MENU

Scribblings
Category

On July 31, 2014 By In Scribblings

Psychopathology and Covenant Blessings

Guest Post by Joshua Torrey

Psychopathology, the study of mental disorders, is not a light subject. Attempts to harmonize psychopathology (or psychology in general) with orthodox theology have left much to be desired. The Bible does reveal the mental state of its human authors (namely the book of Psalms) but it is not a textbook on counseling. So one must read books on psychopathology with caution in mind, and Scripture on the heart. On occasion, however, a practical point or reflection stands out unobtrusively and provides insightful depth to Biblical application. Take for example this quote from Christianity and Developmental Psychopathology (CAPS Book/IVP Academic):

“Children are more likely to form secure attachments to their parents when the parents are securely attached to each other. Insecure attachments between parents and children have also been linked to the parents’ own insecure attachment histories, but a secure marital attachment appears to buffer the effects of a parent’s own insecure attachment history” (128).

Marriage has a fascinating two way impact on relationships. A secure marital attachment helps mitigate history of parental detachment while providing a strong home for children. Admittedly, this insight does not undergird depictions of marriage in the Scriptures. Still, it is interesting to view the redemptive nature of God with this additional psychological lens. The prophet Ezekiel summarizes the history of Israel as the rescue and marriage of an abandoned child (Eze 16:3-4). The symbols of a broken home, adoption, and restored dignity are expressed in a heartfelt manner despite the Lord’s anger with Israel. The apostle Paul provides a foundationally eschatological doctrine of a similar adoption (Rom 8:22-25). The image of God adopting a people for Himself points to the breaking off from the history of rebellion and attachment to sin. The church looks forward to final day when this is true in the consummate new creation.

Cratered within Ezekiel’s imagery is the giving of God in marriage to the one He delivered. This language permeates the prophecies of Jeremiah and Hosea as God speaks out against the unfaithfulness of His people. Once again, the apostle Paul picked up this covenantal marriage language in his teaching on Christ and the church (Eph 5:31-32). The imagery is shared throughout the Scriptures. In the annals of salvation history God has delivered a people for Himself with historical and familial attachment to sin. Our Sovereign God breaks his people free from the behavior and addiction of cultures and families. He has broken these bonds and He provides the offspring of the covenant bountiful benefits.

The above psychopathology quote speaks in the same theme as the Scriptures using statistics and observations. Both point to the same set of truths. God’s covenant relationship of marriage is to be a blessing to children (Isa 59:21; Jer 32:38-40). God, in fact, desires “Godly offspring” (Mal 2:15) and so He instructs us to pass on to them our holy attachment to Him (Deut 6:6-9; Eph 6:4). Apart from faith, these truths instill fear of perverting God’s blessing (Eze 16:20). In faith, they are a tremendous blessing of hope.

For those who have grown up in difficult homes ravaged by sin, God’s covenant marriage to the church promises healing. Not only for themselves but also for their offspring. To those who have been abused, mistreated and retain histories of distrust and hatred God’s covenant speaks hope to generations. The Scriptures plainly teach this. Even developmental psychology has detected reflections of God’s desire to heal the world. This hope is not found merely in biological relationships and temporal marriages, just as this hope cannot be lost because of them. Instead, it is founded on the great marriage of Jesus Christ to His church: the sin-conquering marriage and covenantal-attachment that produces benefits in its covenant children.<>подбор слов гуглоптимизации а цена

Read more

On July 29, 2014 By In Scribblings

Richard Dawkins’ World

 dismantles the silly declarations of Richard Dawkins. In her Guardian piece, she traces the maniacal assertions of a man who is “so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he believes the one domain in which he happens to be an expert, science, is the only legitimate way of acquiring or assessing knowledge.” Dawkins builds an entire empire of assertions and trashes anyone who dare confront his scientific appeal. He speaks of the profane and then treats those who view his rants as the indecency of a lunatic as absolutists.

A recent example of this comes from the famous tweets of the All-Learned and Blessed One:

Another day, another tweet from Richard Dawkins proving that if non-conscious material is given enough time, it is capable of evolving into an obstreperous crackpot who should have retired from public speech when he had the chance to bow out before embarrassing himself.

