If God predetermines ALL things, predestines ALL things, and is the author of ALL things ...
Yet He still has to exert patience with His creation...
And He still found Himself regretting the creation of humanity (at the time of the Flood)...
And if His wrath is accumulating as His creatures break His laws as He decreed for them to do ...
Then not only is He both the divine arsonist and the the divine firefighter, but, truly, under Calvinism, God is His own worst enemy.
I think I might have found my limit. Life has gotten a bit busier ever since I started teaching English as a Second Language classes on Monday and Wednesday nights.
I enjoy teaching the classes and I LOVE my students, but the prep time and the three hour commitment (plus coming and going) twice a week is putting a strain on my energy.
I'm committed through Christmas and then I will need to take a second look at continuing.
My real problem is that beyond everything I am already struggling to juggle, I need some serious time devoted to my dissertation if I am going to get it off the ground.
And so far that just hasn't happened.
We have two more weeks before our fall break trip to visit Hannah - I need to push extra hard this week and next so that I can legit relax for a few days guilt-free.
I intend to make it happen. We shall see.
I thought I would share a couple of random comments from a YouTube video created by a Calvinist who was fishing for critics of John Calvin.
Instead, the responses were overwhelmingly positive - Calvinists turning out to support their guy.
I share them as real life proof for any who doubt that people really buy into the idea that before time begins, God chooses some people for salvation and damns all the rest.
First up is Tony who repeats the Calvinist talking point that when God chooses only a handful for salvation and reserves all the rest for damnation it is all to God's GLORY:
Forgot to hit "publish" last night! ...
Melissa and I went to see Amy Grant in concert tonight in nearby Nashville, Indiana. Meeting my brother Russ and his wife Alecia for dinner before going to see Grant sing some of her biggest hits, a few covers, and some of her "new" songs made for a very pleasant evening.
The last time I saw Amy Grant in concert was over 30 years ago. I was a youth pastor in Le Mars, Iowa at the time and - if memory serves me - we drove to Minneapolis to see her performance.
Amy is a 63 year old grandmother now. Still, she sang and played the guitar for almost two and a half hours. I noticed that not too many fans themselves were under the age of 50.
In between songs, Grant came across as warm and transparent, admitting she hasn't had a hit song in some time and relating challenging moments from her life like the day she agreed to accompany her adult daughter to her therapy session.
I found it curious, though, that she didn't have much to say about her faith or her God. In fact, by the time intermission rolled around, I was considering Googling "Is Amy Grant still a Christian?"
But eventually Grant sang El Shaddai and it came across with so much power and emotion that it brought tears to Melissa's eyes. She said she doesn't remember giving a concert without singing it and she noted how the song has been with her now through significant changes in the seasons of her life.
It made me wish I could sit down with her to hear her faith journey over the last 40 years plus. I bet she has some fascinating tales.
Last Sunday I was preaching on what it means to be God's chosen people and I mentioned that some Christians (i.e. Calvinists) believe that God chooses some people - long before their birth - to be saved and He chooses others - again, long before their birth - to be damned for eternity.
My impression was that many in the congregation found the idea so shocking and inconceivable, that they couldn't believe that anyone really holds this as a theological doctrine.
But it's true.
The most obvious place to find it in writing is the (in)famous Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.
It is not at all uncommon to hear modern American preachers of the Calvinist persuasion quote the Westminster Confession with the utmost reverence.
The issue of predestination to salvation or hell is explored in the third chapter which begins with this surprising bit of doublethink:
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
So the first part of the paragraph claims God planned everything that happens, down to the smallest of details, long before the world was created:
R.C. Sproul famously quipped that if there was "one rogue molecule anywhere in the universe" it would challenge God's sovereignty.
But that also means that God orchestrates the path of every drunk driver, plans out every episode of child abuse, and directs the actions of each genocidal dictator. Throughout all of history.
The Westminster Confession recognizes this problem but goes on to assure us that this does NOT mean that God is the "author of sin" or that he takes away our free will.
And just like that - with a few carefully crafted phrases - the problem is waved away.
Just because God plans absolutely everything doesn't mean that He's responsible for the downside of what He planned, all the intense evil and suffering. Why not? Because Westminster says so.
Problem solved.
Two paragraphs later in the same chapter is where the Confession explicitly teaches that some are chosen for salvation and some for damnation. This particular sentence is downright evil:
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."
So according to Westminster, it's OK that God creates numerous human beings for the express purpose of casting them into hell because ... it's all for God's GLORY.
As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing less than the most detestable slur against God's good character that I can imagine.
Unbelievable that it's been taught and retaught for almost 400 years.
