Inadequate in Myself

The Role of Consequence in Understanding the Biblical Text

2011-01-12T11:30:00.000-06:00

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Galatians 6:7-8, ESV)

In an earlier blog post I dealt with the issue of blaming God for sin. I tried to bring some semblance of balance in understanding the interplay between life’s occurrences and God’s sovereignty. Whether or not I did that successfully is for each reader to determine for themselves. One of the implications, however, of the discussion that was most important for me was the understanding that as moral agents we are responsible for actions and their consequences. This truth not only has implications in understanding God’s sovereignty, however, but also I believe in interpreting Scripture regarding matters that may not be directly chastised or addressed in the WORDS of God, but through which He speaks in the consequences that take place either through His direct intervention or through the law of “reaping what you sow” that He has built into the universe.

When interpreting Scripture people are almost always looking for the “hidden” in the text. This is true for the positive reason that we believe the Bible to be the key to life and we don’t want to miss a thing God might have to say to us. But it is also driven by the negative reality that we want to feel like we picked up on some special insight that no one else has seen – that is we are motivated by pride. The result of both of these elements is that sometimes you find believers (often times preachers) bringing things that are either contrary to standard interpretations or just novel in their approach. Such moments can be enlightening and helpful, but they can also be quite damaging.

I remember the first church I served on staff at, the pastor was preaching from John 8 on the woman caught in adultery. I don’t remember much of what he said, but I do remember toward the end of the sermon he made the comment – “I want you to notice here that Jesus never forgave this woman’s actions.” To this day I am not certain where he was going with his point because I was so shocked by the statement, I didn’t hear anything else. My professor at Wayland offered some wisdom on the statement when he told me that the pastor was doing what a lot of us do when it comes to the Scripture – looking for something novel to point out.

Over the years as a professor and pastor, I have encountered this phenomenon over and over (I have probably even fell prey to it myself a time or two) – Individuals making a case from silence. This is indeed dangerous. But the opposite can be dangerous too – that is, sometimes we ignore something God wants to say through the text because we are looking for an overt statement, when the consequences speak just as clearly.

I hear people sometimes say, “Notice, God never says…” and then proceed to say that since He didn’t speak directly to the matter, He must be ok with what took place. Sometimes it is used to rehabilitate a biblical character. I recently listened to a sermon in which the preacher was trying to correct the negative portrayals of Jacob that too often occur in pulpits today. He made a lot of good points about aspects of Jacob and Esau’s story that are often overlooked, but in the process of “saving” Jacob’s reputation, he went too far the other way in almost removing any sense of wrong doing on Jacob’s part – and his whole case was built on the lack of Divine reproof of Jacob anywhere in the text.

Another example of this practice from a different angle is that of people who wonder why the Bible never says anything about polygamy (multiple-marriages) or says anything directly negative about slavery. The assumption is somewhat present that since God did not address these things, He must have approved of them. If that is the case, why are we against them, etc…

In both types of arguments that occur, the problem with the suppositions that come out is that people miss the unspoken reflections of consequence that God often communicates. For instance, the preacher making the observations about Jacob missed a lot of background material that would speak to the negative aspects of his actions, but more importantly to the argument here, he missed the consequences of the actions Jacob undertook that played out in the story (having to say goodbye to Rebecca – never seeing her again; not having anywhere really to go because both his past exchanges left him trapped between Laban and Esau, and many others). Similarly with the Biblical text sets a clear standard for marriage in the relationship of Adam and Eve (Paul makes this clear in his multiple allusions to the couple when discussing marriage) and then in every single instance of polygamy outlined in the Scripture showing its negative impact on the overall relationships involved. Even in those places where one might say there was “blessing” involved (Jacob’s multiple children), one can hardly look at the dynamic described between the women and Jacob and even their children and say, “Yes, the multiple wives of Jacob clearly was a good thing.” God often sets up a standard and then lets consequences take their toll.

With slavery, even a cursory examination of how God approached the subject versus how the surrounding culture did, will demonstrate that He was not pleased with the matter and sought to move Israel to a totally different mindset toward the institution. This highlighted all the more through the writings of Paul in Philemon where almost all the mores of the institution are thrown aside in favor of the new creatures Christ had made both Philemon and Onesimus. God doesn't have to directly speak on a matter in order to address it.

