but who have rejected God and his order of creation and reality. They have broken down the unity and distinction principle of the law of non-contradiction, as the evil one asked, “Did God really say  . . . ?” in which the first temptation was to deny God’s own declaration of distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, obedience and disobedience, truth and falsehood. To reject God’s definitions, distinctions, differentiations is a moral rejection of the true knowledge of God and his creation, and this does not happen in some part of the soul, or person, called the “head” as distinct from the “heart”; the rejection of such knowledge involves the whole will of the whole person, the emotive-cognition of the “heart and mind” together, if you will.

The Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek terms give a complete picture of the whole person through the very frequent interconnection of body imagery of the eyes, heart, head, tongue, hands, and feet. These images and motifs are used so frequently in the Bible, we hardly notice them to ask why they are so prevalent, and what they imply.  For example, “head” is used many times in the Bible in a literal sense, as referring to one’s physical head, and sometimes in a figurative (symbolic) sense as referring either to authority and leadership, or to rulership (as in military, political, or marital contexts). Paul also expands this in application to the relationship of Christ the Bridegroom to his church the Bride (Col 1:18; 2:19; Eph 4:15; 5:23). But “head” is never used in the Bible in some dichotomous way as pitted against the “heart.” Similarly, the terms for “heart” in the Bible describe figurative aspects of what it means to be a human person (though very little reference to the physical organ of the heart). The biblical heart-terms cover the range of human personality and the intellect/mind, the will and emotions, desire, as well as one’s memory.  As a theological metaphor and common motif, heart-terms provide many central themes related to what constitutes a human being and what motivates them. It follows then that usually there is a moral component to the motif of the heart, as related to its corruptions, and thus a connection with the central gospel theme of the universal need for all humans to have a “new heart.” That is, as often described a, “circumcised heart,” one transformed (regenerated) by the Spirit of God; it is one in which the person is transformed towards true faithfulness and true love towards God and neighbor. This heart-aspect of redemption involves the entire function of the whole person: “thinking, remembering, feeling, desiring, and willing.”[2] As in the biblical terms related to the “head,” there is no bifurcation between terms of the “heart” and those related to the “head.” Further, the biblical relation of eyes, ears, head, heart, tongue, hands, and feet presents a holistic picture of the [whole] person integrally related internally and externally, either aligned by truth or misaligned by falsehood. As the internal (head/heart) is aligned with the truth, the work of the hands, direction of the feet, and the words of the tongue show externally the internal integrity, and vice versa.

This is why true knowledge of God must be accompanied by trust and faith and, by extension, submission to God himself through repentance that leads to obedience. True knowledge of God must be accompanied by the power of God’s Spirit to work in us faith and trust in him. This is especially so, since we are so prone to suppress, distort, and pervert the truth of the knowledge of God.  To know about God (what some mistakenly call “head” knowledge”), and to reject that knowledge (Rom 1), puts us in a place where we must have his powerful work in us to return us to a full and proper recognition that what we all know of God (through observation of creation) is true knowledge of God that makes us morally responsible (because it is true “heart knowledge”). This deduction stands to reason, since we are unable to receive/accept it properly in our own ability because we have been corrupted in our will, reason, feelings, and indeed in our whole person.

Sometimes the phrase “a saving knowledge” of God/Christ is used to describe this process of accepting and believing the knowledge of God, but this may unwittingly suggest that knowledge itself is what brings conversion or regeneration of the person. This is simply not correct. A so-called “saving knowledge” should not be understood as just more information (head) or more feeling (heart), but rather as a real relationship to the Living God of all truth and knowledge. A real relationship could be more accurately described as a restored relationship, since it can be said that all humans have a “relationship” with God, as made by him and in his image, but that relationship is as a broken one characterized by faithlessness, lovelessness, and alienation. We are born broken-hearted. In light of that, we all need a restored relationship with God himself, and that will lead to a restored relationship to his universe, his creation, and our neighbors. This importantly includes internal reconciliation within our divided, double-minded, broken-hearted, selves. We are reconciled internally, and increasingly, so that our heart-motions and our head-thoughts are realigned into one willing whole, where we are no longer ruled by tyrannical emotions that arise directly from our rebellious and unbelieving thoughts (by our rejection of the knowledge of God). We can know an integration of becoming whole again, and this is evidence of realignment with the truth of God that brings new and true integrity to our whole person, our heart, mind, and soul.

It follows then that true knowledge of God is entirely practical knowing, not just moral(heart/head) knowing, since we know the One who made the worlds, and since he is therefore the key to all reality we are consequently re-enabled to live wisely in his created universe. We move from those whose irrational heart-rejection (emotive-cognitive) of the knowledge of God and his order, that led to complete disintegration and disorientation of heart/mind, to those who live in the knowledge of God through a restored relationship with him and thus to his created universe. Our thoughts and feelings become progressively realigned to the One who made them and to the universe he created us for.

Perhaps, better categories to describe the “head and heart” dilemma could be the biblical concepts of knowledge about versus wisdom in response, since when people use these terms “head” and ‘heart” knowledge I think it is fair to say they are often trying to describe the difference between a wise response to the knowledge of God in faith (the heart) verses one of foolish unbelief (the head). While that may be true in a descriptive sense, I have tried to show that those categories do not do justice to the whole picture in Scripture that is better understood in the categories of wisdom (faith/belief in the true knowledge of God) over against unbelief (rejection of the true knowledge of God), or folly. This conflict is not described in the Bible as one between the head and the heart, but as one between foolish unbelief and wise belief, the latter response depending upon God’s Spirit regenerating a person to believe and follow Christ.

In Christ, the LOGOS/WORD of God, the fullness of the knowledge and understanding of God is made clearly known (to our heart and our mind):

Col 2:2-3 . . . that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Ps 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

Pr 9:10 Knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Prov 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge.