But it has been and still is.
In a discussion on politics, I recently heard someone say, "I sure miss Rush Limbaugh."
Although I would certainly be curious to hear Rush's take on the current presidential campaign, I know that if he were still with us, I wouldn't be listening to his broadcast.
Certainly not on a regular basis and likely not at all.
I use to be heavily into hearing various pundits' opinions on current events and politics, but I weaned myself from all of them - and have been much happier ever since.
These days the only pundit I listen to on a regular basis is Andrew Klavan, whom I consider a talented and wise author and a believer who recognizes the greater importance of culture and faith over the politics of the day. Klavan produces an hour-long video every Friday afternoon.
I guess that means I am not as "well informed" as I used to be, but at least I have my sanity.
And although I don't trust ANY mainstream media reporting these days, I do stay familiar with the headline stories by reading The Pour Over, a coffee-themed current events newsletter with a Christian flavor. It is sent out 2 or 3 times a week, so it's not overwhelming.
In my opinion, it gives a pretty balanced synopsis of major events. Plus, the editors provide links to other outlets if you want more details.
I never do.
If you're interested in giving The Pour Over a trial run, you can subscribe HERE.
There's so much going on with the story of Abraham fathering Ishmael with Hagar at Sarah's insistence - Abraham and Sarah's impatience, the taking of God's promise into their own hands, Abraham's attachment to Ishmael, the bad blood between Hagar and Sarah.
On an earthly level, it's a tale employing all the worst qualities of human nature - and finding it impossible to live together.
And in the midst of this domestic mess manufactured by God's chosen couple, Abraham and Sarah, God acknowledges the suffering of the innocent victims, Hagar and Ishmael.
They don't get to be a part of the chosen bloodline for the Messiah, but they are not just tossed aside. Abraham pleads to God on Ishmael's behalf and God responds with love and grace:
God is not cursing and damning all those who are outside of the chosen bloodline! There is still plenty of room for blessing and experiencing God's goodness outside of the chosen nation.
From the start, Scripture emphasizes that the people who become Israel are chosen for a specific task, not chosen for salvation.
Jesus carries the language of God "choosing" people from the Old Testament times right into the New.
For example, in John 15:12-17.
12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
One of Calvinism's favorite prooftexts are the words of Jesus in verse 16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you".
Stripped of context and placed in the mouth of a standoffish and scolding Son of God, the words come across as Jesus making sure His disciples remember their place: “Listen – keep it straight – don’t you ever forget that I am the One who chose YOU. Not the other way around.”
And because this sentiment is befitting of Calvinism's grouchy, demanding God who is having a bad eternity (of His own making!), and Who is eager to remind even His elect that they are sinners and He is perfect and glorious, I don't know that Calvinists ever consider alternative interpretations of this verse.
But look at the surrounding verses - in other words, the context of this conversation Jesus is having with His disciples: "You're not servants now; you are friends. We are building this Kingdom together and I want you all to love each other deeply as we move this Kingdom forward."
Could it not be possible that this is a deeply loving Jesus who is intent on building up and encouraging His disciples? What if "You did not choose me, but I chose you" means something like:
“I beat you to the punch. When you decided to start following Me, you thought you were choosing Me – but I had already chosen YOU.”
Call me crazy, but I prefer to think of Jesus as being the very embodiment of God's love - the One who chooses us before we even are aware of His presence.
When we understand that God's plan for Abraham was to become the father of a nation which would be distinguished from all other nations because it was the one God chose for Himself after disinheriting all the nations at Babel ...
And when we understand that within that family line, God was working through history to bring about one particular individual who would be The One to bring reconciliation between all humanity and God ...
And that to be a part of that ancestral line would then be quite an honor ...
And that the lives of those individuals in that blessed line would be shaped by that role that God gave them...
(And, by the way, that focus on their lives by God brought them closer to functioning as the Image of God that they were always supposed to be, since now they were being tasked with doing His will and with high stakes.)
Then we start to grasp what the Old Testament meant by "chosen" and "elect". When the twins Jacob and Esau were born to Isaac, only one of them could be part of the family line of the eventual Messiah.
God chose Jacob.
To think that God in that moment was choosing Jacob for salvation and Esau for damnation is a complete misreading of the text.
Way off!
To think that the Apostle Paul equated election with salvation and had that in mind when he referenced the choosing of Jacob over Esau in Romans 9 would be ludicrous. Paul knew what election was.
And what it wasn't.
It took me a long time to realize this, but I am at heart a reading teacher.
Now, I was never interested in the process of teaching someone to read in the kindergarten sense of recognizing letters and the sounds they stand for and the various ways those sounds are blended...
