I've Moved!

Well, not really. The blog is moving. The new website address will be: http://www.thecamelshump.org

I have a new design and I hope you like it. I look forward to interacting with you at the new site!


~sdg

The Groundhog & the Gospel

Today, Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow. According to folklore, this means an early spring. What makes this prognostication so surprising (I was surprised, at least) was the timing of it. In the midst of the largest winter storm this country has seen in 60 years, the groundhog predicts an early spring. Ironic is it not? As a majority of our country is gripped by winter's icy wrath, the promise of reprieve is made. This winter will end. Spring will come and it might even come early.

So what does an over-sized rodent predicting the weather have to do with the Gospel? I would submit to you that it has everything to do with the gospel, as strange as that may sound. When we look at the broad sweep of history, we see that God is telling a story. It is a story of judging and saving, for His glory and our good. It is a story that we would never write ourselves. It is a story that in the midst of it, looks hopeless, as if the story is ending in defeat. It can be as bleak as the coldest and grayest of winter days. And then all the sudden, rays of light will pierce the clouds. Covenants renewed. Temples rebuilt. Lands long promised, fulfilled.  Messiah born. Curses reversed. Wrath satisfied. Justice upheld. Grace extended. Mercy overflowing. 

The Scriptures are filled with stories of ordinary people, who despite the deep darkness that surrounded them, trusted the promises of God and were eventually vindicated. The Scriptures are also filled with stories of ordinary people, who despite the lavish promises of God, trusted in themselves and were eventually destroyed. 

For example, if we look at the story of the exodus, what do we see? After the plagues have ravaged Egypt, the Israelites are allowed to leave. But then Pharaoh changes his mind. He send his army and the Israelites are pinned between the sea and the rage of Pharaoh. It looks hopeless. The storm of Pharaoh looms, but God acts. The Red Sea is split and Israel escapes as God destroys Pharaoh's army.

Fast forward to the time of Jesus. There was a buzz about him. People were talking. People were excited. A prophet of old has been risen up. But in a 24-hour period, it appeared to be over. Through a series of rigged trials, this powerful prophet had been murdered by his own people on a Roman cross. The icy wrath of God had fallen on the one whom many thought was the Chosen One, the Messiah. It appeared hopeless. But three days later, God acted and raised him from the dead in glory and power. Jesus was vindicated as King of kings and Lord of lords. To him was given the name Yahweh, which is the name above all names, for its is the name of God.   

Do you see the parallels to what our furry friend from PA does each February 2nd? He is reminding us that spring is coming. This winter will end, maybe sooner than we think. Rest is coming. Warmth is coming. Dear Christian, the wintery storms you face day in and day out will end. The gospel has said so. Hold on, for the Resurrection is near. Final rest is coming. Stand firm. Be courageous. For you will be vindicated. Jesus has said so. 

~sdg

A Scary Thought on Sanctity of Life Sunday

"But Lord, we preached pro-life sermons, we voted for pro-life candidates and even gave a pro-life pamphlet to an unwed pregnant teenager. And we did all this in your name, Jesus!"

Yet, to many, Jesus will respond "Away from me, you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you!"

Father, Please protect us from the tendency to make causes our gospel, our god. May we fight abortion with everything in us, because that is what a heart gripped by the gospel will do. May our generation be the one who sees the end of abortion in America. May our generation produce a thousand William Wilberforce's. May I be one.

In Jesus name I pray.

~sdg

The Centerfold: A Warning

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; they have eyes, but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear, nor is there any breath in their mouths. Those who make them become like them, so do all who trust in them!  (Psalm 135:15-18 ESV)

That glossy book of perdition

in the hand evokes a dark emotion

The pulse intensifies

Over pages that temporarily satisfies

A soul in need of more

Despite the need within the core

This poisonous meal is consumed

Unaware that he is truly doomed

Each page. Each image. Each bite.

Creates a darkness darker than night.

Yet he presses on towards his prize

The centerfold of forbidden fruit and lies.