When interpreting the Bible it is essential that one attempt as much as possible to get the whole picture. Words matter and where God speaks, we need to give those realities added weight because words remove some of the ambiguousness or “guess-work” in interpretation. But we also need to be cognizant of what God is saying by simply letting the consequences run their course and the people harvesting what they have planted.

This is true also in life. God can indeed speak through consequences. But we always need to be careful to look at the whole picture of His revelation and to let the sure Word of His revelation define the sometimes murky word of actions and their fruit.

Christians and the Lies they Tell

2010-10-11T09:01:00.006-05:00

"I hate and abhor all falsehood, but I love your instructions." (Psalm 119:163, NLT)

The process of communication is a difficult one. There are so many places where miscommunication and misunderstanding can take place. Which makes it all the more confusing as to why someone would add into that difficult mix half-truths and dishonesty.

As a pastor I try very hard to navigate the path of being responsive to my member's needs, perspectives, and feelings. As a person who believes in the biblical principle of congregational government (a subject for a later blog entry I am sure) I believe it is even more important that I listen to members and their concerns as we plot a course for our journey of faith and commitment. What I have been surprised at over the past year, however, is how often the truth is illusive, or when present – taken to be dishonest or manipulative.

Somewhere we have bought into the lie that there are not people of integrity anymore so that when we encounter it, we respond only with mistrust.

When I first came to WHBC, the church had some issues of staff relations with certain groups within the congregation. One of my early goals was to try to move through the dysfunction of the relationship and to chart a new course for how we would relate. I was (and still am) convinced that the most appropriate way to deal with such a situation was to make everyone aware of perceptions that were held by the varying groups. It seems to me that resolution is never acquired as long as people are not being honest. I knew there might be some initial hurt, but if it were handled with gentleness and clarity, I also knew we could make the journey and come out on the other side stronger than before. To my dismay and surprise, the response I received was not one of mutual honesty and forthrightness, but instead it became clear that the parties involved somehow saw in my openness an ulterior motive. The very thing I was trying to achieve was impossible because honesty was seen as scheming.

Somewhere we have bought into the lie that Christians can’t feel sorrow.

Going back to my time at SWBTS and more recently in the church I have repeatedly met with people who say one thing when we talk and then turn around and do just the opposite. There seems to be a tendency on the side of Christians to put as positive of a spin on things as they can. Sometimes it goes so far as to be dishonest in the midst of a conversation, but to then live lives in the realm of the hurt, disappointment, or fear that they are actually feeling. As a pastor (or even just a friend) how can I lead people in the correct direction and minister to them effectively if they are not honest with me, or maybe even honest with themselves? The biblical church is built upon interdependence and trust. This means we let people know about our hurt, we let people know about our needs, and if we disagree with something we have the fortitude to speak to that disagreement – with love and patience. I don’t think my experience is unique on this matter – the Casting Crowns song “Stained Glass Masquerade” makes this clear:

Is there anyone that fails
Is there anyone that falls
Am I the only one in church today feelin’ so small

Cause when I take a look around
Everybody seems so strong
I know they’ll soon discover
That I don’t belong

So I tuck it all away, like everything’s okay
If I make them all believe it, maybe I’ll believe it too
So with a painted grin, I play the part again
So everyone will see me the way that I see them

Chorus
Are we happy plastic people
Under shiny plastic steeples
With walls around our weakness
And smiles to hide our pain

But if the invitation’s open
To every heart that has been broken
Maybe then we close the curtain
On our stained glass masquerade

Is there anyone who’s been there
Are there any hands to raise
Am I the only one who’s traded
In the altar for a stage

The performance is convincing
And we know every line by heart
Only when no one is watching
Can we really fall apart

But would it set me free
If I dared to let you see
The truth behind the person
That you imagine me to be

Would your arms be open
Or would you walk away
Would the love of Jesus
Be enough to make you stay

Well if the invitation’s open
To every heart that has been broken
Maybe then we close the curtain
On our stained glass masquerade

Is there anyone that fails
Is there anyone that falls
Am I the only one in church today feelin’ so small
Words and music by Mark Hall , Nichole Nordeman

I don’t know the answer. But I do know that somewhere and somehow all of Christianity has to realize we need to discover a passion for honest exchange. The Church cannot be the Church unless we can say with the Psalmist - "I hate and abhor all falsehood”

