I read Paradise Lost.  As the title intimates, this is the story of innocence lost by the first couple.  The book is about 350 years old so the English is difficult.  In spite of this barrier the book offers a wealth of literary, theological, and practical value for the reader who takes the time to read.

I’d like to go over some random thoughts on this book.  In so doing, perhaps I can whet your appetite to read it for yourself!  If I cannot achieve that perhaps you can at least appreciate the depth of the truth in this epic poem.

In the opening lines Milton talks strange.  He speaks to “Muse.”  The Muse is none other than the Holy Spirit.  Milton says, “Sing, heavenly Muse, that on the secret top of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire that shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed.”  On the second page of the book he utters this prayer to the Muse, “What in me is dark, illumine; what is low, raise and support; that to the height of this great argument I may assert Eternal Providence, and justify the ways of God to men.”  Milton here acknowledges his limitations but seeks the Spirit’s help in bearing witness to the glory of God. 

One of the stronger themes which Milton relays is the complete power of God.  This sovereignty is manifest in Satan’s demise.  On the front end, Milton brings us to the shocked, dazed satanic forces.  Having been humiliated in their ouster of heaven they now lie on the face of hell.  Their dignity lost, the gamble for power squandered, they now face a difficult position.  As the fallen angels regain their consciousness, their minds scramble as they assess their state and make their plans.  Milton makes one thing obvious:  their plans have to work around those of the Almighty.  The spirits make speeches one by one and try to rally the troops but it is a sad spectacle indeed.  Why?  They had just been ousted by one stronger than they.  What is the point in further resistance?

Even though they are fallen they nonetheless display ingenuity, creativity, and order.  Such qualities are reflected in the headquarters they build, in their communication, and in their planning.  The demonic philosophy and starting point is summed up here:  “better to reign in Hell then serve in heaven.”  This foolish mantra is repeated by mortals even today.  After their fortress is built, Satan alone volunteers to go on a mission to explore the truth or non-truth of a legend concerning a new creation:  man.

Let us leave off a moment from the limitations of the satanic host and turn now to God’s sovereignty displayed in relation to man.  God created man.  Adam and Eve in the garden are noble and beautiful in bearing.  Listen to Milton’s description, “Two of far nobler shape, erect and tall, Godlike erect, with native honour clad, in naked majesty seemed lords of all…”  Several lines later he continues, “For contemplation he, and valour formed; for softness she, and sweet attractive grace;…”  These humans bear the mark of an all-wise creator who gave them qualities appropriate.  They bear his imprint, relating to the earth as God does to the entire creation.

Another dynamic Milton brings out is the role of boundaries in the lives of both spirits and man.  Lucifer was once a holy anointed one in heaven.  He reflected God in his being.  God graciously raised him to the third highest rank in heaven.  Observing Messiah’s favored position, Lucifer grew jealous and resentful.  Tragically, he stepped outside the boundary God had prepared for him and led an all-out unsuccessful assault on God’s dominion in heaven.  Messiah himself led the final charge that resulted in Satan’s forcible exit from heaven.  Truly great is the danger of turning on God by spurning the gracious boundaries he has put into place.

Man too enjoys happiness and bliss inside these boundaries.  Eve is created as Adam’s helper.  The relationship of the first couple to each other and with God are summed up this way, “He for God only, she for God in him.”  The couple received the limitations of their flesh and their knowledge graciously and had no desire to reach what was not for them.  However, one day Raphael is dispatched to come and warn Adam of a new danger, Satan is on the move to corrupt the first couple.  Soon thereafter Eve wanted to depart from the usual daily regiment of labor by working alone.  Adam resisted at first but Eve grew stronger in her argument because she wanted to prove to Adam that she could go it alone.  Finally he relented.  The serpent began his work on her and subsequently she fell.  Adam determined to stay with his wife regardless of God’s boundaries and so he too fell.

With both angels and men happiness, joy, and contentment was the norm inside the boundaries.  The glory of God is manifest insofar as our happiness is tied to our dependence upon him.  Insofar as we do not depend upon him we increase our pain and death.  This is such a simple truth and yet our folly drowns it out, suppresses it. 