A tall beauty never meant for his gaze

Finally, the object of his praise

She smiles beautifully with luscious lips

But she cannot speak his soul from the pits

She looks at him with eyes that pierce his soul

Yet her image is blind, eyes dark as coal

“I’m a great listener” says her profile

But she is deaf and he is in denial

On the page, her form and figure appear complete

Yet she is lifeless and he is a cheat

He, too, has a mouth with which to speak

Yet he is mute as his family falls over the peak

He has eyes to see the harm he brings

Yet he is blind to the one on whose finger he placed rings

He has ears to hear the sounds of impending doom

Yet he is deaf to the warnings that dangers loom

He is among the living, working and playing each day

Yet he is lifeless, his soul in decay

Mute. Blind. Deaf. Lifeless.

You become what you worship and image what you bless.

 ~sdg

Book Review: Living in God's Two Kingdoms

Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture is by David VanDrunen, who is Robert B. Strimple associate professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics, Westminster Seminary California. The book is published by Crossway.*

This book falls into a very large category. Christ and culture is a hot topic in modern evangelicalism. In my estimation, this is a good thing. The fact that a lot of young christians are earnestly desiring to engage the culture at large in a christ-like manner is exciting. Since there are a lot of people contributing to the conversation, there are several competing perspectives for how best to engage the culture. Dr. VanDrunen represents the Two Kingdoms perspective.   

Summary

The book is broken down into four parts. First there is an Introduction, where VanDrunen introduces not only the two kingdom perspective, but here he also surveys three other camps within what he calls the "Redemptive Transformation of Culture" movement. The Neo-Calvinist, New Perspective and Emergent camps are surveyed for what they say regarding Christ and Culture. The next section is Part One, where VanDrunen examines the two adams, Adam and Christ. Part Two examines how both Old Testament and New Testament believers lived as sojourners as  way to determine how we as modern believers ought to live. In Part Three, VanDrunen begins to flesh out what the Two Kingdom perspective might look like in the realms of Education, Vocation and Politics. 

Review

I would give the book 3.5 stars (out of 5). The main gist of the book is that there are two kingdoms in this world. There is the common kingdom, in which all of humanity lives and there is the redemptive kingdom, in which only the church lives. These two kingdoms are governed by two covenants. The common kingdom under the Noahatic covenant (Gen. 9:1-17) and the redemptive kingdom under the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12). VanDrunen is attempting to answer how the people in the redemptive kingdom relate to and interact with the people from the common kingdom. 

The first two parts of the book were quite persuasive and enlightening and I think, worth the price of the book. As I mentioned earlier, Part One deals with the two adams. The first Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden. His role was that of King and Priest. Adam was to rule over the garden and to guard the purity of the garden. Not only that, but as God's image bearer, Adam was eventually to enter rest. As God had worked and then rested, so to Adam was to work the garden and then enter rest in the "world-to-come". As we all know, Adam never entered that rest. Instead, he abdicated his throne and defiled the garden. He was banished, never to return, never to fulfill his destiny. Yet, humanity was not without hope. A second Adam was promised and that promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus, the Christ. VanDrunen goes onto explain how Jesus has fulfilled the role of Adam and has now entered rest in the world-to-come. He makes it explicit that since Jesus has fulfilled the first Adam's roll, we should not be seeking to do what Adam was commanded to do. Jesus has done it. Any attempts to fulfill the cultural mandates of Adam is to say that Jesus was insufficient. VanDrunen contends that all cultural activities fall under the Noahatic covenant, not the original mandate given to the First Adam. 

In Part Two, VanDrunen surveys both Old and New Testament to see how those under the Abrahamic covenant (and thus part of the redemptive kingdom) lived while they were sojourners. VanDrunen states that the Mosaic code only applied to the redemptive kingdom and the commands to kill everything that breathes were only to be carried out within the Promised Land. By looking at how the people of God lived outside the Promised Land when they were sojourners, we can get a clue for how we ought to live. For instance, while in exile in Babylon, even though the Israelites were promised they would return to the Promised Land, they were told to live in Babylon and plant gardens and build homes. They were also instructed to pray for the cities in which they lived, that they would prosper, because their fate was tied in with that of the city. When VanDrunen turned his attention to the New Testament, he points out that the exile terminology is used to describe the church. The church is just like Israel, in that she is in exile, awaiting the return to the Promised Land. In light of this comparison, we are to relate to the common kingdom just like Israel did. We are to work for it's good. We are to pray for it's blessing. Yet, we are to be mindful of the fact that our dealings in the common kingdom are temporary and our work there will eventually be left behind.

