Thoughts on Robinson Crusoe

I have lately had more time to read than usual and decided to pick up the classic Robinson Crusoe. It has worked its way into society and has quite a reputation but I, like many, had never actually read it. The book both surprised and, frankly, disappointed me so I decided to write down some thoughts about it.

My most major surprise about the book is how overtly Christian and didactic it is. I was expecting a survival adventure story, which it is, but it is just as much—if not moreso—a story to instruct. Barely a chapter goes by without some kind of instruction to the reader from Crusoe's own (fictional) life. Overall I do agree with most of the instruction, so it was not an unpleasant surprise. Sure, it has the religious tone of the time, bordering on severe, but really not bad coming from Defoe, apparently a Puritan. And, unlike some books of the time, the Christianity seems to be genuinely of the heart. Many, many books of the time include Christian language and doctrine but smack of dry, formal religion—not the Christianity of the New Testament!

In the same vein, Defoe includes some truly interesting thoughts in the book. The most thought-provoking to me regarded when it is appropriate to take a human life. Attempting to avoid spoilers, I was pretty surprised with Crusoe's eventual reluctance to act as a judge (or even "the sword of judgment") when confronted with sins of non-Christians at one point in the book—a pretty far cry from some European "Christians" who seemed to believe their true religion gave them license to murder and pillage the heathen Native Americans. At the same time, I found Defoe too forceful about some of his Christian interpretations. For example, Crusoe asserts that "secret hints and notices of danger which are sometimes given [us]" must be from benevolent spirits or God Himself—completely omitting the possibility of intuition. Likewise, he gives his rather unlikely survival on the island as evidence that God "does not leave His creatures so absolutely destitute, but that, in the worst circumstances, they have always something to be thankful for." But does every island castaway survive? I think not. Perhaps Defoe is right about these, but he needs to do more than just posit his beliefs.

More disappointing to me, however, was the prose. The plot is reasonably enjoyable but the writing itself is leaden and ponderous. What a pity that an unlikely story of surviving as a castaway is a chore to read! But I grant that Defoe was one of the first major English novelists so perhaps the craft was not yet well-developed. It is perplexing, though, that Milton and Shakespeare wrote such magnificent poetry while the prose decades and centuries later was so pedantic.

All in all, I have respect for the book, but I think it is sadly beyond its time. It has some appreciable qualities but they are too obscured in peculiarities of Defoe's time for modern readers to enjoy. I don't regret reading it, but I would not generally recommend it either.

Romans 7

Romans is a wondrous book of the Bible, full of God-glorifying, profound exposition of the Gospel. It is, along with the rest of the Bible, also a book that the typical Christian can understand with the help of the Holy Spirit. You don't need to go to seminary or have a degree, you simply need God's help! At the same time, there are passages in Romans which can be confusing and are much debated—perhaps none so much as Romans 7:7-25, in which Paul describes the interaction between the law, sin, and himself.

Ever since I was a toddler Christian, the most natural reading of this passage to me has been Paul describing his unconverted self abounding in sin in verses 7-12 and his converted self still struggling with sin in 13-25. Other interpreters, however, have read it differently. Some have claimed that this man that Paul describes has too much sin and therefore must be unregenerate. These interpreters must sin much less than I do. With Paul's shift to present tense and his apparently renewed mind (vv. 22,25), I find this reading unreasonable and I will not address it further. Others, such as F. J. Huegel in Reigning with Christ, see Paul as a Christian but in an unhealthy state. For my own confidence in interpretation and application, I have meditated on this passage and now seek to distill my thoughts into one short article. So help me God!

After a heartfelt description of his flesh's inability to submit to God's law, Paul concludes that his true self delights in the law of God, but his own flesh wars against him, forcing him to sin—even to the point of calling himself captive to the law of sin—in his own weakness. Even as a saved person, he still sins regularly, and I can sympathize! "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" But he, as I, turn this near-despair around into praise to God: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Without Jesus, we would have every reason to despair, but with Him we are carried along into victory and glory. Praise God!