ANY THOUGHTS? And you can be honest :-)

Christians and the Lies they Believe

2010-10-04T09:42:00.000-05:00

The Scriptures are full of admonitions to practice discernment in whom you listen to and what you put forward as truth. We’re instructed to guard our hearts (the seat of the will) [Proverbs 4:23], to walk with carefully measured steps [Eph 5:15], and to be careful of with whom we associate [Ps 1:1]. Such warnings bare out the truth of the importance of a good reputation and how easily it is lost when we link ourselves with a lie and put it forward as if it were truth. Most of the Christians I know would not purposefully set out to deceive or pass on bad information, and yet I am surprised at how many times people pass on information without checking its accuracy. Usually, the mistake is made when we pass on some story or insight that agrees with something we believe to be true on the surface, and since we agree with the premise the facts must be right.

I don’t know how many times I have been approached or e-mailed a story using the evidence of people like David Barton, Ron Wyatt, and countless others who have repeatedly been shown to present information that is either built on half-truths, false evidence, or sometimes even outright lies. But because their premise is something we generally want to believe or agree with we push it forward because here is an “expert” who is supporting the idea of America as a Christian nation or the accuracy of Scripture or some other point of controversy in our struggle for recognition and validation. It seems our desire to be “right” is often so strong that it overrides our common sense.

I am certainly not saying that America doesn’t have a Christian heritage or that the Bible is historically inaccurate. What I am arguing is that when we take those beliefs and seek support for them from disreputable or untrustworthy sources we ultimately end up undermining ourselves in the end.

Lies are lies - regardless of the source. Find a reputable and trustworthy source through which to check information you receive, and don't pass on information that you have not personally verified. Your reputation and the reputation of the faith you hold is at stake.

Why I am No Longer a Calvinist - Summing Up

2010-09-26T10:26:00.003-05:00

I know I haven't answered all the issues that are present in the system of Calvinism, nor will this entry finish the task. However, I am going to wrap up some thoughts here so that I can move onto other things. I will return to various outstanding matters in the weeks ahead.

Each of the remaining points of Calvinism largely grows out of the first, with which I have already dealt. For me, it wasn’t any of these points that caused me to question Calvinism directly, though a couple of them manifest the worst characteristics of systems and how they become the dominant question to be sought rather than Scripture.

For instance, Limited Atonement really cannot be found in Scripture anywhere (in fact there are numerous texts that argue otherwise); however, the logical necessity of the belief must be defended and argued because the other points require it and because without it – within this system, one ends up with universalism. That is, the argument usually pursues the direction of the Sufficiency of Christ’s blood and that if He didn’t die for only the elect, then by definition everyone must be saved. Of course, this argument, while logical, fails at the point of understanding the role of antinomy and paradox in the whole issue of who God is and how He relates to humanity. Indeed, Limited Atonement is one of those places where Calvinism has failed to let the text take priority over the system.

Logic has its limits. This is not to say that logic has no place in Christianity or that Christian beliefs cannot be understood, discussed, and even to some degree proven within the realm of reason and rationality. Rather, it is to say that there are moments in many experiences (love for instance) where our capacity to explain, assess, and logically see something to its end come up short and we must simply step back and say, “Well, that’s just the way it is.” One has to wonder how small one’s god truly is if at the end of the day we can say that we can define and explain all of his steps and ways through which he relates to us.

Concerning Grace…Glorious, Amazing, Unmerited and wondrous Grace. Grace is that activity of God that engages us where we are and transforms us into something new. Grace is not a passive activity in which God looks at our sin, shrugs in resignation, and says, “Oh well, I guess I won’t judge that sin today.” NO! Grace is the active attack from God on our sin in which He declares victory over sin, equips us in a new and powerful way to confront sin in our life and to walk in victory with Him. To take something of such power and awesomeness and to try to juxtapose it with our free will is non-sensical. We shouldn’t understand the work of God’s grace and our free will as two opposing views of our relationship with God – they are not even in the same league. To try to pit them against each other is to limit God’s grace and elevate man’s choice beyond its capacity. For me to say that my decision to follow Christ is part of the process of salvation is not to say that my decision explains salvation, makes salvation possible, or is any way a meritorious work on my part. Just as orthodox Christianity doesn’t look at God and Satan as two opponents in a struggle of equals, but still holds to Satan having real influence, decision making capabilities, and baring responsibility for many things – without subverting God’s sovereignty, I can’t see how me saying, “Yes, my decision to follow Christ plays a part in salvation,” challenges the concept of salvation being by Grace, through Faith and that it is entirely a work of God.