In a concluding application then of this assertion that the head and the heart are not distinguished in the Bible, and in fact are not distinguishable in us, there are several implications to consider. If the heart is what defines what we are as persons in our character, our will, being, intentions, thoughts, emotions, and nature, then the “heart” is to be identified with the “head” as the origin of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. The heart/head is thus the “substance” and evidence of our soul, and the source of its spiritual and moral state. This is important in our response to the twin errors of Rationalism and Emotionalism.

Rationalism (often associated exclusively with the “head”) asserts the primacy of human thought/reason at the exclusion of divine revelation and illumination to understand it. The rejection of divine revelation is an absolute error, since it leads to absolute error, since the human mind cannot consistently reason correctly about general revelation unaided by God’s interpretation. This is not to say that the human mind does not understand general revelation enough to theologically know that God is and who he is in his eternal attributes (Rom 1), but in sinful humans this knowledge is twisted and suppressed by unbelief. For believers, the role of the Spirit’s illumination is thus also vital for understanding God’s Special revelation, his revealed Word (it is also related to the sanctifying role of the Spirit of God in our hearts). Rationalism also often excludes the role of emotion in the reasoning process. This is a serious loss of the intrinsic relationship of these two aspects of our reasoning. In rejecting the assumptions of Rationalism, we do not reject the rational aspect of our God-given ability to reason. As made in God’s image, we must of necessity have the irrepressible ability to think, and to think in a properly linear fashion along the principle of the law of non-contradiction. We are innately given the capacity to reason that A is not non-A, and we all have the ability to differentiate unity and diversity in all of God’s creation. This is not obliterated even by the corruption of our minds and their reasoning processes, so it can follow that it is actually impossible for a person to think at all without reason. Even irreason, irrationality, illogicality, and faulty reasoning are all evidence of this inescapable reasoning aspect of our created nature in the image of God. That is to say, even poor and faulty reasoning is still reasoning. In this sense then that rationality is inescapable, and thus irrepressible, even denials of reason as such must of necessity employ reason to deny reason.

Emotionalism (often associated exclusively with the “heart”), on the other extreme, rejects in practice the essential and role of proper reason and rational strategies of thought and action. (It is too easy to use this word to characterize things that seem irrational (or unreasonable) to us, but nevertheless for purposes of discussion we need not reject the term itself.) Emotionalism is found in many forms historically, and is a persistent problem in contemporary Evangelicalism wherever it exalts experience/emotion over propositions, truth, and reason. It tends toward anti-intellectualism, in that it distrusts the claims of rationalism as well as any claims of the necessity of reason/rationality. All the same, we must assert that emotion is a God-given aspect of our being made in his image, but it is to be guided by reason based on divine revelation (the canon of scripture) and illuminated by the Spirit of God. Further, emotion is often greatly perverted due to sin, and is the cause of much of the human misery in the history of world. In light of that, there may be a bit of emotionalism in all that we do, in the sense that our emotions often override our better sense, and reason gets displaced, and we make bad choices based on our distorted, or overpowering, feelings. Sometimes, we even call someone irrational when they are behaving in badly and in inexplicable ways, but what we may be describing are actions based on feelings that override good, rational judgment (hence, “crimes of passion”).

Some contemporary cultural and philosophical movements can be said to have an emotionalist motivation, such as Romanticism (19 century) that has flourished in the twentieth and twenty first centuries in many diverse forms: e.g., utopian Communism, the Marxian revolts of the 1960’s, Existentialism, and Postmodernism. Similarly, much revivalism in Christian circles has been characterized by anti-intellectual emotionalism. Much Evangelicalism in song and form stresses experience (pietism) and emotion (“heart”) over against doctrine, content, reason, knowledge, and propositional truth (“head”) as the foundation for faith.

As demonstrated in this church sign, anti-intellectual, anti-reason ideas are common in American Christianity. What does this mean that reason is the greatest enemy of faith? That faith is reasonless? “Just believe,” do not ask (reasonable) questions? That the heart is superior to the mind/head? That the mind/head is an enemy to the heart? That we believe with the heart, but disbelieve with the head?

We can at least point out that the statement itself is self-contradicting (self-refuting), since the statement depends upon reason and linearity, and the assumption of the law of non-contradiction, as well as the ability of people reading it to rationally comprehend the words.  In other words, the (reasoned) creation of the sign’s wording, and reading with understanding (reason) the words of the sentence would contradict the proposed (and irrational) meaning of the sign itself!

. . . There is a widely prevalent theory, that truth may be of the feelings as well as of the intellect; that it may not only come thus from two independent sources, but may be contradictory so that what is true to the feelings may be false to the intellect and visa versa; and that as moral character and so Christian life are rooted in the voluntary nature, of which the feelings are an expression, the Christian life may be developed and, some say, would better be developed, without reference to such intellectual conceptions as doctrinal statements. This theory is radically false. There is no knowledge of the heart. Feeling can give knowledge no more than can excitement. As Prof. Bowen has well said, “Feeling is a state of mind consequent on the reception of some idea.” That is, it does not give knowledge; it presupposes it. There must be knowledge by the head before there can be feeling with the heart. Once more you see the point. The religion of the heart and the theology of the head cannot be divorced. Unless the heart be disposed toward Christ, the head cannot, because it will not, discern the truth of Christ. As our Lord said, “It is only he who wills to obey God, whose heart is right toward Him, who shall know the doctrine whether it be of Him.” On the other hand, zeal in Christ’s cause will be strong and abiding in proportion as the faith from which it springs and by which it is nourished is intelligent. Zeal without knowledge is dangerous and short-lived. William Brenton Greene, Jr. (1906)[3]

[1] Frame, Systematic Theology, p. 756.

[2] A more complete accounting of the whole person is needed in this conversation, in that any definitions of knowing should include the various complementary aspects of the human mind: for example, the emotions, reason, the will, intuition, imagination, perception. And, instead of debating which is “primary” we should explore their interrelationships more carefully.