But I have long enjoyed teaching others how to read for comprehension.
Originally my focus was on great classical literature, but in time it grew to include non-fiction as well.
Great fiction feeds the soul. Non-fiction feeds the intellect.
Fiction is a great place to practice empathy and understanding another's perspective. Non-fiction is a great place to practice critical thinking.
The Bible just so happens to be the very quintessence of both fiction and non-fiction.
I always enjoyed teaching reading at the high school level - but it wasn't because I was in love with Shakespeare. My ultimate goal was always to develop my students' reading skills in order for them to gain more from reading their own Bibles.
(Only God knows if I ever succeeded in that - outside of my own 4 kids.)
I think this is why I have found so much fulfillment in preaching.
I am a teacher at heart. And there's no subject more important.
Back when I was teaching high school English, I came across a book that I enjoyed using with my more advanced students. The title is How to Read Novels Like a Professor.
I leaned most heavily on author Thomas Foster's first chapter: "Pickup Lines and Open(ing) Seductions, or Why Novels Have First Pages".
Foster maintained that in the opening paragraphs of a book, a great deal of information is revealed or at least hinted at. Stuff that shapes how one reads the rest of the book.
I would challenge my students to look at the first few paragraphs of Lord of the Flies through Foster's lens - and by golly, what he said was true!
I was reminded of How to Read Novels Like a Professor when I started diving into Genesis as the birth place of every important theme to span the Bible.
Below are some quotes from Foster which pertain in his mind to the opening pages of a novel. I think they also fit the book of Genesis by and large:
"The beginning of a novel is, variously, a social contract negotiation, an invitation to a dance, a list of rules of the game, and a fairly complex seduction." (21)
"It wants to tell us what it thinks is important, so much so that it can't wait to get started. Perhaps more importantly, it wants us to get involved." (21-22)
"The opening of a novel is an invitation to come inside and play." (22)
"The opening is the first lesson in how to read the novel ... narrative style, method of character presentation, revelation of consciousness, dialogue, plot." (23)
We rarely give much thought to the process of READING the Bible in the more academic sense of that word - paying attention to word choice, genre, motifs, themes and such. But we should give it some thought.
I suppose this is yet another frontier where the modern church doesn't go out of its way to truly educate the laity.
"The early church had nothing but the Old Testament. The New Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old Testament lies open in the New." - Randall Terry
I am slowly gaining a new appreciation for - and even a fascination with - the Old Testament. If this had happened before I started seminary, maybe I would have pursued a study of Hebrew.
It's a little embarrassing for this paradigm shift to hit me so late in life and after being in ministry all these years.
My oldest brother, Ryan, told me today that his pastor often says something like, "There's one page in your Bible that you ought to tear out - it's the page between the Old Testament and the New."
I like that.
After all these years I am starting to see the Bible as ONE book.
Sermon preparation has been so useful to me.
The past few months in particular have been fruitful as I seek to clarify in my own mind how the book of Genesis sets key themes in motion - with enough momentum to carry them all the way to Revelation.
Since I am a very visual thinker, here's a little graphic I put together this morning picturing the basic overall movement of Scripture:
What do you think? Anything you would add or change?
I may be partial, but I like it better than this:
You might remember the popular book by Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, published nearly 30 years ago now. I always considered Warren to have done a great service for the American church by pointing out that there was more to being the Body of Christ than attending a weekly worship service.
Warren's book reminded Christians that worship was just one purpose among 5 for which God’s people
have been gathered together.
Maybe it's time to revisit Warren's thesis.
I can't help but notice that while worship is clearly vertical in nature, the other four –
fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and mission – are primarily horizontal. Much
of being a believer is concerned with how we interact with our brothers and
sisters, our neighbors, and the stranger.
These four horizontal purposes of the church could be grouped together under the Biblical term “edification”, which is the “building one another up” which the New Testament urges upon us as believers. There is no indication that the early church was focused solely or even primarily on worship.
If anything, fellowship seemed to occupy most of the early Christians' time.
I think one of the great weaknesses of the modern church is that we continue to assume worship is THE central duty of the church while fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and mission are consigned to the fringes.
Some church members consider them optional add-ons. Others give them no thought whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the culture around us is starving for true connection.
Have you ever seen people turning the word "Bible" into an acronym?
This really sticks in my craw.
What an impoverished view of Scripture! Not to mention what it does to the gospel itself.
All in an attempt to be clever.
This slogan reduces the Bible to a "How To" book full of "instructions" for gaining heaven.
No living and active word of the Lord here, sharper than any two-edged sword.
And what's with the talk of leaving the earth?