F. J. Huegel, though, would say that Paul's thoughts are unhealthy. Specifically, Paul is describing himself or any other Christian "listen[ing] to the voice of the enemy" (Huegel, 18) and trying to obey God's law in the flesh instead of resting in his position in Christ. It is a fine distinction between my interpretation's and Huegel's, so let me clarify. I see this passage in Romans 7 as a regular realization that all Christians have which humbles them and draws them to Jesus. We must daily remind ourselves of our continual wretchedness apart from Him. Huegel, on the other hand, sees the passage as Paul erring in turning from the grace back to law:

There is an overflowing tendency for the Christian to turn from grace to law. To do so is to do violence to the glorious position which is his in Christ. We see it in Paul, great as he was. [...] We have the proof in Romans 7 where we have Paul under law, and what a time of it he had. The more he struggled the worse off he seemed to be. The divine injunction had lashed him into a frenzy until at last he comes to the end of himself with the cry of despair: Oh, wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Then he comes back into a position of rest. (Huegel, 29)

The contrast in interpretation is between a healthy realization and an unhealthy state brought by whispers of the flesh and the Accuser.

I can see Huegel's point, but since Paul makes no explicit statement of unhealthiness and there is no transition before or after this section (simply a transition from past to present before), I think it should be taken at face value if possible. Indeed, I think Huegel mis-interprets due to his overemphasis on the believer taking hold of his position in Christ as if it were the one key to the Christian life, as if all obedience and joy follows from, and only from, that faith position. But that is a topic for another day.

Looking again at the passage, the frustration that Paul expresses admittedly seems odd in contrast to the victory that he expresses elsewhere. But it is appropriate here because he is describing the interaction between himself, the law, and sin—particularly demonstrating what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do (8:3). Not only was the law unable to save a sinner from death, but even now, after salvation, though the Christian delights in the law of God, the law cannot produce sanctification.

In the end, I do not think Huegel that far from the mark. A Christian need not live a frustrated life: he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you (8:11). But understanding the danger of the flesh and the law is important—not only for the sake of sanctification, which must be by the Spirit (see Romans 8, Galatians 5, and a previous post of mine), but to give God all the glory for His wonderful provision for us!

Wild at Heart

When doing some house cleaning yesterday, I came upon a copy of Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. I had heard mixed reviews but wanted to check it out for myself before deciding whether to throw it away.

After skimming through some chapters--and accompanied by this essay--, I decided to throw it away. It's just another book that is vaguely Scriptural but more one man's opinions published for the masses. Eldredge oversimplifies aspects of God's character to support his view of God as "wild." He urges men to go out and fight battles in a way that could be done without God. And he panders to the worldly man by calling Bible studies boring but James Bond and Credence Clearwater Revival exciting. Yuck!

My friends, if you ever think about writing a book, think again. And then think again. And then only write the book if your true, faithfully-wounding friends think you actually have something both needed and good to say. And please hold me to the same standard.

P.S.: I think Don't Waste Your Life by John Piper, which I am reading now, has similar themes but is much better informed by the whole counsel of Scripture.

Enjoying Dinner

Are you a Christian who enjoys a good dinner? Who enjoys traveling to beautiful places? Who enjoys watching—or even participating in—a contest of skill between two strong teams?

Paul says in Galatians 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. He also says later, in 6:14, far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. The entire New Testament echoes this theme of death and new life, including Romans chapter 6 which applies it to every believer.

So if all this is true, if the world is crucified to me, how can I enjoy a good cup of tea? How can I enjoy a good dinner, either at home with the family or on a date with Dream? How can you enjoy whatever pleasures you enjoy from the list above? Aren't all these things of the world?

First, the life you and I now live, we live to God. If your enjoyment of pleasures in the world is not living to God but actually pleasing yourself in deviation from God's calling upon you, it is sin. You need to give it up. You need to repent.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Some months ago, for example, I threw away the vast majority of my classic rock music that I used to listen to. I had kept it for a while after God saved me but after He revealed that listening to it was sin for me, I had to throw it away.

That said, however, Paul says in I Timothy 4:2-3 that we may enjoy foods as a gift from God. He says that there are false teachers whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. How do we do this?

Well, enjoying my cup of tea or my date with Dream is God-glorifying, and righteous, if and only if I do so giving thanks to God. And why do I give thanks? I am glad you asked!

First of all, I am a creature of the Creator God. He has a right over me as my Creator to treat me as He wishes. And not only am I a creature, but was (and, in a way, still am) a sinful man, deserving of His wrath! But God, despite all my merit to the contrary, treats me wonderfully! Unlike the Eastern gods and their ascetic followers, God's grace—due to the precious value of Jesus' blood—is abundant! I am not only saved to thereafter sit in "time out". I am not only saved to live a mediocre life and then get nosebleed seats in Heaven. I am saved to live a life of joy on Earth—sometimes joy in suffering, sometimes joy in a Rosemary Baked Chicken—and then pleasures forevermore at God's right hand (Psalm 16:11). Thank you, Jesus, for the food I eat, my hope of Heaven, and everything in-between!