[3] Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 368. “We associate thought and memory with the brain today, but in the idiom of the Bible, thinking is a function of the heart” (ibid., p. 369).

[4] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” Princeton Theological Review, 4 (July 1906), pp. 311-13.

See also my blog on dualism at


 If ‘whatever’ is your attitude, should I, like, care?

Attitude (ˈadəˌt(y)o͞od)

Why do so many of the oft repeated quotes about attitude suggest that it is more important than money, education, circumstances, skill, and success? Perhaps it is because it somehow determines all of that and more, but most importantly it may be that attitude flows from the root of our character. Many motivational speakers today even go so far as to say that attitude is everything, especially when they speak of it as a kind of magic cure to everything that eludes us. They promise us that (for a fee) they can show us how to use attitude to get money, success, or whatever we want. Even if we do not accept their assumptions and offers, we must reckon with attitude’s profound role in our hearts and lives, that even if it is not everything, it does affect everything.

Psychologists consider attitude a “predisposed” state of mind, and its orientation/expression (positive, negative, or ambivalent) towards its object, that is acquired (learned and formed) through various experiences. It could in this way be said to reflect who we are as persons, and so it is even more important than all external success in money and education and circumstances. It is also universally recognized that our attitude determines how we weather our hardships and failings in each of these externals. Surely, we have all observed that destructive and convoluting attitudes bring trouble, and worse, into our lives. Contrarily, it would seem, that rightly constructive attitudes relate to that which enable us to flourish regardless of externals of life circumstances, and also enable us to face hardships and failure with grace and peace. Because of this profound impact on our lives, many conclude that if we just get the right attitude then we will succeed in all these things, even totally changing our circumstances. That is understandable, but is this not just a “positive thinking” idea that fails to grasp the full complexity of attitude in our mostly unpredictable lives?

We speak often of the primary role in our lives of our ideology, worldview, or convictions based on propositions or ideals and beliefs, and that is a fundamental truth. But, do we reckon adequately with the role of attitude in that, as well? But what exactly is attitude? We sometimes say, “[so and so] has attitude.” Or that someone’s attitude is what caused a particular decision, either good or not good, and that had a profound impact on some outcome in their life. Anyone who has raised children has observed that attitudes are caught as easily as the common cold, and that one is constantly battling to arm them against the many ways even what appears to be an innocuous attitude can change the course of one’s life. A particular attitude that subverts one’s entire life direction may have even come from a single comment made by a disapproving third grade teacher, after years of our cogitating (stewing and internalizing) about it. Or, disparaging peer-comments about education, certain vocations, or particular companies, can unwittingly impact the course of our life and choices.

Attitudes are the hidden rudder, appearing to us only rarely, but all-the-while guiding the whole ship. In this sense, they can be notoriously difficult to identify and address, yet failing to do so can have cataclysmic consequences in the long-term. Attitudes determine how we view our work, colleagues, neighbors, property, authority, even our own families, and life itself, and so commonly without much basis in factual reality. It might be said that human conflicts and even wars are frequently the result of attitudes run amuck, and since we might conclude that attitude is a matter of the heart it is thus one that is not easily remedied. Why then does it seem we do not often address this? I have not been able to find in all of my theological dictionaries any more than one short entry on the word attitude.

It could be said that attitude is the sum total (or result) of combined values, beliefs, experiences, values, ideals, perceptions, moods, and can be either true or false, or contain a mixture of both. Attitude may also be described as an accumulation of all of the above that compounds in interest as one mulls and ruminates. Attitude often is applied to a person who has such a strong feeling, disposition, or perspective on something that they are not able to see any other options; that they have an attitude that has closed their mind. When this is the case, we might conclude that they are not oriented by reason or logic but by an unguided attitude.[1] Could it be described in this case as one’s feeling overpowering reality and the truth?

I recall in my youth how negative attitudes about so many things governed our perspectives on life, institutions, money, work, family, people, government, and the war. I am not saying that there may not have been some truth to our perspectives, but rather that so frequently I recall being unable to see things in any other way, meaning that my attitude determined my whole perspective, and not the truth, and it prevented consideration of other valid possibilities. Yes, the heady ideologies of that time were the air we breathed, and the many philosophies we entertained seemed to hold out promise. But, I came to wonder whether it was my attitudes that determined those philosophies more than the facts. So many of our generation had the blindest of certitude about so many things, that we really were right about everything that really matters, and so we could not seriously consider the chance that we might not be.

This is an example of what I think can be considered a fruit of attitude. That attitude, admittedly, was powered by much disdain and disgust and dislike, yes even hatred for any opposing ideas, even if they might be true. There was an attitude that the whole system was bad and everyone connected with it was bad, even though we had no true moral compass to determine good from bad; it was only assumed and determined by an attitude about the system, the politics, the capitalists and the economy, the military and the technocrats, and the old orders of belief that reflected what we thought was outmoded largely because it was older. Similarly, I have heard that the Punk Rock culture, Heavy Metal, Goth and Grunge, all express an opposing attitude by design, as does the skateboarding culture which they tell me extolls reckless rebellion. Indeed, this is in part the problem of every new generation which must grapple with the messed-up world before them and face the failings of those who preceded them. All the same, in our generation, unlike any before, all across the globe there developed an attitude that was totally and violently disruptive because it was not measured by reality of the truth about things; it was more the product of an attitude of unreasoned rejection. It was as though a predisposition took hold of our perspectives, an emotive reaction that governed our reason and mind-set and therefore our responses to people and problems, and thus prejudices developed that were entirely unwarranted. I began to ask then how such irreason could take hold of so many people, including myself?

