"Peter on the Pond with No Place for Pride"

“Peter on the Pond”
Sermon by Matt Heckel, PhD
8-31-13


Read Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-8

(Attention) Ever wonder what it would be like to be Peter? Crazy, right? Peter lived a crazy life of ups and downs, but he also lived a full life. A life that we are normally scared to live.

(Textual Analysis) Let’s try and relive this story from the vantage point of Peter. Peter is cleaning his nets after a miserable night of fishing. If he could’ve known how it would go, he surely would’ve spent it at home in bed. So Peter is experiencing a sense of loss. He is frustrated. Then he sees a probably most unwelcome sight. A huge crowd following Jesus comes into view. But that will be tolerable if they mind their own business.

But then Jesus just steps in it. Yep, he steps into Peter’s boat and right into his business. Here’s a good word of advise, “Don’t step into a fisherman’s boat uninvited.” Peter must be thinking, “Who does Jesus think he is.” Then Jesus imposes himself on Peter. “Peter, could you push me out a little into the lake so the people can hear me better.” Can you picture yourself as Peter throwing your nets down, walking over to your boat and pushing this preacher out into the lake. You might think, “If he wants a floating pulpit I’ll play along, but he better not get long-winded. I need to get home and crash.”

So the sermon is finally over but we don’t have any record of what Jesus said. Why? Because the most important part of the sermon is about to be lived out. Hearts are going to be revealed and a soul is going to be saved.

Is the Reformation to Blame for Secularism?

Nature and Gay Marriage

Marriage begins in a wedding, which implies the bringing together of two people who fit together. God is the God of nature and he has left in nature a testimony of what goes together and what doesn't. We don't need a degree in anatomy to see the obvious.

Nature has not equipped people of the same sex for sexual union. Do we need further proof? Those unions don't have the "innate" ability to reproduce. In other words, reproduction isn't natural to those unions. The receiving of children to those unions is artificial and thus not endorsed by nature or nature's God.

Now what state would have a problem recognizing that nature of things? Maybe a state separated from nature and nature's God. The two go together, don't they. If we reject God we lose our common sense grip on the nature of things. We start thinking that we can make nature conform to us, instead of conforming ourselves to the nature of things.

This is not to deny that same sex attraction is a real thing. But when we start thinking that any desire we have is natural, we can justify anything. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we are fallen. Something has gone wrong with our sexuality, and nature and nature's God stand as a testimony to that fact. Our desires need to be directed toward the Good as defined by nature. What state cannot recognize this fact? Our state? I hope not.


Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34 ESV)


Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
(Psalm 2:10-12 ESV)

Neither Teen Nor Old-timer in Christ

In The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager Thomas Hine documents how advertisers purposely try to play up the differences between the generations in order to sell them their own unique identity. This is the main reason why the "teenager" was identified as a new social class in the mid twentieth century and the "emerging adult" more recently.

When churches have a hipster service and a traditional service are we not segregating the generations as well? If Paul were writing to the church in America today, would he point out that their is neither teen nor old-timer in Christ?

We have been part of a small group for years where our kids have mixed with people the age of their great-grandparents. I have been so grateful for this influence and shudder to think of teens, emerging adults, and other social groups who are isolated in their own "taste communities" and are never exposed to the richness of older and younger generations.

Let's desegregate, shall we?

Whose Story Is This?

Last night the fam and I watched Mirror Mirror, and I found it delightful over all.

There were problems like (spoiler alert) the king doing a wedding. Not only was there no minister but the king pronounced the couple man and wife "By the authority invested in me ... by myself." Yikes! That's a recipe for tyranny worse than that of the wicked stepmother. Douglas Wilson recently quipped that a despot was anyone who didn't recognize any authority above himself.

There were also the modern slang updates such as the queen referring to Snow as "high maintenance."

At the outset I was very uneasy that this would be a postmodern retelling as the film opened with the queen narrating. She in fact called it "her story." But in the end good triumphed and the queen confessed that this was Snow White's story after all.

That is really the question in the culture war. Whose story is this? Is it the story of Jesus the Messiah, Allah, World Soul, or the secular elites? Since it is Christ's story we are called to play our role with all our might and leave the plot twists, climax, and conclusion to him.

The Sucking Canvass of Nothingness

I heard a portion of an interview with Woody Allen on NPR on my way to teach class. Allen confessed that it is hard to find any pleasure in life because of the human predicament hanging over every happy moment.

This means, for Allen, that every enjoyment is not pointing beyond itself to the Joy of joys but is, in his words, "ephemeral." Allen has made atheism the canvass of his life. Whatever pleasing strokes he brushes on are immediately absorbed by the sucking canvass of nothingness.

This has reminded me that life without God is painfully subjective. But life with God guarantees an objective reality that our senses were created to know, and Scripture declares that God has personally entered that reality and we are part of his business of redemption. Let's join the family business!

Language and its Detractors

We tend to forget that the postmodern skepticism about language is communicated through language.

The Problem with the Sovereign Self

Sometimes post modernity is an amplification of modernity. For instance, both take for granted the sovereignty of the self. In modernity the self could know all. In post modernity, the self has to be more modest. Reality is too slippery, so let it go slip-slidin'-away. It's a beautiful destination right?