If you're a believer, you aren't leaving earth. You're getting a new heaven and a new earth and the Kingdom of God come in its fullness.
All of this becomes much clearer - and life becomes far richer - when you actually pick up the Bible and start reading it.
It’s September and the overnight temps are dropping into the 40s. Soon we'll need to watch the weather closely to know when to bring our houseplants inside.
A year ago, I moved a dahlia into my church office in Sardinia and never took it back outside over the summer. It’s got a nice sunny spot by a window - but it’s not flourishing because I’m not there enough to give the regular watering it needs.
As a result, it’s thin and spindly and it never did flower this summer.
In 1 Corinthians 3, the Apostle Paul uses a garden analogy for God’s Kingdom and says some workers are tasked by God to plant and some to water. And they are not in competition with each other since both serve God’s purpose as He alone brings the growth.
While I am grateful for those who plant in the Kingdom, I am happy to work for Mission Resource where we are called to water! And I rejoice in seeing the growth the Lord brings to brothers and sisters half a world away as they receive what they need to create and sustain successful Kingdom businesses. Families are nourished, kids are educated, communities are served and churches expand.
We have seen many individuals and families bloom as entrepreneurs in incredible ways and it always leaves me wondering how many more across the developing world would bloom if only they had the water they needed.
Since I was looking into Melchizedek this past week and thinking about the Old Testament priesthood in general, I ended up looking at Peter's description of believers all together serving as a "royal priesthood".
I suppose there are many different angles to that analogy. Among them:
Peter goes on to urge his readers to submit themselves to every earthly authority (2:13) and to be willing to suffer for doing good (2:19).
Verse 15 is worth a bit of meditation: "For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men."
How do we silence those who are opposed to God's ways?
By shouting them down? No.
By shaming them? No.
By getting righteously angry with them? No.
Simply by continuing in doing good.
Fundamentally, I see this fact in our call to be a royal priesthood:
On our end, we are not called to be in an adversarial relationship with the world.
Today was a good and pleasant day.
After a slow start to the day, Melissa and I met her mother at the farmer's market downtown. The sun was shining but the air was in the low 60s, an ideal September Saturday morning.
We bought locally grown vegetables, drank coffee and ate a couple of outstanding street tacos. We caught up with a couple of local friends as well as our niece and her husband who always have a tent up to sell their homemade sourdough bread.
I had a conversation with a woman who supports Mission Resource and she took the opportunity to thank me for one of my weekly newsletter article that had inspired her to begin praying the Lord's prayer on a daily basis.
On our way home, Melissa and I were craving more tacos and I suggested a little restaurant around the corner from our house that neither of us had ever visited - and we discovered some of the best tacos we'd ever had were being produced right there in our neighborhood.
In the afternoon, Melissa worked on canning some homemade salsa. I did some work on my sermon and smoked a couple of pork loins.
In the evening, I delivered one of those loins - along with green beans, roasted potatoes, watermelon, and chocolate chip cookies - to the family of a lady in our church who recently had some major surgery. (And she was very grateful for Melissa's cooking.)
Afterwards I took a sharp young high school student to the local pizza place in order to talk about his upcoming baptism.
Once I was back home, to end the day, Melissa and I enjoyed watching a half hour show together online while I enjoyed some ice cream.
Outside of winning the lottery, I'm not sure how the day could have been better. We are blessed.
Sahil Bloom is a writer I am just starting to get to know. Along with 800,000 other people, I subscribe to his email newsletter The Curiosity Chronicle.
I find his perspectives on life useful. As a believer, here's one idea which stood out to me in particular: thinking of life more in terms of Missions than Goals.
Bloom contrasts the two like this:
"Missions are life journeys with no specific end. Missions are not goals. Goals are finite—focused around discrete achievements, with specific ends that create their own problems. Missions are infinite games.
"You do not reach a Mission, you live out a Mission."
And so he has defined a mission in each of three areas of life: the professional, the personal, and health.
So for instance, under health, Bloom has this life mission: "To build and maintain my fitness and vitality to perform at an elite level relative to my age."
I like that. I could adopt that as my own ... although I might tone down the "elite" to "above average". ;-)
I think I already live by mission, but I think it would be a useful exercise to put my missions into words. I need to give it more thought.
What are YOUR missions in life?
This week I am looking into the first notes of the priesthood theme in Genesis and still have much research and thinking to do.
Some scholars say that although they are never called priests, some of the language used to describe Adam and Eve's role in the Garden is connected to priestly duties elsewhere in Scripture.
And then in Genesis 14 along comes Melchizedek out of the blue, blessing Abram and receiving a tithe from him. He seems to be an independent priest of "Yahweh Most High". And he comes bearing bread and wine!