Election in Scripture often has more to do with privilege than exclusion. Even the vanguard of Calvinism’s view of double predestination – Romans 9-11 – contextually has more to do with God showing PRIVILEGE to a certain group than it does to the eternal destiny of anyone discussed. His hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was not to destroy Pharaoh, but for the sake of spreading His word. At some point I will return to Romans 9 in particular, but I will simply say at this point that it is NOT the great disposition on eternal destinies that Calvinism often tries to turn it into – the context of Paul’s explanation of God’s purpose of working THROUGH different groups clearly suggests otherwise.

In summation, I left Calvinism because I believe that the system upon which it stands strains credulity when it comes to adequately dealing with the biblical subjects of anthropology and soteriology; and even Christology to some degree. I believe that God is absolutely sovereign and whatever He desires to happen will happen, but I also believe that somewhere in the mystery of what He has determined to do with humans, He has provided a way for REAL relationship, response, and responsibility. I think Jeremiah 18:1-11 best sums my theology of relationship:

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words." So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 'Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.' (ESV)

The passage highlights God’s sovereignty via the image of the potter, but in the midst of the revelation God reveals that humans differ from clay in that we are capable of response. The result is that OUR RESPONSE in some way has an impact on God’s plan. Why? How? To What Degree? I don’t know – but I do know that this passage and many just like it make it clear that what we have a relationship with God – a relationship in which we do play a part.

Blessings!

Why I am No Longer a Calvinist, Part 4: Total Depravity - Some Cursory Thoughts

2010-09-16T19:50:00.007-05:00

“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe neither in the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience.” – Martin Luther

The irony of using someone’s words who would have accepted most, if not all, of the “Doctrines of Grace” should not be lost on anyone. Of course I don’t mean to imply that my observations come close to the scope, the importance, or even the learnedness of Martin Luther’s fight against the errors of the Church in his day. Rather, I am simply reflecting on the fact that there is an appropriateness to revisiting issues of interest and concern in light of Scriptures teachings – for the Christian, this is not only appropriate, it is necessary. Starting today I will begin addressing the primary elements of Calvinism, commonly identified as the 5 points of Calvinism. As I have previously stated, I understand that they work together and lean on each other. I understand that different Calvinist’s will address these issues differently as well. What I am attempting to engage are the perspectives of these points as I held them, as I commonly hear them presented, and as some of the major proponents of the views held them.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY/HUMAN INABILITYAlready in the modern rendition of the doctrine (“Human Inability”) this point has undergone some softening in expression, though the undercurrent of its purpose and position is still present. The doctrine, at first glance, appears to be built upon some almost ill-refutable evidence – the verses that relate to man’s utter sinfulness, the necessity of drawing for response, and the enmity between God and man are too numerous to even begin to list here. But do these passages amount to a support of Total Depravity as described and defined by Calvinism?

The Synod of Dort Canons, from which the 5 points get their organization and definition, explain Total Depravity as:

All people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.
The statement is plain enough and the general bent of the statement can hardly be disputed. Yet, there are specific elements of the doctrine that I believe go beyond the biblical evidence. Furthermore, in discussions about this doctrine, certain texts are either ignored or minimized which I believe are devastating to the position.

"Conceived in sin and born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good"
This statement can be said to be the classical expression of the doctrine of original sin. Though this doctrine has been expressed to varying degrees as a marker of orthodoxy, there is actually a wide variety of expressions concerning it that span the history of Christianity. In essence, the question centers on the relationship of humanity to the sin of Adam. Generally speaking the positions can be divided into three groups (these groups are not original to me and can be found in a number of sources): Influence, Infection, and Inclusion.