The heart is the factory of all our idols, it has been said, and so it is certainly the source of our attitudes. It is often said that we need an “attitude adjustment” and that Happy Hour is just the remedy. Some say we must just “check our attitude at the door,” as if it is a pistol or weapon of self-defense. But if this is a heart matter, neither a gin and tonic nor a pretension to laying them aside will remedy our attitude issues. Ironically, this is seen also wherever there are reversals of discrimination demonstrated against those from whom people have experienced, or perceived, bad treatment. For example, when we see the poor nursing angry attitudes of hatred towards the rich they perceive as responsible for their own hardships, or reversals of racial discrimination seen when an ethnic group returns the favor on those who (or their ancestors) have mistreated them. Or when two good friends or lovers part ways unhappily and speak ill of one another the next day. When we speak of something as a “heart” matter, we refer to issues of character, and biblically speaking what is in view are the heart-attitudes, the orientation of one’s loves, hates, and indifferences. The attitude is the characteristic of our virtues, as for example in pride or humility, righteousness or unrighteousness, honesty or dishonesty, kindness or unkindness, forgiveness or resentfulness, whether we are merciful or unmerciful.

Though there are not many particular biblical terms describing all that we mean in English by attitude, it can certainly be said that this concept can be found in many contexts, and is central to all texts related to the heart, its problems and corruptions, and its need to be made new.[2] Wherever we see motives and perspectives governing a person’s life we are in the realm of attitude. And this is where the gospel of Christ is most prominently applied in that we are to cultivate and pray for the attitudes that exemplify those who are in Christ and claim him as King, Savior, and Lord. That is, our attitude is one that enables us to live with grace and peace in a frequently graceless and un-peaceful world.  It is evident that good attitude is not just something easily taken in hand or drummed up in human strength, as every human heart is evidently misaligned. A broken heart cannot heal itself. A corrupted orientation of the heart cannot uncorrupt itself. All sinful attitudes need a sinless Savior to restore and renew them according to his joyous disposition and merciful temperament that forgives through forging the virtues of humility and compassion. Positive thinking does not suffice in creating virtuous attitudes that enable us to weather this life of trials, nor does it necessarily change one’s circumstances; but it is his grace that enables us to flourish regardless of external circumstances, and also to face hardships and failure with grace and peace. This develops an attitude of hopeful expectation that he who began his good work in us will complete it on the day Christ Jesus returns (Phil 1:6). This is not the negatively blinding kind of attitude I discussed above, but one that walks by faith and not by sight. It is a renewed eyesight that allows for the vision of God to determine our attitudes, thus guiding our steps according to his truth and not our version of it.

The idea of a properly biblical attitude is as follows: 

Phil 2:5-8 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

1 Pet 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.

Eph 4:17-23 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Rom 15:5-6 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[1] It might be added that both positive and negative attitudinal dispositions about something might have a blinding force, as for example in the Christian Science religion that tries to overcome the reality of sin, sickness, death, etc., all through adjusting one’s attitude and perspective towards them (as in “mind over matter”). Indifference can even be considered an attitudinal stance.

[2] Louw and Nida define 26.16 φρονέω “to think in a particular manner.” Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition, Vol. 1, p. 324). New York: United Bible Societies. See also διάνοια which refers to the mind, understanding, intelligence Mk 12:30; Eph 4:18; Hb 8:10; insight 1 J 5:20; disposition, thought Lk 1:51; 2 Pt 3:1; attitude Col 1:21; sense, impulse Eph 2:3. [dianoetic, of reasoning process], Gingrich, Greek NT Lexicon, p. 46.
See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, Hebrew English Lexicon,  ] יֵ֫צָר4095) [Hebrew) (p. 428. 4. of what is framed in the mind) cf. יָצַר 1 c, 2 b(, imagination, device, purpose: יצר מחשׁב(ו)ת לב(ב) Gn 6:5, 1 Ch 29:18; י׳ מחשׁבות 28:9; לב י׳ Gn 8:21; יֵצֶר alone Dt 31:21); יֵצֶר סָמוּךְ Is 26:3 a steadfast purpose  or frame of mind. In NH יֵצֶר is common in sense of impulse: יצר הטוב and יצר הרע of good and bad tendency in man.

An Odyssey of the Sirens

DSC06567They appear to offer you

more than you have,

but give you less

than what is yours.

Sextant and plumb-lineDSC06567

sink in the horizon-fog,

charting songs of fatal lethargy,

to forget their native land and home.

The whale-path is unattended,DSC06567

latitude misaligned and overthrown,

as pride becomes a blinding-venom,

its own adder-poison.

This world is not alwaysDSC06567

what it appears

when it seems

to have nothing you want.

This world is not

what it appears

when it is all you want.

Apostle Islands (May, 2017)

  1. The barges

As clear as the sea,
pebbles from the world
countless years
hidden in the mists,
within a certain doubt,
as we drove the old Ford
down the gravely hill
towards the shore-line,
its gear of sails and masts
cluttering our view for miles.
Alone in the wreckage of steel
barges and broken hulls and pelicans
in migration towards a better place
than this one.

The love, the beauty, the gentle surf
shifting its debris about
like a gambler shuffling a deck
of old and worn cards,
playing its hand of fate
against the many faces on its surface
in large ships crossing to other places
thought to be better than this place.

A spatial re-arrangement
of its contents, though in a new place,
this sorting of detritus,
the surf-scum and litter
below deck where we wait it out,
watching to see,
hoping that time will tell us
what we want to know.

2. Lake Superior and Madeline Island

On the ice-road
across the lake,
at least once a year,
someone falls through,
or gets stranded
on the wrong side,
never to try crossing again.
One time, an entire house
broke through to rest on the bottom,
to nurture its subterranean gardens.
Two long winters in a row
there was no ice,
no path out
of the boredom of rain, fog, and cards,
waiting with Anglo-Saxon curiosity,
where the whale-path
is yearly encrusted under the ice-road,
and where wagons and fragile wreckage
of human lives
rumble over in hope,
sorrow and its likes
left behind
on the other side.