Part Three was not as good as the first two (I felt like it became more laborious to read). Here, VanDrunen is trying to show how the Two Kingdom perspective can speak to cultural issues, such as education, vocation and politics. If you're looking for a definitive work on each of these three areas, you're going to be disappointed. It's an overview for how each of these areas might be impacted. The most interesting I thought VanDrunen was trying to point out, was that since each of these areas belong to the common kingdom, there is freedom here for Christians to disagree. Christians can come to different conclusions as to how to do education, work and politics, because those realms are within the common kingdom. The church can only bind things within the redemptive kingdom. Only activities where the church is given authority can it bind it's members conscience on. Whether you choose to educate your child in public, private or at home is freely up to you. The church cannot tell what to do and other Christians can't either. 

Dr. VanDrunen has definitely heightened my interest in this area. While he presents a very convincing case for the Two Kingdom perspective, I would like to do some more reading before I commit to this perspective. 

~sdg

*Disclosure: I was provided a copy by Crossway in exchange for reading and reviewing the book.

Renounce Your Fandom

I love sports (just ask my wife). But over the past year, I have grown increasingly frustrated with fandom. So frustrated in fact, I am about do something about it. I, Justin Camblin, hereby renounce my fandom. What do I mean by fandom? Fandom is the realm within sports were ordinary, seemingly respectable people wear the colors of their favorite team and root them onto victory. At least, that's what fandom used to be about. Now those ordinary, seemingly respectable people have turned in to pugnacious pooh-bahs pontificating on things they know relatively nothing about. I can take no more of it. 

The epicenter of my disgust is found in the Pharisaical moralism that has been revealed in the fan psyche. It is no longer possible to simply follow a certain team. You must also assail the moral integrity of all those associated with the rivals of your team. You are not a real fan of Team X unless you hate Team Y with every fiber of your being and point out how they are all moral reprobates. A majority of the time the hate directed at your team's rival is based on factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the play on the field or court. They are moral factors or ethical factors. Allow me to expand upon what I mean with a few anecdotal tails from the Land of Fandom.

Here in the Bluegrass State, the University of Kentucky Basketball team is king. Fandom here is intense. And if you're going to be properly initiated into the Fandom of UK basketball, here are two rivals you must hate: the University of Louisville and the University of Tennessee. Benign indifference will not cut it. You must hate these two teams. Yet, your hate and bile will always come from the moral and ethical failings of those rivals. This past summer, fan websites here in Kentucky reported, with glee, the sordid details of a tryst between University of Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino and some woman (not his wife) he met in a bar. This woman had attempted to extort Coach Pitino and in the course of the trial, the details of that unfortunate night were made public. This was fodder for weeks on the blogs and fan sites. It had absolutely nothing to do with the game played on the court. It had everything to do with trumpeting the moral failings of our rival in order that we might look better. It doesn't end there. This past year has also seen several players from both the football and basketball teams of the University of Tennessee get into legal trouble for a sundry of reasons. In the build up to this past week's UK/UT football game, those legal troubles were again trumpeted on the blogs and fan sites, complete with mug shots. You see, UT is nothing but morally deficient thugs. And don't get them started on their fans. Rednecks and mullets...and you'd never see that in Kentucky. Us Kentucky fans are morally and culturally superior. Ethically superior as well; at least we think so. 