This is the second mention for each of those elements. Bread gets mentioned in Genesis 3:19 as part of God's pronouncement of consequences for Adam and Eve: "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Even more curious is the first mention of wine - occurring when Noah steps off the ark, grows a vineyard, makes wine, and gets himself drunk. (Which leads to some vague sexual misconduct which prompts Noah to bring down curses on his grandson Canaan!?)
But now Melchizedek appears bearing bread and wine and they are for a godly use - as a gift to be shared with Abram.
Later, of course, Aaron's family and the Levites serve all the rest of the people as official, God-ordained priests, mediating between God and man, offering sacrifices, and teaching the Law.
But these priests end up with a very mixed track record over the years. And when they fail in their priestly duties, the people suffer greatly.
It turns out, the Old Testament priesthood - just like the Law - fell short of reconciling humanity and God and needed to be replaced by something better.
Along comes God's Son to live the perfect human life, teach God's Law, and offer the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the people.
But that's not where the priesthood ends. For one thing, the risen Jesus continues in His role as mediator. And secondly, the Holy Spirit comes and enables all believers to become a royal priesthood themselves.
There's much to consider here! And obviously central to the story the Bible is telling.
I listened to a podcast today about how useless the word "literal" is when it comes to discussions about how to read the Bible. Although I largely agreed with his stance, his explanation ended up being unnecessarily confusing.
I guess I would explain it this way: People don't generally speak or write in a strictly literal way, so we should beware of hyper-literal readings of any text - especially something written thousands of years ago in a distant land.
Here's an illustration any parent or teacher will immediately recognize:
Your kid comes home from school and tells you, "My math teacher yelled at me today for not having my homework done."
Do you A) ask your kid why he didn't have his homework ready to turn in or B) make an angry phone call to the principal demanding the math teacher be fired for verbally abusing your kid?
Because you're not an idiot, it doesn't even cross your mind to make that phone call.
You know your child was simply communicating the teacher was irritated over the missing homework.
Fortunately, nobody will berate you as a bad parent for not taking your kid's words literally.
Father Abraham had many sons,
Many sons had Father Abraham.
I am one of them
And so are you,
So let's just praise the Lord.
That was all there was to the song, but after the first run, the leader would shout out, "Right arm!" and we would all sing it again while waving our right arms around. (The boys would take the opportunity to smack each other "accidentally".)
After the second round, the leader would shout, "Right arm! Left arm!" and now both arms flailed. Eventually, we'd all be singing and swinging arms and legs while turning in circles.
I always figured the lyrics were just nonsense, since the point of the song seemed to be nothing more than an excuse for kids to work out some extra energy.
I don't remember anyone ever explaining who Abraham was or what the song meant.
Or in what way I was a "son of Abraham".
Or why that would be cause for praising the Lord.
I don't think I ever suspected that "child of Abraham" was a Biblical concept.
Now as an adult of advancing years, as a pastor, and as a student of the Bible, I have to wonder how the church has come to neglect teaching something so central to the Bible's Big Picture.
Consider that Jesus gave a whole lot more explanation about the necessity of "being a child of Abraham" in John 8 than he did concerning "being born again" in John 3.
And then Paul also expounded on what it means to have Abraham as our father in both Romans and Galatians. On the other hand, I'm not aware that he ever used the phrase "born again" in any of his letters.
My point, of course, is not that being born again is unimportant - it's that what we choose to emphasize from Scripture can be a little random at times.
Being a child of Abraham seems like a big deal - worthy of inspiring more than a silly song.
“God is a mean-spirited, pugnacious bully bent on revenge against His children for failing to live up to his impossible standards.” ― Walt Whitman, American poet
As far as I can tell, Whitman was a Deist and did not shy away from proclaiming a belief in a "universal Spirit" type of God. Apparently, "pugnacious bully" was his term for the God of "conventional religion", which he openly disdained.
I have to admit that his characterization of God is not too far off from what many modern Christians seem to believe. (Of course they wouldn't put it so bluntly or negatively.)
It makes me wonder if Whitman hung out with Calvinists.
This illustrates an important motivation for presenting the gospel accurately - you don't want someone avoiding Christianity and Scripture after rejecting a "God" who is not even the God of the Bible.
A quote worth considering from poet Walt Whitman:
“I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.”
This "scientific spirit" Whitman admired so much is how believers should approach matters of interpretation of Scripture and of doctrine.
Instead, we all too commonly latch onto - unquestioningly - whatever we grew up with or whatever we have heard some charismatic preacher propound for 30 minutes.