The group whose belief is best represented as “Influence” argues that the relationship of Adam’s sin to ours is merely one of influence and that any connection beyond that is largely imagined or over-stated. Pelagius (branded as a heretic by the Council of Carthage [418]) essentially argued this position. The full extent and nuance of his teachings are not known because we only know of him from his enemies and such people can hardly be counted on to fairly express nuance in an argument. Still, one would have to argue that there doesn’t seem to be anyway one can read passages such as Romans 5 and argue that this position (as it has come down to us at least) is consistent with the biblical expressions of Adam’s relationship to the rest of humanity.

The group whose belief is characterized by the word “Infection” generally argues that humanity has been infected with a sin nature because of Adam’s fall. This infection so influences mankind that all will sin and, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, will gravitate toward sin at all times. Regarding the sin in a human, this group would state that all humanity shares in the influence of Adam’s sin, but not the guilt of his sin.

The final group can be described adequately as the “Inclusion” group. This group argues that all humanity (from the time of conception on) shares not only in the influence of Adam’s sin but that all humanity was in fact present in a sense at the first sin and is included in the guilt of Adam’s sin. This clearly is the group to which the Synod of Dort belonged (and to be fair, much of Christian history has belonged).

“Inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin”
There is little one could really argue against this position, except perhaps some important arguments over what “dead in their sins” would mean. Obviously the phrase is a biblical one and so on the surface might seem like a non-negotiable. I would argue that as a status it is indeed non-negotiable; however, the implications of that status is where I will depart from classical Calvinism. When Paul talks about being “dead in sin” does he mean that humans are completely incapable of any response to God? The writers of Dort did not think so, they observed:

“There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.”

The theologians of Dort were far more careful than their modern counterparts in how they phrased their statements – terms go undefined and there is a broadness to their expressions that allows them to work in a variety of contexts. When, however, these expressions are taken in context with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace/Effectual Call one comes away with a perception of “dead in their sins” and “slaves to sin” that goes so far to suggest that even the good people do is sin and a transgression against God. One finds even some of the foremost modern Calvinists making arguments that twist texts like Romans 14:23 “whatever is not from faith is sin” to apply to the human condition, even though Paul in this passage is clearly talking to Christians about the reasons they do things and not with the issue of man’s nature. Indeed, this is the crux of where I eventually separated from Calvinism. Often to argue for the system, I found myself (and those who believed like me) applying texts in directions the biblical writers never intended them (more on this below).

"Regenerating Holy Spirit"
This phrase also has wide appeal within Christianity. Who could argue against the need for the Holy Spirit to regenerate the dead man and make him alive to salvation? NO ONE! But the problem comes in here in the order of events. For the Calvinist sold out to the doctrine of Total Depravity as described in their system, this regeneration MUST PRECEDE faith. In other words, a person must be brought to life in order to then find life. To be fair Calvinists will distinguish between regeneration (bringing to life) and justification (declaration of salvation) and so those who argue against the position are often misrepresenting the argument because they are treating the two as one. Kept separate, I can certainly see the logic in the argument; however, I don’t see anything in Scripture that would distinguish the two realities to the degree that Calvinism does – especially as it pertains to the matter of being made a new creature, alive, and one in Christ are almost always put into the singular work of justification.

Some concepts that I couldn’t ultimately answer:
In my journey out of Calvinism, there were certain issues I never could answer. Certain biblical concepts related especially to the doctrine of Total Depravity that didn’t measure up.

The Inclusion View of Adam’s Sin and Humanity’s Sin – As I looked at Church history and the theological arguments of proponents of this view, I never have been able to reconcile this belief with the person of Jesus. If we are going to argue that to be HUMAN is to be under the guilt of Adam’s Sin and to possess that sort of separation, then there is indeed a problem with a belief in the complete humanity of Jesus. Catholic theologians recognized this and developed the concept of the immaculate conception in which Mary’s birth was of such a nature that she was separated from the taint of Adam’s sin and could therefore bare the Christ child without passing on the guilt to him. Other’s have sought to find other means with which to deal with this matter, but from where I sit, all of them result either in a fictitious order of events not represented in Scripture or in some way rejecting some portion of Christ’s humanity.

Dead in Sin – The position of Calvinism that all that man is capable of is rebellion prior to regeneration does not seem to me to mesh with Scripture. First of all, I think it ignores the fundamental doctrine of Imago Dei – that is, that man was created in the Image of God. Though we would certainly have to admit that the Image has become distorted to a great degree, the image still persists according to Scripture (Gen 5) and man is still capable of choosing right and wrong (God’s instructions to Cain seem abundantly clear on this matter Gen 4). It seems to me that Paul’s discourse is indeed talking about a status, but without ever going to the full extent of the implications of that status that Calvinists generally appeal to.