Outside the UK realm of Fandom, we are not viewed as pure as we see ourselves. Exhibit A is John Calipari, our beloved basketball coach. Ever since Coach Cal (as he is affectionately known in the UK realm) came to Kentucky, a lot of hate and vitriol has been directed towards UK fans (some reporter said that UK fans would accept Hitler as coach, as long as he was winning, thus implying UK fans would trade the slaughter of 6 million Jews for a winning program). You see, apparently Coach Cal is a cheater. He is the only coach to have the distinction of having two Final Four appearances vacated from the NCAA record books. The first happened while he was at the University of Massachusetts. One of his players accepted money from an agent, which made him a professional and thus ineligible. The second happened at the University of Memphis. Apparently, one of his star players cheated on his SAT back while he was in high school, so he too, was ineligible. There it is folks, proof positive that Coach Cal is a dirty, rotten scoundrel and enough of a reason to shower the UK program and it's fans with hate. If Coach Cal wasn't reason enough, Kentucky's basketball program does have a checkered past. They have cheated in the past and been caught (In fact, it was Rick Pitino, the man UK fans love to hate, that saved the program and brought it back to national prominence, but that isn't mentioned too much anymore...softens the hate too much). So we're not as pure as we'd like to think...bummer.

Perhaps this moralistic fandom is localized in collegiate athletics. Surely professional sport fandom would be far more civilized. Unfortunately, this realm of fandom is also polluted. For example, my favorite baseball team is the Boston Red Sox (followed closely by the Atlanta Braves). If you know anything about baseball, you know exactly who I am supposed to hate. The Yankees. Ever since the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919 and the Yankees became one of the greatest franchises in professional sports, Red Sox fans have hated the Yankees and their fans with an everlasting hate. While this rivalry is rooted a little more in the play on the field, the moralistic hearts have been revealed again; especially in the modern era. One such example of that moralism is Alex Rodriguez. Initially, he was hated because of his greed. Rodriguez currently has the richest contract in all of Major League Baseball. And Red Sox fans loved to point out his greed. They loved to point out how he wasn't worth the money, that he couldn't deliver when it counted. Not only did we hate Rodriguez for his greed, but the Yankee's owner who gave it to him. George Steinbrenner was ruining baseball. He bought his championships, we said. He didn't develop talent like the rest of the teams. Not only that, but he was a jerk. Tails of his rants and tirades can be quickly found. In fact, he was so dictatorial in his control over the Yankees, he once paid a man to dig up some dirt on one of his own players that he could use as leverage in negotiating a new contract. That got him suspended from baseball. Ole George was a real winner and Red Sox fans love to hate him for it. Back to Alex...he's also hated because he is an admitted cheater. Ignore the fact that his talent is matchless in this generation, Red Sox fans (and others) love to talk about how Rodriguez used steroids. How anyone with any moral scruples could root for the Yankees is beyond comprehension for the average Red Sox fan.

No fandom is exempt, sadly. Lebron James is hated for stabbing an entire city in the heart on national television. Tiger Woods is hated for destroying his family with multiple adulteries. Michael Vick is hated for running a dog fighting ring. What is really interesting is, this moralistic fandom doesn't end at the borders of sports. Politics, religion, fraternities, sororities, clubs and cliques all suffer from the malady of moralism. It effects every institution known to man because man is a moralist. We desperately need and want to earn our own salvation. We desperately want to be apart of something bigger than ourselves. So we give ourselves to all this things, all these functional saviors. Is it any wonder that we must assail the other functional saviors that are competing with the one we've chosen for ourselves? Should I be surprised that sports have been overrun by these incessant, bloviating, empty-headed blowhards that fill the internet?

What should we do? Renounce your fandom! Lay down these functional saviors. We are not citizens of the Big Blue Nation or Red Sox Nation, but "our citizenship is in heaven and from it, we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20). You see, I need to have my mind reoriented. My world does not rise and fall on the latest sporting event. I have a feeling that many of my friends could use that same reorientation. It's easy to lose our minds (and our souls) when it comes to sports. It's easy because we are so prone to love ourselves. What we need to remember is the gospel. We need to remember that we are no better than anyone. In fact, we are wicked. And no association can make us better than anyone. Apart from the grace of God, there is no salvation, no matter how high we build that tower. And that's all sports can ultimately become. Another attempt at the Tower of Babel. So, renounce that fandom, and let's spend our time reflecting on the only citizenship that will matter in the end. It sure will make watching sports enjoyable again.