  1. Questions on contentedness

Bayhead Beach town
with a deli
open at 6:30 a.m.
and run by a man
from Bombay
with no Mercedes
but serves excellent coffee
and bagels at 7:00,
the sea and lake
are calm this morning,
the breeze is tantalizing
and soothing, considering
how near the frost is still,
the many perfect lives of mansions
fortressed against those days
that come unraveled
as the ancient dung-beetle
in the desert sands
rolls up the sun in hope.
What is wrong with me
to rise so early every morning
to ask all these questions?


Why the Bible is Not About You

ebbd7b5e-b3f4-44cc-aea2-2cb73f3570fc_1.758981342fefc76e87d1a0b157caa5c3Joseph and the pit woodcut (The Cologne Bible 1478-80)

Why is the Bible Not About You?
Stephen T. Hague

Now that I have your attention, I could qualify this title by following with, “but it is to you.” This distinction would be the same if we were discussing Shakespeare or Aesop’s’ Fables, or any other great literature, since these are not about us, but were written to us and for us. Well, at least in a secondary sense, since authors most likely have their own contemporaries first in mind when penning their creative whims and wit. And, even though we do find their creations engaging because we identify with the characters and life-situations, and especially their stories, we would not for a minute pause and think, “oh, this story is actually about me,” or “this character is really me.” Yes, the great authors want us to enter into the worlds they create, and to identify with their characters and their topsy-turvy lives, so much like our own, but never so as to confuse the reader with the suggestion that they are actually the characters themselves! Nor that the primary reason they present us with their wondrous worlds is to illustrate our lives for us. There is no direct line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to some modern analogy. The story was about Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.

Yes, we also find countless (actually 2,930) biblical characters and their life-situations that we can identify with, since this is true of all stories that engage us, because we humanly relate to them personally. Yet, even so, none of these stories are our stories; they belong to their times and places and persons, not to us.  They only do belong to us as ancient and received stories and texts. So, why then do so many teachers of the Bible insist on telling us that all the stories and characters of the Bible are really about us, and inter alia, they are us?[1] Please correct me, but have you ever heard anyone teach the great Old Testament story of Joseph in which eventually you were not told that somehow you are Joseph in the pit (of depression or woes or vanity), or that you are Joseph betrayed by his brothers, or Joseph the forgiver, or . . . . [add any number of other examples here]?

As in all such ways of interpreting biblical stories, these direct analogies draw a straight line that makes the story normative (what should be ordinarily expected in our present lives) for you and for me, and they pile up endlessly into a fragmented pastiche of moral applications that have little, if anything, to do with the original narrative. This unintentionally and ironically makes the actual story itself rather unimportant, or at least secondary. Since this is the most standard way of explaining these ancient stories today, there is no obvious reason for anyone to cry out, “Whoa, slow down here. What is the story of Joseph being sold into slavery to Egypt, by his betraying brothers, really about?”  Really simply, the question is, why did God use Joseph in the way he did? Why was he sold that way, and later imprisoned, and then raised to great prominence in Egypt? Why does his family then all go down to Egypt with Jacob? What connection does it have to the history of later Israel or the promises of God and his works of redemption?

It troubles some people when they hear that the Bible is not a story about them. But perhaps, there can be some consolation to hear rather that it is a word from God to them. After titling this, and writing thus far, I searched online and found that I am not the first to use this title, and so I am not alone in my observations on this (no, I am not giving up my title . . . at least not yet.) There may be many reasons that it disconcerts people to hear a declaration like this, that the Bible is not about them: for example, our individualistic, solipsistic, infatuation with ourselves, lazy habits of reading and poor foundations in basic hermeneutical principles, unbounded freedom for interpreters that allows great creativity in expanding the meaning of texts, and our contemporary pragmatism that treats the Bible as a great self-help source-book to improve on ourselves and our lives. I am not so much concerned here with these, but rather with the interpretive impact of the common assumption that the Bible is a book about me.

Consider Elijah. Is his story about us somehow? The way he depended on God for his food at the Brook Kerith, and the way we are to depend on God in times of need, and how God always provides for his people, therefore we should have more faith and trust God like Elijah? This focus on the similarity between Elijah’s circumstances and our own (drawing a straight line from the historical event to modern applications, makes that event normative for all times, morally prescriptive as a promise of material provision, rather than descriptive of what happened to the man Elijah). On the other hand, we could understand that this story in its context is about the covenant-curse (in the intensification of God’s judgment on Israel) being fulfilled in Israel by a holy Lord (understanding the present context in light of the past covenant-promises and covenant-warnings). Further to that, it is about the opening to the gentiles to be further grafted into the vine of the promises. That the gospel in Gen 3:15, and all the rest of the OT, is for all the nations also points forward to the completion of this in the future. It is not, therefore, a unilateral moral prescription for us today about how to work harder at trusting God for our daily bread, but a description of God’s promissory works of judgment and redemption both past, present, and future.

There is this the principle of ingrafting of the gentiles. The widow thinks her son’s death is due to her sin and she thus blames Elijah’s presence. Elijah is as surprised as the widow, so, he prays. They both knew God had brought it upon her. The prophetic ministry of God’s word is then brought even further to the heathen nation! The healing word comes to the enemy Sidonians, even more importantly, the resurrection word is revealed for the first time in the Bible, and outside Israel, while Israel stood under God’s judging word. God reveals his omnipotence, holiness, and mercy to the heathen. He uses Israel’s disobedience to teach the extent of the covenant-promise. God’s word will not be stopped. His eternal promise is sure, even when the temporal, conditional blessings are withheld. Further, a prefiguration of the reversal of the curse of God on our bodies (Gen 2:17; 3:17-19) is seen in the resurrection from the dead, as are all such miracles in the Bible. They all point back to the “first Gospel” (proto-Euangelion) of Gen 3:15 which pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah who would bring a reversal of the curse of death, while also crushing the deceiving Serpent’s head.