“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse,” huffs Dawkins. Seeming to have anticipated, although not understood, the feminist reaction this kind of sentiment generally evokes, he finishes the tweet: “If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

Suffice to note in this great degree of indecent, inappropriate, and insensitive analogy-twisting is that for Dawkins the concept of evil and greater evil exists. But how does the world of an atheist make sense of any type of evil? Where is the fountain of morality?

Dawkins is truly a crackpot. His hubris has bewitched him. His analogies are grotesque. There is no “worse” in Dawkins’ narrative. There is only unexplained choices, which stem from a non-purposeful universe; the world Dawkins obviously wants us to know he is its intellectual ruler. O, hail, ruler of the absurd!<>компьютерный аутсорсингвойти в гугл адвордс

Read more

On July 21, 2014 By In Scribblings

The Inklings: New Peter Kreeft Lectures

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (73.6MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

60

Dr. Peter Kreeft keynoted the Anglican Way Institute this past weekend for a conference on The Inklings. I know that many of us here at Kuyperian Commentary have been profoundly shaped by the work of the Inklings: C.S Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Dorothy Sayers.

His first few lectures are already available at the Church of the Holy Communion website including a talk on Tolkien’s Silmarillion, a two parter on Lewis’s “Till We Have Faces” and “Creed or Chaos” based on the work of the same title by Dorothy Sayers. 

Click here to listen to the recordings at the Church of the Holy Communion Website.

UPDATE: Kevin Kallsen from AnglicanTV has also posted the videos from the conference. Click here to watch them. 

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King’s College (Empire State Building), in New York City.  He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of over 67 books including Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Christianity for Modern Pagans and Fundamentals of the Faith.<>стоимость обслуживания апродвижение а топ 10 цена

Read more

On July 18, 2014 By In Scribblings

Spurgeon – They Shall Go Hindmost With Their Standards

Today’s meditation from Mornings and Evenings, by Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

“They shall go hindmost with their standards.”—Numbers 2:31.

HE camp of Dan brought up the rear when the armies of Israel were on the march. The Danites occupied the hindmost place, but what mattered the position, since they were as truly part of the host as were the foremost tribes; they followed the same fiery cloudy pillar, they ate of the same manna, drank of the same spiritual rock, and journeyed to the same inheritance. Come, my heart, cheer up, though last and least; it is thy privilege to be in the army, and to fare as they fare who lead the van. Some one must be hindmost in honour and esteem, some one must do menial work for Jesus, and why should not I? In a poor village, among an ignorant peasantry; or in a back street, among degraded sinners, I will work on, and “go hindmost with my standard.”
The Danites occupied a very useful place. Stragglers have to be picked up upon the march, and lost property has to be gathered from the field. Fiery spirits may dash forward over untrodden paths to learn fresh truth, and win more souls to Jesus; but some of a more conservative spirit may be well engaged in reminding the church of her ancient faith, and restoring her fainting sons. Every position has its duties, and the slowly moving children of God will find their peculiar state one in which they may be eminently a blessing to the whole host.
The rear guard is a place of danger. There are foes behind us as well as before us. Attacks may come from any quarter. We read that Amalek fell upon Israel, and slew some of the hindmost of them. The experienced Christian will find much work for his weapons in aiding those poor doubting, desponding, wavering, souls, who are hindmost in faith, knowledge, and joy. These must not be left unaided, and therefore be it the business of well-taught saints to bear their standards among the hindmost. My soul, do thou tenderly watch to help the hindmost this day.

http://www.spurgeon.org/morn_eve/this_morning.cgi

<>ниши интернет магазинов

Read more

On July 17, 2014 By In Books, Scribblings

Dewey’s Pragmatism vs. Poetic Knowledge

poetic knowledge coverHere’s a quote from James S. Taylor’s Poetic Knowledge: The Recovery of Education:

[John] Dewey’s so-called pragmatism, as it filtered down to the masses who largely never read a word he wrote, fit neatly into the American view of education for the good life.  It was perfect, in its popular versions, for the American oligarchic man, that is, the practical businessman seeking not only to retain, but to increase his property and profits. Ideas were important to these descendants of the European industrial revolutions and the new notions of the wealth of nations, insofar as they worked toward increasing the common wealth of the country and the personal wealth of those practical and clever enough to succeed. The typical American businessman had no time for philosophy–he was smart enough to know it required real leisure–but he loved what he understood of pragmatism. Quite often the oligarchic man was honest, hardworking, and fair; he even might quote a poem or two he had memorized and enjoy reciting a verse on special occasions. But how could he ever see the use in pursuing a life of contemplation and leisure, since there was not “use” in these things anyway? And when the needs of oligarchic America begin to be felt in the schools and colleges, when schools themselves became more and more places where the “product” and “commodity” of education was “produced,” then what there was of the poetic mode was assigned to the token English or humanities teacher, so that the students would have a practical sense of literature, history, and philosophy. Then, when schooling was finally over, the student could plunge into the “real world. (p. 102)

That’s as far as I am into the book. This is not meant to be a review of the book, but the above quote seemed a great summary of Dewey’s initiative and the resulting impact it’s had on American education and culture. Here’s a link to Matt Bianco’s full review of Poetic Knowledge on his blog: http://mattbian.co/tag/poetic-knowledge/

Buy the book here.<>online games rpgобслуживание  а яндекс

Read more

On July 16, 2014 By In Scribblings

Joshua’s Covenant Theology

Guest Post by Joshua Torrey

I have been on a hiatus. I have been laying off covenant issues and trying for the most part to play nice with everyone in the theological playground. But recently, I got to listen to the final chapters of my namesake, and it was within Joshua 23 & 24 that I got a profound look at the promises of God and proper Covenant Theology (CT).

There are certainly many varieties of CT. From Murray to Kline, there are great distinctions in the Reformed realm. And now with a growth of Baptist Federalists and New CT, there are large distinctions among Baptists as well. There are theological halfway points in between and on every side. But here in Joshua, I once again found one of the reasons I hold to what I do.

Principally, it is this: that between the fall of Adam and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, God’s covenant community is made up of regenerate and unregenerate members. This is reflected in the dual nature of every covenant. Every covenant has blessings and curses, conditional and unconditional promises. Theologies that attempted to diminish this duality or embellish portions above another only do disservice to the text in the name of systematic theology. I’ll address this a little more shortly. But first the text,

“Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. But just as all the good things the Lord your God has promised you have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has threatened, until the Lord your God has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. If you violate the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you.” – Joshua 23:14-16 (NASB)

Now, set aside the fact that Joshua depicts himself as about to die (this changes the context of “as for me and my house…” though doesn’t it?). Take a look at the perfect duality of God’s covenant administration. Just as He fulfills every promise so He also fulfills the curses. That I apply this duality to the New Covenant founded in Christ often bothers individuals. Hebrews seems to present this blessing/curse motif through typological means. So do many crucial portions of Romans (I’ll address a few texts from Romans shortly). So why do people take issue?

Because for many, a paradigm that permits covenant members to receive blessing or curse, seems to make salvation itself works-oriented. If it’s works-oriented, it’s not of grace. And if it’s not of grace, I’ve undermined the entire doctrine of justification. Thankfully, I don’t believe I have done this or slipped down the slope of such logic.  I don’t believe Peter and Paul are guilty of it when they require people to “call on the name of the Lord” either (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13). The type of works-based salvation that must be rejected is the one the makes works meritorious in nature. In simple terms, it is the concept that a certain action, or set of actions, brings us into good standing with God. I do not support this perspective or this type of theology.

What I support is a theology that God provides salvation to those who have faith because of His grace. Faith is no meritorious work. But it must be done. Those who are to be saved must believe. And according to James, this faith must not be dead (found without works). So how does this impact my view of covenant membership? Let me lay a little ground work and then turn to Paul in Romans 9.