What I believe On this Matter:
Man is totally helpless regarding salvation apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean that man won’t seek God (I think both history and Scripture bare out that he will), but that he will mess up that search and will be unable to reach any sense of truth apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe that truth comes from the word of God - “faith comes from hearing.” I believe that God moves through the revelation His word to the heart of man; that man responds as the Holy Spirit works – partially under compulsion but also because the revelation relates to man that for which he has always been longing due to the Image of God present in his being; and that this revelation by the word of God, drawing by the Spirit of God, and compulsion by the Grace of God are the means by which salvation comes as a gift – man’s role is simply that of acceptance.

Two charges likely to be made:Semi-Pelagianism – no doubt my view will be characterized at least in the mind of some as Semi-Pelagianism. Such monikers were of the sort that I once cast towards individuals who held a position similar to mine. What is interesting is that such a title really has no basis in history. Someone could technically call someone a semi-Augustinian as much as they could a semi-Pelagian. But the latter carries with it the stigma of being associated with a branded heretic and so is a crafty tool for those who would seek to first alienate and then discredit their opposition. To be certain, the belief I have espoused is as distinguishable from that of Pelagius as it is from that of Augustine/Calvin. So such appellations mean little to me.

Works Salvation – because I suggest that there is a role to be played by humanity in salvation, Calvinists will typically say that I am therefore setting up a works salvation. But again, just because an assertion can be made, doesn’t mean it is necessarily accurate. My view of what God accomplishes in salvation is grand enough and big enough that I can’t imagine how my acceptance of it or participation in the relationship comes anywhere near “purchasing” even a smidgeon of it. In other words, as I see it, the grace of God and His work of salvation is so magnificent, awesome, and overwhelming, that my participation amounts to little more than an afterthought in the entire scheme of things. Salvation is from the Lord.

Such observations are what they are, my limited understanding of a work beyond my comprehension. To God alone be the Glory

Coming Back Next Week

2010-09-10T14:26:00.002-05:00

Hello All,

I realize being off for several months is not conducive to building a usable and visited blog. Beginning next week, I will be back. I will finish the blogs I started on Calvinism, at least somewhat, and then faithfully submit each week in the weeks ahead.

It has been a CRAZY YEAR!

Thanks,

Tim

Where Did I Go?

2009-12-22T19:10:00.003-06:00

I have not posted for a couple of weeks for a few reasons:
1 - holiday season - very busy for a pastor
2 - I've been approached about doing a book proposal on the present subject of my blog. I don't know if I will get a contract or not, but I think it wise to suspend the discussion of the subject until I know one way or another.

I apologize for this, I will keep you all informed.

Why I am Not A Calvinist, Part 3

2009-10-08T08:14:00.011-05:00

1 Corinthians 2

As I have previously stated, I have real problems with several elements of the "Doctrines of Grace"* AS THEY ARE STATED in "traditional Calvinism." Labels such as "traditional Calvinism" are difficult because a term can mean different things to different people. What I mean by traditional Calvinism, is the system of belief represented by John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards, C. H. Spurgeon, John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul (and others). I realize that even within that camp there are some important variations and perspectives, but overall these writers represent the core five points of what have been called the "Doctrines of Grace," (TULIP) while avoiding going down a road of anti-missions/evangelism. Indeed, those who go down that road are too easy to answer and don't represent traditional Reformed theology anyway.

In the future blogs I will examine what I believe to be biblical problems with each of the points of Calvinism, but I believe there is one more basic element to address that is significant before I do so - The Problems of Systems.

Calvinism is a system, there is no question about it. Ask any learned Reformed theologian and they will tell you that each of the components of the 5 points stand in tension and relationship with the other. To deny any one of them is to leave the others without important support and incomplete. I often hear people say "I am a 4 point Calvinist" because of all the points, there is a natural objection in Baptist life to Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption. However, you really cannot be a "Calvinist" and not accept all 5 points - Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption is a logical and NECESSARY corollary to Total Depravity/Human Inability, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace/Effectual Calling, and Perseverance of the Saints/Final Perseverance.