Consider the Gerasene/Gadarene demoniac’s story (in Mk 5 and Mtt 8). This is one of those really dramatic tales in which some two thousand swine are driven off a cliff by the demons Jesus cast out from a possessed man living out among the tombs. But, is this story about us and our struggles with our various “demons”? Is there some moral lesson here about our faith or our deliverances? We received this ancient story from the Apostles and the disciples along with all the other marvelous stories in the NT, but they are not about us. They are written to us and for us, so that we not just receive and accept the story but also that we might believe God and put our trust in the Son of God, since all who believe on him might receive his gift of salvation, a new heart, a new nature, the hope of a glorious future bodily resurrection, and a new heavens and a restored earth. This same Jesus who can still the seas, destroy demons, raise the dead, heal the lame, open the eyes of the blind, is the only One who can also redeem us and his creation, reversing God’s curse on the ground and our bodies. This is a story about the question, “who is this man?” The demons then answered it, shouting loudly that Jesus is “the Son of the Most High God.”

Consider Jesus’ disciples on the stormy sea (Mtt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lu 8:22-25). How many times have you heard in sermons and in conversation that “Jesus stills the storms of your life, if you trust in him, if you believe and have sufficient faith in him, etc. etc. . . .” As Sidney Greidanus writes, “since not many of the hearers will find themselves threatened by a destructive storm and on a raging sea for the sake of instant application the storm and sea are spiritualized to ‘storms’ on the ‘sea of life’.”[2] Such exemploristic-moralistic-spiritualized interpretations miss the tremendous significance of the manifestation of Christ’s power in redemption-history: He is Lord even over nature, and this is just a foretaste of the eventual redemption of creation itself! The one particularly vexing need among the ancients in their pagan religions was to find a god who could control nature, and thus the nature gods prevailed. Here, nevertheless, is the Creator-Redeemer God of the OT manifested in the flesh, demonstrating the same kind of power that God did in dividing the sea in Israel’s deliverance. Real continuity with the OT is shown, as well as further marvelous revelation of God in Christ. Jesus alone had power over devils, illness, and nature, as illustrated repeatedly by his various corresponding miracles. Furthermore, we see in such Gospel miracle-narratives that the Creator is the Redeemer, and that his creation matters to him. There is much more that could be developed from this idea, particularly in the area of the continuity of our life now with life as we will know it on the earth for all eternity. For example, our entire lives, relationships, work, and character, are horizontal into eternity. If this was not so, why would Christ take on flesh, heal the sick, raise the dead, and still storms?

Most importantly, we can affirm that these stories are all an interconnected testimony to answer the questions of the disciples and the crowds, “What kind of man is this?” Who is Jesus? These questions are not about us, but about Christ. The focus of the text is therefore Christ. So, what exactly is our relationship to such stories? Do we ourselves have any part in the story? Yes, but not that we are in the story itself. Rather, in response to it, we are being asked to believe the historical testimony left to us by the Apostles and inspired by the Spirit of God – in order that we too might receive him and believe on Christ. This is not a story about us just having enough faith in Jesus and the storms of life will suddenly cease. That is the gravely mistaken message of the popular “prosperity” teachers.

Redemption is not deliverance from the world but redemption of the world: “God so loved the cosmos . . .” We are reminded here, looking back to creation, that God sees his creation as “very good.” It also points forward, in a prefigurative sense, to the eventual restoration of all creation through Christ who is King over all of his creation. These narratives all give us a foretaste of the eventual healing of the world. Simply put, exemplorizing and spiritualizing this storm-narrative fails to convey its redemptive-historical meaning. It also risks presenting another gospel, one that teaches us simply to have more faith than the disciples in the boat during our storms of life, and then Jesus will still the storms for us (however defined). Nevertheless, this draws a straight line of application from the historical context of Jesus at Galilee to our present experience, suggesting this story is somehow normative for all times and thus prescriptive not descriptive, and when it is actually revelatory of who Jesus is. Assuming that the story is normative and about us and our needs, displaces Christ in the text, and by removing the story from its historical context misses the meaning of the text, making it me centered. Accordingly, it most seriously removes the story from its NT context, as well as from the broader redemptive context of the promises of God to Adam and Eve and the Patriarchs through all the ages that the line of the promise would produce one who would reverse the curse on the earth and our bodies. The central concern of this story is reflected in the final question that each of the synoptic accounts record: “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” This question is the concern of the entire narrative of Scripture. Remarkably, it is answered by the demon possessed (discussed above) in the next event (recorded in Mtt 8:28-34 and Mk 5) – the demons understood that Jesus was the Son of God and that he had authority/control over them – when they shouted out, “What do you want with us, Son of God?” (Mtt 8:28).

This is the meaning and application of the many remarkable stories of the Bible, taking them on their own merits and in their own contexts. God the Creator is God the Redeemer – he does not rest from his work of redemption until he sends his Son to complete that work at the end of the age. Then, we will clearly see most fully how our own stories related to, and completed his works of redemption introduced to us in the testimony of the Bible. And yes, our names will also be written in Lamb’s Book of Life. This is our part in the big story.

This is what we might call a Biblical theological reading of the narratives, that reads them as fully as possible within the flow of the whole story, beginning with Creation and the Fall of humanity and ending with complete redemption. The many stories and characters are not normative, or repeatable, history (or just for moral instruction like Aesop’s fables), but rather redemption-history. That is, we know that the acts and lives of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, etc., were lived once and cannot be repeated; they each have profound significance in the progress of redemption-history, but their persons and their life experiences are not ours, even when they have many similarities. We are not them and they are not us. God gave us the record of their lives for a specific purpose of revealing his redemption to us. It follows then that the events and characters and works done in the biblical narrative are not all normative for us today. The resurrected and ascended Jesus does not continue to walk about bodily doing miracles in our midst, as he did in ancient Israel. Nor are we supposed to imitate his works in that regard. There is no unilateral straight line from his miraculous works to us and our works. Indeed, none of his redemptive works are repeatable by anyone, since he alone is sinless Savior. In sum, the key questions these stories explore include: who is God and how is God presently at work? Who is the One promised to bring redemption from the curse? What will he be like? What will he do?