The trap most modern CT falls into is the thought that without faith we should not be counted as in covenant with God. Baptists demonstrate this with their practice of “believers” baptism. And many Presbyterians demonstrate this with their rejection of paedocommunion (waiting instead for a “confession”). But both of these perceive faith in a meritorious sense. An expression of faith brings us into the covenant benefits of God. Instead, I see the Scriptures (and consistent Reformed teaching) saying that God brings us into covenant with Him before faith. Circumcision testifies to this and we see the effects of it in the book of Joshua. It is after being brought into this covenant that the blessings and curses are laid upon the people of Israel. Those with faith receive the blessing of the covenant. And because they know this to be true and have seen it they should also know that those without faith receive the curse.

But do we see this kind of thinking in the New Testament? I think we do quite explicitly,

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” – Romans 9:1-3, 6-7

Here Paul is responding to the theological question of why those with the covenant blessings (Rom 9:4-5) receive curses. And Paul’s point is simple: God’s word cannot fail. Just like in the passage of Joshua, God’s covenant blessings are a reminder to the covenant people that those who shrink back from God will receive the curses. But does Paul apply this type of thinking to the church? I not only believe that he does, but I believe the only way to explain Romans 11:17-24 consistently is from this covenantal perspective. This is why Paul stresses that unbelief and faith are the criteria for this relationship in the vine (Rom 11:20, 23).

Ultimately in soteriology, our faithfulness to the covenant (the fulfillment of these faith passages in Romans 11) cannot be meritorious. Our faithfulness to the covenant is purchased in Christ. In faith we receive the blessing of the covenant because Christ received the curse of the covenant. But there remains those who enter the covenant and trample upon the faithfulness of Christ by their lack of faith (Heb 10:29).

This is where the value of Joshua’s statement comes front and center in practicality. Those seeking to disassociate God’s promises from His cruses unwittingly neglect both. Those who try and pit “conditional covenants” against “unconditional covenants” have missed the entire point. There are no covenants that God has made apart from the fulfillment of His Son. All covenants in this regard are covenants of grace. But there are covenants in which God has permitted non-elect men to attempt the conditions apart from grace. These shall fail and break the covenant bringing the curses upon themselves. And in seeing the faithfulness of God in these curses, we know the faithfulness of God in the blessings of the covenant (Josh 23:15). This is a proper covenant theology. This is Joshua’s covenant theology.<>mobi onlineпродвижение по факту

Read more

On July 11, 2014 By In Scribblings

John Calvin on Land Grabbing, Inflation, and Other Thefts

John Calvin 2

I told you at that place [a sermon on Deuteronomy 19:14] that if a man’s lands are not kept secure, no man will be master of his own possessions, but all will go to spoil and chaos. And surely the maintenance of just weights and measures, of lawful money, and keeping boundaries unchanged, are things that are universally acknowledged. How can men buy and sell, or engage in any trade at all if the coin is not lawful? Again, if weights and measures are falsified, we shall be cheated. What purpose will justice serve any more? And we can say the same for boundaries and landmarks. So then, under this saying [Deuteronomy 27:17] God intended to show that it was necessary for us to observe equity and uprightness in dealing one with another” (John Calvin, Sermon on Deuteronomy 27:16-23).

<> цена контекстная реклама

Read more

On July 6, 2014 By In Scribblings

Rosie’s Rainbow

My children regularly remind me that we are those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:2), which is good, because I often forget.

 
For example, a few weeks ago after a rain, my daughter, Rose, and I were strolling down our driveway on the way to Grandma’s house. (She lives next door.) As we traveled east, the light from the sun setting behind us was broken down into a glorious arc of the visible spectrum, cast onto the sky before us. We were walking straight into an ever-increasingly visible rainbow. Instead of being suspended, it stood on the hills: two feet firmly planted on the horizon–a complete arc in between.

As we walked its brilliance steadily became more and more breathtaking. In her astonishment, Rose inquired, “Why do we have rainbows?” I, her father, her teacher, her guide, began to explain all sorts of things I knew very little about: water, light, angles of incidence and refraction, frequencies, photon packets–well, we didn’t get to photons, but I was hoping we would. She dutifully listened until I finished my very sciency sentence, and then responded, “No. I mean why did God put it in the sky? What was the promise?”