One final note on Milton’s work, he writes at the level of foundation.  In our shallow state we disregard the true implications of our actions.  Or, we determine to suspend the natural implications of our choice by mere will.  Perhaps we ignore it altogether.  As Paul writes, “God is not mocked.”  What Paul says here is that there is no way around the implications of our decisions and actions.  Try as we might we cannot create new laws to facilitate our sinful choices.  Both the fallen angels and man had no idea of the death and pain into which they were plunging when they chose to fall.  The excruciating pain and misery came upon them like an armed robber.  There is no escape and Milton drives this point home.

The foundational nature of Milton’s epic is also revealed in the simple exposition and illustration of first causes.  All the pain, death, misery and such that we experience is necessarily tied to a terrible choice made by the first couple.  Everything flows back to the fall.  From the fall Christ makes more sense.  From the fall humanity and the angelic host make more sense.  With these proper foundations in place we are better equipped to understand our dilemma and the solution to our dilemma.  We might add that the fall should include Satan’s demise as well.

In further developing Milton’s foundational emphasis, we say that there is no room for anxiety and fretting.  Why?  God oversees everything.  There is a real sense in which things must run their course.  The natural outplaying of sin, death, disease cannot be stopped until our Lord’s return.  To be sure, they are checked by the kingdom yet…everyone still dies.  As these things play themselves out, so does the enemy.  His presence is real as are his designs.  Because God continues to sit on his throne and sets up boundaries which cannot be breached we have no reason to fear.

I highly recommend reading Paradise Lost.  It will strengthen your faith and understanding of God, his ways, and the future.  It will stabilize you.

Tim Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York.  He has written a book that functions as a response to Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion.”  Keller’s book is entitled “The Reason for God:  Belief in an Age of Skepticism.”  The book contains 240 pages and 14 chapters.  Keller deals with the arguments against God and attempts to guide his readership to a rational dialogue.  The following paragraphs are my take on his attempt to do so.

Whether one agrees with Keller or not it is difficult to not get his point.  In an honest and gracious tip he makes a few concessions on the front end of the book.  “Religion” is the primary barrier to world peace (4).  He says this because once a set of values/beliefs are adopted it usually leads to a critical condemnation-laden spirit.  This attitude is characteristic of Keller.  He nonchalantly concedes Christianity’s short comings without undermining the foundation.  Why is this helpful?  When we defend ourselves incessantly we call into question our integrity.  As Shakespeare notes, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  It helps us stay humble and listen to criticism.  If you can’t concede the wart on your nose how will you ever concede the evil in your heart?  Honesty invites fruitful dialogue since no sincere question is illegitimate.

I’m going to characterize Keller’s approach as more or less indirect.  Rather than mount a frontal assault on skepticism he tries to diffuse the heated arguments of the die-hard skeptic.  Here is an example which he falls back on time and time again.  Christianity is often refuted by another dogmatic truth claim.  However, the dogma and assumptions in the refutation are not so clearly seen by those who contradict.  He mentions the following statement, “no belief can be held as universally true for everyone” (10).  In order to affirm this one must exclude oneself from the rule.  Keller’s approach takes the punch out of the postulate.  But where does that leave us?

Another version of the above-mentioned approach is a frequent reference to western tolerance.  Westerners insist on toleration of viewpoints and religious expression.  However, we are quite indignant at the idea of Nazi Germany.  It quickly becomes apparent that we shouldn’t tolerate some values.  When faced with such illustrations westerners back track and make necessary concessions.  Again, Keller deflates the balloon and leaves the skeptic with a legitimate concern yet unsure of the basis to get from point A to point B. 

He also references the moodiness and transience of western culture.  We embrace forgiveness and love and scorn at societies that embrace punishment and retribution.  The question to the pluralist now becomes:  how can you say your values are better?  Or, western culture once believed in retribution and punishment, who is to say they were wrong?  By saying that forgiveness and love are greater values we assert a value judgment.  Upon what basis, pray tell do we do this?