By contrast, moralistic spiritualizing leads us to ask questions of the most popular god of our generation, described so well by Christian Smith as the god of “therapeutic Deism”: “How do these narratives help me to be a better me, or a better Joseph, or a better David . . . .” ad nauseam.

How the Bible is about us

To put it another way, the Bible narrative is a history of our prior family story; it is like the mutually treasured family photo album and family history discovered in the attic of those ancestors who preceded us. We inherited these stories, written and compiled long before we were born. In a similar fashion, the Bible gives us the whole picture of the family story from beginning to end with varying degrees of completion. We also understand from the story itself that it is God’s perfect, revelatory record and interpretation of that story. Most importantly, this story reveals who God is, what he has done, what he is doing, and what he is going to do to redeem his creation. We do have a place in this story as members of the family who have been created by the same God, live in the same world, have the same kinds of problems, and are descendants of those in the recorded story (the biblical canon). This family story is especially focused on the fact that we have all been similarly rescued from darkness in our redemption.

Nevertheless, just like our more immediate family histories and photo albums, we are not personally in the narrative nor in the snapshots before we were born! Our place in our family histories begins of course after we are born. We do not in any real sense live their lives, seek to relive or imitate their lives, and we certainly are not in any sense the same people as our ancestors, and they are not us. We would never confuse the two. Similarly, our personal place in the family narrative of the redeemed begins after the canon of the Scripture was closed at the completion of the New Testament. Why then do we contrarily find so many interpreters insisting that we inject ourselves into the family photo album and family histories, as if we are in some sense them? Perhaps people believe that they can make the family history more “relevant” if we inject ourselves back into the narrative, or edit ourselves into the family photos. Yet, in so doing, they actually remove us from a proper relationship to that family history, since our relationship to it is of those who follow those who preceded. We experience a present continuation of the story as co-heirs of the same history and redemption, as a continuation of God’s redemptive works in the generations that succeed those before the canon was complete. In short, our part of the story is not written in the canon, and we would be amiss to revise the prior written story to include ours. There is not a unilateral line between us and them, as it were. We have a real ancestry in the ancient history of the Bible, but we are not our ancestors themselves! How peculiar we would seem if we read the personal histories and photos of our ancestors and claimed that what is really important is not them, but us, our stories, if by extension we are them and they are us. Put this way, to be blunt, it sounds ridiculous, but this is precisely the way so many teach and read the Bible today.

Surely, we might learn from our personal family history and photo album that a certain Uncle Wiggly became the town drunk, and that we would be warned to be wise and avoid his downfall. But surely we could concede that this was not “the reason” he existed and lived the way he did, so that we might find ourselves in the story or simply to be warned against his choices. Can we not then grant that the same is true of the 2,930 characters in the Bible, and all of their stories – and even more so – since in this case their stories recorded in Scripture show us God’s purposes and will and plans to bring to light his glory before humanity, and to redeem his creation, not just to give us some moral guidance or models for self-improvement. Yes, we have a real connection to all of these biblical characters and their stories in the history of redemption, but we do so as recipients of their stories not as participants in their stories. We do also have similar stories, as sinful recipients of redemption, as those who also believe and receive that redemption. Nonetheless, we are not to be identified as the people in the prior narrative of the story. We have received from them a “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1), and we too are witnesses to our present generation of their testimony, but all the same we are not them. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Zipporah, Elijah, David, Bathsheba, Solomon are not you and you are not them. Abraham’s faith is not yours and yours is not his, Joseph’s suffering in the pit is not your suffering, nor your suffering his. You are not promised that God will take you to some palace if you only trust God like Joseph! Yes, in Adam all have died, yet his sin is not our sin (though we do inherit his guilt). Yes, in Abraham we are all counted righteous by grace through faith, yet his faith is not ours and ours is not his. The Gerasene demoniac is not our story; it is his story. Jesus’s story is not our story; it is his story, and exclusively.

Why then do so many insist on reading and interpreting in this way, often leaving us feeling that we must just try harder – like Noah, like Abraham, Job, or like Joseph, or like David or Solomon, or like Jesus – then we will really experience God’s blessing, or presence, or . . . . whatever we might want. Once we work up enough faith like them, then God will take us from our flooding ark of problems to prosperity, deliver us from our pit of depression to the palace, raise us from the ashes of despair to double-fold blessings, going from the sheepfold to the kingship, and from the cross to glory. We are members of a generation of folks raised on this famishing diet of moralizing, and as G.Goldsworthy states it:

“While I certainly do not want to appear to be carping and critical of the multitude of faithful volunteers who prepare curricula and teach them in Sunday Schools, I get the impression that both tasks are often carried on with little or no understanding of the big picture of biblical revelation. Consequently, children are often taught a whole range of isolated Bible stories, each with its neat little application deemed appropriate to the respective age levels. So much of the application is thus moralizing legalism because it is severed from its links to the gospel of grace. By the time many of these children reach their teenage years they have had a belly full of morality, enough, they would think, to last them for the rest of their lives. They thus beat a retreat to live reasonably decent but gospelless lives.[3]

Ultimately, what is at stake here is the Gospel of Christ. Let us then strive together to bring an end to these solipsistic and narcissistic readings of the Bible, specifically by rejecting and challenging their legalistic, moralistic applications that so plague us today. In doing so, let us put to rest the false god of “therapeutic Deism” that rules over these self-help interpretations. Such hermeneutics of “do and don’t” like “so and so” terribly diminishes the great and awesome story of God and his wondrous works of creation and redemption which reveal his glory to us through the narratives and characters of the Bible.[4]

Let us further be done with the prosperity preaching of our generation which puts all of Scripture through the meat-grinding grid of blessings of health, wealth, and success . . . if only we can be an Abraham, a Joseph, a Job, Elijah, or a David in our faith. This prism of prosperity-thinking totally distorts the meaning of the biblical text and should therefore be rejected regardless of how much people get a feeling of blessing or a sense of deeper insight into the text. This may sound too strident in conclusion, but our responsibility to “guard the gospel” must begin in our own house. It is not enough to condemn the Liberal (historical-critical) approach to reading the Bible when we in fact (even if inadvertently) so distort the meaning of biblical texts that what we communicate is a contrary “gospel” of works and not the gospel of grace. Doing so, we totally fragment the biblical story into an endless litany of moral points placed on the shoulders of those already burdened by the weight of their own sense of failure.