~sdg

Book Review: The Deep Things of God

The Deep Things of God: how the Trinity Changes Everything is by Fred Sanders, an associate professor at Biola University's Torrey Honors Institute. The book is published by Crossway*.

The simple thesis of the book is that Gospel is the Trinity and thus Evangelicals are deeply Trinitarian, whether they realize it or not. While simply stated, the substance of the arguments are far from simplistic. At times, this book can be a little heady. I found myself re-reading certain paragraphs in order for me to understand exactly what Sanders was saying. However, for the most part, I found the book to be readable and enjoyable.

I've been struggling with how to classify this book. It's not a systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not a complete survey of evangelical engagement of with the doctrine of the Trinity. It's kind of a mish-mash of both. Sanders seeks reintroduce evangelicals to the doctrine of the Trinity, by showing them that evangelicals in the past have thought well about the doctrine and thought it important. As he does this, the doctrine itself is discussed and unpacked. For me personally, the book has really heightened my awareness of the Trinity, but in a way that allows the doctrine to remain tacit, rather than explicit (you'll want to read the book to see what I'm talking about!).

There where two sections I think are worth the price of the book alone. In the Introduction, Sanders presents a problem to us. If evangelicals are so deeply Trinitarian, why do so many seem to be confused by or intimidated by the doctrine? How is that the modern evangelical is so detached from his Trinitarian roots? Sanders believes, and I agree with his analysis, that the emphatic nature of evangelicalism has led to this problem. What he means is the evangelicals have always been concerned with highlighting certain aspects of the Christian doctrines. Bible, Cross, Conversion, Heaven have been the major emphases of evangelicalism. Sanders affirms this pattern of emphasis. However, when you are emphasizing something, you're assuming a larger body of truth out which a certain truth is then emphasized. The Cross of Christ is certainly worthy of emphasizing. However, the Cross draws it's power and meaning, so long as it's flanked by Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation and earthly ministry on the one side and his resurrection and ascension on the other side.Without those other truths flanking the Cross, Jesus death upon it would have done nothing for us in regards to our salvation. The same could be said of emphasizing the Bible, Conversion and Heaven. They are the right things to emphasize, so long as there is that larger body of Christian truth from which they stand out. What has, sadly, happened in within evangelicalism is that the points of emphasis have been severed from their roots and are presented as the whole story, rather than just the highlights. And when this happened, evangelicalism moved from being emphatic to reductionistic. Evangelicals became "anemic" as they lost connection with all the other important truths. And since the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those truths that falls outside of the emphasis (as it should, Sanders points out), evangelicals have lost touch with it's power and importance. For me, this nailed my growing up. I grew up in a stream of evangelicalism that had become reductionistic. It wasn't until after college where I was introduced to the rest of the story. So I really enjoyed this section, mainly because I connected with it so personally. I'm sure many other young evangelicals will connect with it as well. The second section I thought was amazing, was the chapter on prayer. Sanders lays out a way to pray "with the grain." What he means is that there is a way to pray that lines you up with the way the Trinity works. My favorite section of the chapter deals with how its possible for our prayers to influence God. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. What God wills, happens. How do I get off believing my prayers have any impact on God? Sanders gives a plausible explanation for how our prayers can and do influence God when we look at prayer through the lens of the doctrine of the Trinity (you need to read the book to get the answer...I couldn't do it justice here).

The rest of the book is good as well. As I mentioned before, there a few sections that are kinda heady, but Sanders himself says at certain points that readers can skip ahead if the topics feels too deep. One thing I did notice about the book is that Sanders repeats himself, a lot. However, I didn't really mind the repetition. It helped me remember where I was and what he was talking about. Other people may find it distracting or unnecessary, but I was fine with it. I had two beefs with the book. The first is that it had end notes rather than foot notes. I hate end notes. Petty, I know. Second, I would have like to see this book in hardback. It's a solid book, one that I will be referencing again and again. A hardback binding would have been nice.

I highly recommend this book. 

~sdg

*Disclosure: I was provided a copy by Crossway in exchange for reading and reviewing the book.