Humbled and grateful, I changed gears. We traveled back to Genesis and talked about Noah, boats, animals, sin, and finding favor in the sight of God. We discussed how God makes promises and keeps promises: that the earth will never again be destroyed by water. We talked about how God and Noah and his family were like God and Christ and the church, like Peter talks about (1 Peter 3). We talked about God redeeming creation in Christ Jesus, like Paul talks about (Rom. 8).

After my second dissertation in 5 minutes, there was a brief pause. Then she said, “I wish I could slide down it into the pot of gold at the end.” Before I jumped in and crushed her living and active imagination with another sagacious lecture, God gave grace, and I replied, “Me too, Rosie. Me too.”

Originally posted at the author’s personal blog here.<>vzlom-viberреклама про гугл

Read more

On June 30, 2014 By In Scribblings

C. S. Lewis: The Poison of Subjectivism

christian reflections“Shortly after his conversion in 1929, C. S. Lewis wrote to a friend: ‘When all is said (and truly said) about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground.’ From that time on Lewis thought that the best service he could do for his unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times–that ‘enormous common ground’ which he usually referred to as ‘mere’ Christianity.” Thus begins Walter Hooper’s preface to his collection of C. S. Lewis’ essays entitled Christian Reflections, published in 1966, just three years after Lewis’ death.

The essays concern sundry topics, but are united under the banner of Lewis’ pristine logic and unswerving commitment to the Christian faith. Here’s an excerpt from the essay, “The Poison of Subjectivism.”

If “good” and “better” are terms deriving their sole meaning from the ideology of each people, then of course ideologies themselves cannot be better or worse than one another. Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring. For the same reason it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words.

All this is so obvious that it amounts to an identical proposition. But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?

He usually has at the back of his mind the notion that if he throws over traditional judgement of value, he will find something else, something more “real” or “solid” on which to base a new scheme of values. He will say, for example, “We must abandon irrational taboos and base our values on the good of the community” – as if the maxim “Thou shalt promote the good of the community’ were anything more than a polysyllabic variant of ‘Do as you would be done by’ which has itself no other basis than the old universal value judgement that he claims to be rejecting. Or he will endeavor to base his values on biology and tell us that we must act thus and thus for the preservation of our species. Apparently he does not anticipate the question, ‘Why should the species be preserved?’ He takes it for granted that it should, because he is really relying on traditional judgements of value. If he were starting, as he pretends, with a clean slate, he could never reach this principle. Sometimes he tries to do so by falling back on “instinct.” “We have an instinct to preserve our species”, he may say. But have we? And if we have, who told us that we must obey our instincts? And why should we obey this instinct in the teeth of many others which conflict with the preservation of the species? The reformer knows that some instincts are to be obeyed more than others only because he is judging instincts by a standard, and the standard is, once more, the traditional morality which he claims to be superseding. The instincts themselves obviously cannot furnish us with grounds for grading the instincts in a hierarchy. If you do not bring a knowledge of their comparative respectability to your study of them, you can never derive it from them.

The essay is only 10 pages long but ought not be despised for its brevity. Its main thesis revolves around an assertion of Natural Law that is common to all men everywhere in every time. He even discusses what Reformed theologians coin the ‘noetic effects of the Fall,’ though he does not use that phrase. Near the end, Lewis discusses the fact that Christianity is trinitarian and how this correct understanding of the God who is helps us reconcile the relationship between ‘God’ and ‘good.’ He surmises “that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it never could have been otherwise; it has no shadow of contingency..”

Lewis concludes with some examples of the practical fallout of subjectivism:

God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.

These may seem fine-spun speculations: yet I believe that nothing short of this can save us. A Christianity which does not see moral and religious experience converging to meet at infinity, not at a negative infinity, but in the positive infinity of the living yet superpersonal God, has nothing, in the long run, to divide it from devil worship; and a philosophy which does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead us only to ruin. Nor is the matter of merely speculative importance. Many a popular “planner” on a democratic platform, many a mild-eyed scientist in a democratic laboratory means, in the last resort, just what the Fascist means. He believes that “good” means whatever men are conditioned to approve. He believes that it is the function of him and his kind to condition men; to create consciences by eugenics, psychological manipulation of infants, state education and mass propaganda. Because he is confused, he does not yet fully realize that those who create conscience cannot be subject to conscience themselves. But he must awake to the logic of his position sooner or later; and when he does, what barrier remains between us and the final division of the race into a few conditioners who stand themselves outside morality and the many conditioned in whom such morality as the experts choose is produced at the experts’ pleasure? If “good” means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his creation.