The gospel we received from the prophets and the many authors of Scripture, their Apostolic witness, is one that proclaims the story of redemption by grace; it is that of the Christ who is, who was, and who is to come (Rev 1:8) and who came in the flesh to complete redemption by fulfilling the ancient promises of redemption. That redemption is a gift to us of God’s grace, and for which we presently await its fullness – along with the saints of all the ages – to experience at his return the final consummation of the redemption of all creation (Rom 8:18-25). That is our part in the story, the greatest of all stories, since this story gives the true and complete meaning of every story ever told. It will only be then that we will drink together in his glorious presence of his new and everlasting wine, and when we will have many a tale to tell of how he worked out his precious grace to make whole our broken lives.

[1] This may be also called biographical exposition, and could consume the entire career of the expositor with the 2,930 characters in the Bible! The shift from a theocentric/Christocentric to anthropocentric exposition should be obvious.

[2] Greidanus, Modern Preacher and Ancient Text, p. 160.

[3] Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, p. 151.

[4] Having said this, we certainly do not reject biblical ethics, nor do we advocate for antinomianism, but our ethics must be built biblically and in the proper hermeneutical fashion.





Review of Christopher Watkin. Thinking Through Creation: Genesis 1 and 2 as Tools of Cultural Critique.

Christophewatkinr Watkin. Thinking Through Creation: Genesis 1 and 2 as Tools of Cultural Critique. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2017.

As vitally important are the questions of origins and creation in Gen 1-2, often we do not explore their equally valuable theological and cultural implications and applications. With frequent reference to philosophers, theologians, and cultural critics, Christopher Watkin walks us through the labyrinth of philosophical dualisms, that for many people are working models used to understand the universe, while at the same time he deftly dismantles their edifices through exposition of the foundational truths that the triune, personal, loving God created the universe. The dualisms that govern modern perspectives on the world, theories through which the meaning of everything is processed, include the following: impersonal structure/unstructured person; transcendence/immanence; the one/many; function/beauty; facts/values; nature/culture; intellectual/manual work; secular/sacred; nature/culture. Watkin proposes that the biblical creation narrative, rooted in the Creator/creation distinction, tells a very different story, and the only one that can fully address and resolve these dualistic (and totalitarian) theories. I add that they are totalitarian, in that these theories play out in various forms such as Marxism, psychoanalysis, Feminism, eco-theory, and Deconstruction, all of which become ways to think through everything, not just ways to think about everything. Since such theories are all encompassing, and subsume all other theories as well, Watkin proposes that we must articulate the biblical narrative in such a way that we demonstrate that it is the whole story, being true, that explains all other stories. We must not just argue against, we must out-narrate the dualistic alternatives by telling the one true story that encompasses them all. The biblical story is not just a story within a story; it is the story of reality. So, we must stop apologizing for this fact and get to the work of telling the whole story, and particularly why and how all things – everything in life, culture, the universe – have their place only truly within that story. This sounds much like a proposal for biblical theology to me, and a welcome one, to redress the fragmentation of reading the biblical narrative so widespread today in the moralistic, exemploristic, spiritualizing ways people are taught the Bible.

Stressing the fact that a personal God, who is also absolute, created the world, the biblical narrative is one in which love is fundamental and primary. Love and relationships are the bedrock of our universe, since they are rooted in the Triune God. That is, “the universe is not structured simply according to relationships in the abstract, but according to relationships of mutual love modeled on the Trinity” (p. 63).

All the Way Back Home to Shalom

To read the whole essay click here: All the way Back Home to Shalom by Stephen HagueMarch snow 2018

For Julian and Marcus upon their return home March 10[really the 7th], 2018 in hopes that home will always be with, behind, and before them.
And for Lucas who made traveling to Mexico and back home a joy I will never forget.
♥   ♥
In memory of the Contes’ family home (which burned down the day I finished this essay), and which did not destroy their home nor their memories of it.

“Homemaking, like world-building, is a world-ordering enterprise. To turn space into place is to establish normative boundaries that bring a certain kind of order to the life lived within those boundaries.[1]

What if I was to ask you what is the word that most warms your heart, touches on your deepest longings, evokes your riches memories? For me, that word would be HOME. Home to me is the essence of our earthly life, the center, the focus, the foundation of life in this world. And, this is coming from one who loves to travel, and often “get away” from home! “Home” may not be the word that comes to your mind, especially if you had a painful or tragic home-life as a child, or do at present. There is also the feeling, or reality, of homelessness and displacement prevalent in our times. Yet, if you have painful associations with the concept of home, let me suggest for the moment that you put aside those pains and fears and allow yourself to consider the beauty of this word “home.” That is, I suggest, the pain of those who have suffered through childhood is in fact particularly acute because we have an intrinsic understanding of, and longing for, what home should be, for as we are made in God’s image he has made us for home. Therefore, I believe all humans that have ever lived can understand and relate to the pictures I am going to present here on this theme.

To read the whole essay click here: All the way Back Home to Shalom by Stephen Hague

[1] Prediger and Walsh, Beyond Homelessness, p. 53.