Finally, in chapter 8 he talks about clues for God as opposed to evidences for God.  This again reinforces an indirect approach.  These clues or indicators are like tell-tale signs that whisper of his presence.  They are not “logical” overwhelming evidences, rather almost subtle suggestions, quiet, and inviting.

One of the advantages to Keller’s book is for believers.  I’m not sure he is converting any skeptics through the book.  Maybe he is, I don’t know empirically.  For the believer this book is helpful because it teaches us how to engage a skeptical audience.  By being honest and asking honest questions of the questioner we can come to some common ground.  This common ground will be the concession of our assumptions and presuppositions.  He also teaches believers to not get so emotionally charged over discussion about faith.  It is alright to dialogue with a die-hard skeptic.

There is one area in which I was confused.  In chapter 5 he addressed hell.  He defined it as “one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (78).  He views hell then as one getting one’s own way, finally.  There is, however, a judicial element to hell.  Whoever is found not written in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire.  We are to fear the one who has the power to throw body and soul into hell.  Jesus describes this place as “fire,” “eternal,” and a place of “torment.”  Hell is one’s own choice but it is also imposed by God upon those who reject his Son.  I’m noting these things because reading Keller’s chapter and how he frames hell and then reading the Bible might make one wonder what hell really is to Keller.  I understand it to a be literal place of burning sulfur as indicated by the Scripture. 

This is a good read and I would recommend it to anyone who is concerned about foundational things.  Keller takes you straight to the hinges upon which this conversation is hanging. 

            I just finished reading “Inside the Third Reich.”  This book contains the memoirs of Albert Speer; architect, friend of Adolph Hitler, and military genius.  Speer guides the reader through the inner workings of the Nazi party and his friendship with Hitler.  We see Hitler objectively through the eyes of a dispassionate historian.  Of greater importance to me is the culpability which Speer concedes and explains.  It is this minor motif which is of most interest to me and I’d like to develop it.  Naturally, I’m seeking to acquire all knowledge and information which may elucidate Scripture and help the believer in assessing the world in which he lives.

            Speer’s relationship with Hitler began quietly in Jan. of 1931 when he became a member of the National Socialist Party.  He describes it as an “undramatic decision (17).”  As with many decisions we make this one was small and seemingly uneventful.  He became a member of the party not because he loved it but because Hitler led it.  Hitler was a leader, a charismatic passionate leader at that.  He inspired men to believe in better things.  He roused the average man to stand for something.  This charm and force of personality snared an intelligent unsuspecting architect. 

            Speer later muses on this “frivolous” decision (18).  He notes, “Why did I not undertake a thorough, systematic investigation of, say, the value or worthlessness of the ideologies of all the parties (19)?”  Already Hitler had confessed his expansionist ideas, anti-Semitism, and desire to acquire full power and rule by force.  Speer is startled at the lack of intellectual vigor practiced in his decision.  In short, his decision was based on the charisma of a man whose ideas, upon closer examination, were shocking.  He concludes, “At this initial stage my guilt was as grave as, at the end, my work for Hitler.  For being in a position to know and nevertheless shunning knowledge creates direct responsibility for the consequences-from the very beginning (19).”  Naturally, the present obscures the very details which the future illuminates.  Nonetheless, it is interesting to hear this candid confession.

            As time wore on Hitler consistently pushed towards his goals.  Speer had cast his lot with him and subsequently his fate.  How does one explain an intellectual of Speer’s caliber being carried along by a baser creature such as Adolph Hitler?  Speer writes, “My inclination to be relieved of having to think, particularly about unpleasant facts, helped to sway the balance.  In this I did not differ from millions of others (20).”  In addition to Hitler’s charisma and force Speer by constitution is inclined to follow.  The two men had personalities which facilitated rather easily an ongoing friendship.  Within this framework Speer said yes to the dreams which Hitler pursued and he bent himself to this end. 