Romans, Death, and Life

When you read Romans 6 and 7, you find many statements by Paul that the Christian has "died to sin" (6:2), has been "buried" (6:4) and was "crucified" (6:6). Though I encourage you to read the whole chapters, but here are some key sections:

How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised form the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For, if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.

(6:2-7)

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [...] Now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive.

(7:4,6)

Now, those who know me know that I am still living in the same physical body I have had since I was born. So what does Paul mean that I, as a Christian, have died or even been crucified?

Well, it revolves around the concept called the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, meaning that Christ died as our substitute: we, as sinful humans, deserved death but Christ died instead—and, even more, Christ deserved life but we sinful humans got life instead!

Now I would say most Christians understand Substitutionary Atonement at this basic level but, paying attention to Paul's wording here, he is taking the concept deeper. My old self—before I became a Christian—was sinful and did not care for God or His law. This self deserved condemnation and punishment. And now, when God looks at me, does He say, "that is one sinful man, but each of those sins was paid for by Jesus, so he owes me nothing?" No. What Paul is saying is that in God's eyes, God killed that man when He killed Jesus. (Yes, it was ultimately God, not Jews or Romans, who killed Jesus. "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him" (Isaiah 53:10). Amazing love!) Let me say again: in God's eyes, my old self is dead. Not only were my sins punished in Jesus' death, but my old man was punished—with death, as required by the law.

And thus the symbol of baptism: our old self enters the water and is "buried with him [...] into death" (6:4) and our new man rises from the water "in a resurrection like his" (6:5). And thus, as well, why Paul is so adamant that the Christian must not sin: it is utterly incompatible with the life we live. I must not say, "well, that was wrong, but it was just one more sin Jesus had to pay for," but instead, "I am a new man now. The old man was the sinner, but this new man is to walk in newness of life."

Now this isn't a brand new truth to me and may not be to you either, but I was quite encouraged as I read and dwelt on this doctrine this morning so I wanted to write about it: mostly for my sake but by hopefully for yours as well. If you are reading this as a Christian, you are raised from the dead! And that is not a metaphor: that is actually how God sees you. So walk in newness of life!

2012 General Election

How I am voting in the Florida 2012 General Election. (It's a beast of a ballot!)

Offices

President and Vice President

Romney and Ryan. I was never too excited about Romney and have lately become disgusted with his campaign (e.g., the Jeep to China thing), but Obama has been terribly divisive, big-government, and opposed to God's moral law. The one thing Romney has going for him in my book is Paul Ryan, who has real ideas for helping our nation and seems to care about implementing them. I hope he can follow through as Vice President!

United States Senator

Bill Nelson. This one is a toughie for me. I think Bill Nelson has been a fair, cooperative senator during his tenure—and I don't think the same could be said for his politico opponent Connie Mack IV. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to abortion while Bill Nelson strongly supports it. Bill Gaylor, and independent in the race, seems on point but a little to rough and inexperienced for a US Senator. If Congress was behaving normally my vote would have gone to Connie Mack just for the abortion issue, but Congress has become so politicized we need people who are willing to compromise and work with each other to solve our nation's problems. Bill Nelson therefore gets my reluctant vote.

House District 8

Richard H. Gillmor. Bill Posey lines up with me on most issues and his office did help me and my wife out with something, but he has been too hardline Republican in his tenure. From a birth certificate amendment to the Grover Norquist pledge, he has shown a lack of wisdom that is "gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and sincere" (James 3:17). We need that kind of wisdom in Washington right now. I am not sure whether Gillmor will demonstrate it, but he shows a displeasure with both parties which puts him on the right track!

State Attorney, 18th Judicial Circuit

Phil Archer, for multiple newspaper recommendations, impressive experience, and a good platform.

State Senator

Thad Altman. His opponent, Dominic A Fallo II, doesn't seem to care much about winning. Altman by default.

Constitutional Amendments

Amendment 1

No. While I oppose any government requiring me to purchase anything just because I happen to live in its jurisdiction, the amendment is too complex and too targeted at a short-term issue. The Florida Constitution has been and may be around for quite some time, so let's keep it simple and future-proof.

Amendment 2

No. Of course I am proud of our American military and its veterans, but we don't need to give veterans every possible benefit and reward for their service. They already receive much through the VA and other laws directed specifically at them, and the benefit of this tax discount is small compared to the unfairness in the tax code that it compounds.

Amendment 3

No. This revenue limit is a solution in search of a problem and has more chance of having negative than positive effects down the road.