Right, except there are no standards for beauty except what the individual likes. So this leads me to the sovereign self of post modernity. The self is sovereign not because it can fit the universe into its brain but because it can remake the universe in its own image. That is as long as it doesn't run roughshod over someone else's sovereign self. So we live for pleasure in splendid isolation. Not too comforting is it?

Christianity has a unique opportunity to say to the modernist that we can reliably but not exhaustively know the world, and, to the post-modernist, that skepticism is not the final answer. This is because we are created by the Logos, in the image of the Logos, and thus our reason and senses were made to know the world. So we can say yes to certainty AND humility. Reason is made to know the world of God's natural and special revelation through the senses. Thus, the self is not sovereign but is its true self under God in Christ.

Statements of Faith

Rationalism puts faith in reason.

Empiricism puts faith in experience.

Postmodernism puts faith in individual autonomy.

Christianity puts faith in Christ and his revelation.

The Spirit of Modernity

Modernism broke up the medieval synthesis and tried to hold civilization together with science and statecraft. Postmodernity reduces modernism to individual autonomy, and is thus not only a critique of modernity but a salvaging of its spirit.

Post-modern Fascism

Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview by Gene Edward Veith

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Veith distinguishes modern, monocultural fascism like that of the Nazis from the postmodern, multi-cultural fascism of liberal governments. Fascism asserts control through the state and media propaganda and is hostile to any notion of a transcendent God. Fascists prefer a spirituality of immanent gods, goddesses, and spirits, because these pose no threat to state authority. Veith argues that this explains why both kinds of Fascists hate traditional Judaism and Christianity.

I would argue that Fascism is ultimately self-defeating, because the only way to defy God's transcendence is to make itself transcendent. This happened explicitly in Nazi Germany and Italy and the state has been extending itself over liberal governments throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the Judeo-Christian worldview God defines the state and the individual. Under Fascism the individual gets to define himself under the state.

Veith's book is an Eye-opening good read, but the thesis suffers a little from a lack of primary source material. I think Veith needs to establish a historical link between modern and postmodernism fascism. Otherwise we are left with guilt by association. For instance, Veith seems to imply that since both groups have the same artistic views there is a link. But correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

View all my reviews >>

Losing Confidence

After the post-modern turn, we are suffering from a loss of confidence in at least two areas. We question the reliability of our senses to put us in touch with reality, and the reliability of our words to convey it.

Confronting an Obamanation

The Pope just met with President Obama and challenged him on his abortion and stem-cell research positions. Obama promised to read the Vatican's statement on bioethics. Click on the title to see an article. Please join me in praying that Obama would rethink his views on abortion and stem cell research, repent, and that we would follow him in that repentance. A Damascus Road experience wouldn't hurt either Lord.

The Abolition of Platonic Man

The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
The Abolition of Man is probably the most philosophical of Lewis' works and maybe the most relevant. He's absolutely prophetic of the our post-modern times.

In the classical view the head ruled over the passions through chest. The chest represents our heart or affections. The mind was to inform and direct the will toward the good and thus suppress the lower passions.

Today the direction of influence is reversed. Our hearts are no longer nourished by permanent truths. Relativism has ripped out the chest. The lower passions are released and corrupt the mind. Reason justifies sin and puts all hope in technological progress to save us from the consequences. There's no need to reform our behavior because we've got medical cures for everything from unwanted pregnancies to sadness.

Man has been abolished! While Lewis' classical understanding of man is biblically informed, I would say that reason is not necessarily the highest or ruling faculty in man. It is already as sinful and self-justifying as the passions. Sometimes we will what is right when our minds cannot grasp the truth and must bow to faith. "The heart has its reasons which reason knows not," said Pascal. Sometimes Lewis was too Platonic for his own good, but I fully agree with his thesis that the image of God is effaced more and more as we think we can define ourselves and create our own good.

View all my reviews.

Does It Have to be Fake to be Real?

"Deconstruction" is the post modern approach to all constructions or interpretations of reality.  It has both a positive and negative pole. On the positive, it says examine texts for ways in which they undermine themselves or seek to manipulate the reader. Thus deconstruction can play a positive role in critical thinking about texts and authors, and is especially helpful when applied to yourself.

On the negative side, many post-moderns use deconstruction to reduce everything to power. Thus the deconstructive move sees a power-play behind every text or construction of reality and seeks to expose it. When you point out that deconstruction itself is a power play, many say yes, and more power to me! 

Positive deconstruction can develop a healthy skepticism in us. Negative deconstruction produces cynicism. Post-moderns of the more radical type assume that there's a rip-off behind everything that wishes to be taken seriously or on its own terms. Behind every facade of sincerity lurks a manipulative grab for power. It tries to come to grips with reality by exposing the fakery in everything.

 I was discussing movies with a friend recently and mentioned one of my favorites, which he dismissed as guilty of  sentimentalism because of its happy, romantic ending. He suggested another movie where there was a romantic triangle between a girl and two suitors and the plot built  suspense over which one she would choose. She died before she could declare her choice, but she left a letter to the one she rejected. The letter was never delivered to the rejected suitor, and he was left to believe that his love was not spurned. My friend told me that this was more real than my movie, to which I responded, "What's more real about that?" 

What makes an unhappy, tragic ending more real? Is it more real for someone to be deceived or fulfilled? If the Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall, and redemption is the Truth, then why don't happy, fulfilling endings resonate more than sad ones? Have we imbibed the spirit of the age if we think it has to be fake to be real?