            When the dream came crashing down and a bitter hard reality demanded her dues Speer was left standing destitute.  Hitler had committed suicide as had many of the Nazi leadership.  Who was going to answer for these atrocities?  The remaining leadership insisted that they were not responsible.  In this respect, Speer noted, “We were speaking different languages (511).”  Speer maintained from the beginning that he must answer for his actions.  In addition to this, he made an amazing statement.  He said, “Each member of that [Nazi] leadership must personally assume his responsibility in such a way that the guilt which might otherwise descend upon the German people is expiated (489).”  In John 11 the gospel writer notes that Caiaphas, the High Priest, said that one man must die sacrificially for the nation.  Speer’s comment is remarkably pointed in that he sees the crying need to satisfy the question of guilt. 

            We may understand individual responsibility more easily then we understand leadership responsibility.  Someone in Germany had to answer for the atrocities committed.  Upon whom should the blame fall?  The hammer falls hardest upon leadership.  Democracies have served to blunt this truth a little since the people are more responsible in electing their leaders.  In Hitler’s case, the people elected him to office at which point he changed the rules so that he couldn’t be removed.  However, the frightening truth is that those who are in leadership are highly culpable and do not have the option of pointing the finger.  To whom will they point the finger when moral responsibility seeks a pair of shoulders to light upon?

            This comment by Speer also brings in the notion of expiation.  Expiation and propitiation are related concepts.  I do wonder to what extent Speer consciously chose the word expiate over propitiation.  Expiation means that the guilt of man is covered over or removed.  Propitiation means that God’s wrath over sin is satisfied.  Expiation concerns man and propitiation concerns God.  Speer is to be commended for honestly recognizing that guilt cannot go unpunished. 

            Speer is also to be commended in that he didn’t cave in to the peer pressure applied by his associates.  While they scrambled for innocence and sought to absolve themselves of responsibility he did not.  This highlights the ever prevalent response of a desperate humanity when confronted with sin.  From the beginning we have always argued for personal innocence.  In this we demonstrate a striking knowledge of right and wrong.  Why would we seek to proclaim our innocence if innocence is no different from guilt? 

            There is yet another dimension here and that has to do with corporate guilt.  In a way, Germany was responsible too.  The people observed this mad man come on the scene and willingly gave him powers.  They followed him to the bitter end.  As citizens of a nation, as members and attendees of churches, as those who are aligned with families we all share in the guilt that falls upon us collectively.  Germany, the people, did pay a price for her participation in WWII.  The city was partitioned off and eventually a wall was erected between the two parts.  This example has caused me to reflect more carefully on my own responsibilities to my generation.  If I really believe it is murder to take the life of the unborn is my response to this adequate?  The Germans could shrug their shoulders just like we can.  One might say, “Well, there isn’t much I can do so I’m not going to worry about it.”  Is this all?  Does it really come to this?  The heinous crimes we currently commit against the unborn cannot be shrugged off by saying, “I didn’t make that decision.”  Of course you may not have but we mustn’t be so flippant about it.

            There is the question of Speer’s relationship to God.  I care because I want everyone to know the Lord.  In some 500 plus pages there was no mention of God.  There were some abstract references to “religion.”  I would hope there was some level of personal redemption but we don’t see a word and this leaves me concerned for his soul, not that it matters now, for he died almost thirty years ago.  Speer can pay for the sins of Germany with his life but this is to no avail if he is not regenerate.

            Finally, a healthy alert awareness of one’s responsibility helps one to live well.  We are responsible and no man can carry that for us.  We alone must choose to serve God and turn from sin.  We alone must bear responsibility for our sins on others.  This acute sense of responsibility also makes us ever aware of our guilty before God.  The guilt is so heavy that a robust desire to expiate or atone for one’s sin is out of the question.  Only Jesus can carry it now.  Only Jesus.