Amendment 4

No! Sure, I'd like to pay less property tax, but please don't do it through a super-complicated amendment that favors certain classes of people over others. We can handle this at the local government level, thanks. And my local government is pretty reasonable about how it collects and spends my money.

Amendment 5

A tentative no. I'm pretty happy with how our federal selection process works and, in a vacuum, my tendency would be to move towards it at the Florida level. Our Florida legislature, however, is a little crazy (e.g., the amendments presented to us this year) and I think this amendment is just callous retribution by our legislature on the courts for their rejection of some other amendments. In other words, while I agree with this change on principle, I don't think this is the right time for it.

Amendment 6

Yes. This amendment has two parts: (1) enshrining current law regarding public funding of abortions in the State's constitution, and (2) preventing challenges against anti-abortion laws based on the right of privacy already in the Florida constitution. Even though (1) would have no immediate effect, it is my hope that the abortion issue will eventually be handed back to the states and (1) would help make Florida a pro-life state. (2) also contributes to Florida being a pro-life state but also, and more importantly, prevents opponents of anti-abortion laws from using Florida's right of privacy against those laws. I'm all for privacy rights, but abortion is murder and that trumps privacy rights.

Amendment 8

Yes. I strongly support the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution, but the separation of church and state should end there. The current Blaine Amendment is just another case of the strict secularization of our government which I oppose.

Amendment 9

No. See Amendment 2.

Amendment 10

No. Not sure about the $50,000 exemption, but allowing local governments to raise the exemption further is a recipe for inequality: businesses with big pocketbooks could easily lobby the governments into providing higher exemptions, forcing the general public to bear more of the tax burden.

Amendment 11

No. I like the intent to give low-income seniors a tax break, but the provisions are not well-thought-out. A senior who has lived in his house for 25 years and makes $25,000/year will get the tax break, but a senior who has lived in his house for 24 years and makes $12,000/year will not. The $250,000 value limit is also not indexed to inflation. Let's not pollute our constitution with poorly-done provisions like this.

Amendment 12

No. The current system works OK—at least OK enough that it doesn't deserve a change to the Florida Constitution. This amendment seems to just be the result of an FSU dispute about Florida Student Association fees.

This Spirit and the Flesh

If you are a Christian, how do you think about your sin? Does it disturb you? Discourage you? Defeat you? When you sin, how do you pray about it? Or when you are tempted to sin, how do you deal with that?

These are questions I have been pondering lately, and last night I had a long, weighty conversation with a Christian brother about them.

Who sins?

One important fact about sin is that it is no long a Christian's true self that sins. One of the first things a Christian learns is that his sin is no longer counted against him. When God looks at a Christian, He sees the righteousness of Christ--not as some kind of trick where the Christian hides his sin from God, but as a declaration from God that the believer is righteous. The theological terminology for this is imputed righteousness.

But here am I talking about something a little deeper than that: who, exactly, sins? This might seem like an odd question. Indeed, we find an apparently odd statement in Romans chapter 7, where Paul writes, if I do what I do not want [ie, sin], it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me (v20). What does this mean? How can I say, it is not I that just sinned, when it is clear to anyone watching that it was I who did?

The answer is that Paul is getting very technical here. He is drawing a distinction between the inner man and the outer man. He clarifies this distinction a couple verses down when he states, I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind. Note, here, the distinction between the inner being versus his members, or outer being. Paul also makes this distinction in II Corinthians 4:16 when he declares, though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day.

The Flesh Versus the Spirit

So here is an important point: when a believer sins, it is his outer nature that sins, not his inner nature which is being renewed day by day. This truth has its importance in how we Christians fight sin. When we commit some sin, we must know that it has not stained our new nature that will one day be glorified in heaven; it is only our outer nature, our flesh, which our physical bodies had obeyed momentarily. When we are tempted to some sin, we must recognize that it is a battle of the spirit against the flesh (Galatians 5). So when we pray against temptation, don't pray that the desire will go away (the flesh will never be holy), but pray for power against the flesh! I have made the mistake many times of trying to pray until the desire goes away, but it never will: just the source of the desire, the flesh, will get weaker and weaker.

Here is a silly but maybe helpful drawing my friend and I came up with to show the flesh v. the spirit. Both are part of me, but the spirit, my inner nature, is taking over more and more of my life. The outer nature is wasting away. To show this, I've identified areas of sin that the spirit has noticeably taken over—though I am still susceptible to any of them, which is why each one has at least a little text outside of the realm of the spirit.

Learning these truths lately has given me a great peace and more power over sin, and I hope you can experience this as well!