Follow this link to Amazon to buy Christian Reflections by C. S. Lewis.<>как раскрутить юкоз яндекс

Read more

On June 27, 2014 By In Culture, Scribblings

The Eschatology of Duck Dynasty

Could anyone have foreseen that the Duck Dynasty would become a cultural phenomenon?  It is one of the most watched shows on cable television. According to Wikipedia advertising sales for the show in 2013 exceeded $80 million and the revenue from merchandising exceeded $400 million. Who would have thought in March 2012, when the show first aired, that millions would watch, it would generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, and that it would become one of the most talked about shows on television?   I watched my first episode of Duck Dynasty about three months ago.  I am now working through the second season.  As I watched I asked myself why is the show so popular? What is about bearded, duck call makers that causes millions of people to tune in? I think there are several reasons people watch. There is the “odd” factor. We love watching people who are not like us, who live in a completely different world.  The draw of reality shows is that we get to watch people do things we will never get to do. Second, Jase, Phil, Si, Miss Kay, Willie, are all “characters.”  I grew up in the South.  I met people like them and enjoyed their company. Men attached to their tea, who butchered frogs and wore camo.  Men who were not pretentious, but knew who they were and didn’t apologize for it. Men who liked to blow things up. Men whose eyes had joy and a sadness that said they had been to dark places. Women who were women and happy to be so. People who still enjoyed playing and didn’t take life too seriously. These “characters” add humor to the show, as well as giving the show a sense of truthfulness. And then there is the family dynamic. Many Americans live in broken homes separated from one of their parents and sometimes both. Extended family is usually just as fractured. Grandparents are distant, if they are involved at all. Aunts and uncles are seen only occasionally.  Family matters on Duck Dynasty. A lot of us look at them and wish we could live (and may even work) around our families even if it means sitting next to our crazy uncle.

Duck Dynasty

But this morning as I sat around the breakfast table celebrating my birthday, I thought of another reason why Duck Dynasty might be so popular. All of us long for a happy ending. Tolkien said, “We all long for Eden, and we are constantly glimpsing it: our whole nature at its best and least corrupted, its gentlest and most humane, is still soaked with a sense of exile.”  We all want to get back to the Garden. In our narcissistic age dark endings are all the rage. Hope is lost. We are the “Walking Dead” and “All Men Must  Die.” “Its a Wonderful Life” is disparaged for its rosy view of life. At the end of our show life just fades to black. But as Nate Wilson said somewhere, there really is a happy ending for those who love God. We really do walk off into the sunset. It really is better than anything we could think or imagine. In the end all things will be put right.  What does this have to do with Duck Dynasty? Every episode finishes with a happy ending, with a miniature picture of Heaven. No matter what happens in the first 21 minutes the last 30 seconds picture the Robertson family around the table joyfully eating together.  There may be bickering, fighting, stupid decisions, harsh words, and laziness but the final scene says, “In the end, all will be well.” For all humans, and especially Christians, this taps into something deep that our dark,  narcissistic age cannot stamp out. Since our first father fell in the Garden our hearts have longed for home.  We hunger for the tree of life, for the table of peace and joy where sin is eradicated. We are restless until we find our rest in Him. Every episode of Duck Dynasty gives us a window, albeit an smudged one, into that final day when our faith will become sight.  It gives us a picture of the final return from exile into the promise land.

Revelation 19:9 “Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

People may love Duck Dynasty for its oddness, characters, or its family dynamic, but the reason I like the show is that it points me, in a small way, to that final table when the great family of God gathers to offer praise to the King of Kings. It reminds me that all things do work together for good.  It reminds me that every day I am blessed by my Father and every time I eat with my vine and olive plants I am blessed. Like all things, Duck Dynasty is about eschatology. And they get the ending right.<>seo оптимизация wiki

Read more