           I went to Mongolia for the first part of August.  This was my first missions trip ever.  It was also the first time I’ve really been out of the country.  I have been in Canada a little but my trips there were brief.  Anyway, my wife refers to my blogs as sterile analysis.  She wants something more personal like struggles and such.  In protest I say we don’t need to write or talk about struggles to make them be there.  They are there.  I like the product which struggle begets.  The absence of “struggle” language does not mean it isn’t there.  And, does the confession of struggle and inner conflict change anything?  For me, it doesn’t.  Being human means we are limited.  Being limited means you ask questions and go back and forth.  We all do it, so let’s have a hug.  Ok, I submit.

            First, it is nice to have a place in life.  It is nice to know where one fits and what is expected.  Take that away and what do you have?  One is at ground zero.  It doesn’t matter who you are in the US nor does it matter that you are a pastor, a husband, and a father.  Now I’m in a foreign land and a nameless face.  Is that a problem?  No.  However, let’s just say I’m used to living in the niche that God has for me in the US.  I did ask myself if I rely on the structures in America for meaning.  I like the structures but ultimately they do not afford security.  We come back to our position before God.  Does God approve of me?  Suffice it to say that this dynamic was unpleasant.

            I also began to muse on the difficulty of missionaries in moving to another country.  Imagine being stripped of your networks and structures and being transplanted to another land.  You don’t know the language and you don’t know the culture.  You are like a child, no, less.  Little children know the basics but you wouldn’t.  The funny thing is, I don’t have to imagine that, I did that.  English is not my second language.  English culture is not my mother culture.  The first eight years of my life were spent being Amish.  I was baptized in Amish ways of being, thinking, and talking.  I remember having to go to the public school and knowing the basics of communication only.  I didn’t know where I was supposed to go.  People pushed and shoved and were loud.  I would pick classrooms at random and sit down.  Eventually, the teachers would figure it out.  After school I was swept outside with the flow of crazy undisciplined children.  Everyone knew what bus to board except me.  I would stand there until a teacher spotted me and took care of me.  I punched another kid in the mouth once because some big boys on the bus told me to.  They laughed and encouraged me, so I did it again until the boy’s lip was bleeding.  When the principle called me to the office I was surprised that I had done wrong.  Anyway, some of these same feelings came flooding back.  Not knowing, not understanding really leaves you in limbo.  Become as child and accept limitations.  Learn the mother tongue and the mother culture.  Don’t demand, ask.  Learn their language and speak their way.  Why get angry because they are who they are?  Why complain about the food?  Of course they like it, otherwise they wouldn’t eat it.  It doesn’t matter how close you are to God in the familiar.  In the unfamiliar the struggle is just as bad as it is to anyone else.  A relationship with God doesn’t make it go away.  Is the familiar what carries me along or is it God? 

            At first, it was nice being single.  For the longest period of time in my life since being married I did as I pleased.  I didn’t check with my wife on anything.  I didn’t have to constantly scan the surrounding area to make sure my kids were safe.  It was so nice.  But after a while I missed my wife.  The confidentially she offers cannot be replaced by anyone.  I can trust her with my innermost thoughts and know she won’t betray me.  She won’t place a whispering against me or predicate a weak moment on me.  I was on my own.  I remembered what it was like being single.  The completeness that we yearn for in a mate is real.  I remembered that now.  I used to be less confident as a single because I had no backing.  I was a single agent with no constant supporting voice.  That brought me back to my behavior.  I think I behave differently because she is with me.  When she isn’t with me I act differently.  I am less confident.  Is this good?  For her it is but for me…I should hope that my confidence lies in Christ.  However, she makes me a better man and that is good.  I missed my kids too.  It’s nice to go home and have a herd of pagans rejoice at your presence.  It is nice to return love and affirmation to them. 

            So, I came out on the other end enjoying my times with the Lord more.  He is my refuge and strength.  In him I find solace.  This fortifies me for confusion and uncertainty all the time.  He tells me who I am and what is expected.  Being armed with this I live.

           The next character in “Anna Karenina” which I would to look at is Konstantin Levin.  Levin is probably as close a picture as we have of Tolstoy’s own journey toward faith.  It seems that his [Tolstoy’s] resting place is Christ but I haven’t talked with him so I don’t know for sure.  Nonetheless, Tolstoy’s own struggles show up in Levin’s character.

            Levin is a farmer.  So there is a simplistic side to him.  He works with cattle and tills the land.  He has peasants working for him.  This closeness with the earth coupled with the practical side of farm life, where something either works or it doesn’t, makes him unfit for Russian society.  This is seen in a proposal of marriage which Levin offers to Kitty.  Levin left his farm to travel to Moscow with one objective:  obtain Kitty’s hand in marriage.  At the time, Kitty is being pursued by Vronsky who later falls in with Anna.  She declines his offer hoping instead for the more charismatic Vronsky.  This makes Levin feel awkward and unsure.  The society Kitty keeps is intellectual and free-thinking which makes his awkwardness all the more odious. 

            He stays around in order to keep up appearances.  He soon finds himself in the midst of many guests who are talking about the latest.  As the conversation progresses he stakes out a position too dogmatically.  This comes off as boorish and extreme to the guests who then delicately side-step him.  Naturally he feels out of place.  Society is to fast for him and he can’t understand the complexities of city life.  So, being rejected by Kitty and marginalized by her friends and acquaintances he returns to the farm which he understands.

            In this interaction between Levin and Russian intellectualism Tolstoy brought traditional values face to face with progressive thought.  Levin brings the idea of absolute truth into Moscow and is overrun by modernity.  Granted, Levin does not believe in God but he lives on the residue of god-life.  Modernity on the other hand is beyond the residue and is sailing away wherever the wind might blow.  Sexual promiscuity and pragmatism mark the progressives.  In this company Levin seems outdated and obtuse.

            As Levin returns to the farm he finds comfort in his niche.  He relaxes in his work and seeks excellence in all he does.  He struggles with his workers.  Why won’t they work harder?  He thinks of different innovative ways to engage the peasants in their work.  In pursuing these things he comes to understand that they are content with their small lot.  He does something unimaginable and works in the fields with them.  He even contemplates marrying a peasant.  He is finally free of his rejection in Moscow.  However, one night while walking down a road alone he is passed by a horse drawn cart.  He glances up and in a brief glimpse sees Kitty’s face.

            It is her.  She has been tossed aside by Vronsky.  Her father had warned her of his character but she took her chances.  She realized that she had passed up a better man and was now left with the wind.  As you might guess, they end up getting married.  This is the highlight of Levin’s life.  He has labored honestly and now has a wife.  Even though he had no idea what marriage was like he nonetheless did well.  He was still in unbelief.

              Onto this marriage scene comes Vassenka.  A couple of clarifiers are in order here.  First, in Russian society it was acceptable for a single man to pursue a married woman.  Furthermore, a married woman should feel honored to be pursued this way.  And, usually the husband turned a blind eye and would not embarrass his wife or the suitor by making a scene.  Vronsky’s pursuit of Anna and Alexi’s (Anna’s husband) response makes more sense in light of these cultural norms.  To further complicate matters, Vassenka is a guest of Stiva who is Levin’s wife’s sister’s husband.  Levin becomes uncomfortable with a man pursuing his wife.  He finally breaks protocol and asks Vassenka to leave and no longer be his guest.  This is a shocking move.

            This move is one of many which Levin makes as he continues developing a solid marriage.  As time goes on he turns his thoughts toward God.  It seems that he has been inevitably drifting towards God.  The Atheism he embraced wasn’t working.  Concerning the Atheistic ideas, Levin muses, “These words and ideas associated with them were very well for intellectual purposes.  But for life they yielded nothing, and Levin felt suddenly like a man who has changed his warm fur cloak for a muslin garment, and going for the first time into the frost is immediately convinced, not by reason, but by his whole nature that he is as good as naked, and that he must infallibly perish miserably.”  While rejecting Christianity he could not find an adequate replacement for it and this bothered him to the core of his being.  He considered suicide but that course held no solution.  He deduced, finally, that while he was living rightly his thinking was wrong.  His behavior conformed to the Christian teaching he received as a child.  He finally gave in and found faith.  His search was over.