Systems are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be immensely helpful in organizing thought, seeing how various texts work together, and gaining a big picture of important concepts in Scripture. However, they do have some tendencies to them that are potentially problematic and which consistently rear their head especially in the system known as Calvinism.

- A System often becomes more important than Scripture:
This problem can manifest in a couple of ways. First, the system becomes the criteria by which all Scriptures are interpreted. Any text that doesn’t seem to fit into the conclusions drawn by the system must be molded to the interpreter’s bias. Of course we all come to the text with a bias and we all are affected in our interpretations by our world view, but there is an added barrier to letting the text speak when we start with the idea that “God has to work this way.” Whenever I hear someone say, “I know it seems to say that, but . . .” with any passage I get defensive. What’s more, if they can’t support the “but” in that sentence with historical and literary contextual observations it becomes more apparent that it is more about the system than the text. A second place where this problem occurs is when preachers become more preachers of the system, than preachers of the Word. There is certain almost idolatrous nature to how some people hold to their system. In Reformed theology, this comes across most clearly in the phrase, “Calvinism IS the Gospel!”** I understand conviction about one’s beliefs, I am arguing as much in this series of blogs. However, an all or nothing approach to any system seems to me to leave little room for paradox, tension in history, and the mystery of God. Especially, when there are texts, concepts, and presentations (as I believe there are with Calvinism) that undermine positions taken. Which brings me to the next problem with Systems,

- A System almost always devolves into an “either, or” mentality
There is no concept more significant to shaking me up as a Calvinist, and ultimately getting me out of the system than the rampant “either, or” arguments present within it. In particular, the idea that you are either a Calvinist or an Arminian – that there are only a few ways an issue might be dealt with. For example, a fellow blogger was recently commenting on the extent of the atonement. He summarized the nature of his argument and position with the following statement:

“In other words, through the death of Christ, which sinners were forgiven and reconciled with God? There are only three possibilities [regarding the nature of atonement].(1). Every sinner that has ever lived (universalism).(2). Elect sinners--those whom the Father has chosen and given to His Son.(3). Believing sinners--those whom the Father foresaw would believe on Jesus.”

He then goes on to write in the same blog:

“Most evangelicals would answer that question in this manner: For every single sinner who has ever lived, is living, or will ever live. If the person who holds to this view is then asked, "Will every single sinner who has ever lived, is living, or will ever live be in heaven?" The answer given is "No. The sinner must accept what Jesus has done. The sinner must believe. The sinner must take hold of the atonement that has been offered." So most Christians, when pressed, would have to say the atonement of Jesus actually saves nobody. It is the faith of the sinner in Christ that saves (because of this prevalent belief we ought to consider changing the title of the hymn "Have Faith in God" to "Have Faith in Faith"). The modern evangelical has a belief in a very weak, impotent atonement performed by Christ. God, they believe, actually saves nobody through the cross; sinners are only actually saved through their belief in the cross. I believe the greatest challenge we face in the modern evangelical world is moving people toward a stronger, more biblical and powerful view of what Christ actually accomplished at the cross.”***

Are those really our only options? Is there no room for tension in the text? Are there no other ways to relate the atonement to the believer? Is one really suggesting that “God actually saves nobody through the cross?” if he or she believes Christ died for everyone, but not all will be saved? I will deal with the issue of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption later, but the point is made that sometimes systems create a mentality of overconfidence in what our reason can do and leaves us with a perspective of, well if you’re not this, then you must be that. The choice is not ONLY between Calvinism and Arminianism, which are viewpoints created within a certain philosophical worldview that does not necessarily line up with the biblical worldview, or other ways of dealing with reality that have been conceived of since that time.

- A System often leads to making up concepts to try and preserve the system.
Sometimes, instead of admitting a flaw in the system or simply trying to hold to a more balanced perspective of the overall picture of a situation given in Scripture, systems will lead people to create concepts and practices not expressed in Scripture, but necessary to maintain if one is going to keep his system and also explain other known circumstances. In Calvinism, these types of creations include the two wills of God (a necessary loophole to absolute Sovereignty), the two types of morality (a necessary loophole to Total Depravity), and the two types of atonement (a necessary loophole to Limited Atonement). I have already argued for maintaining tensions in where one is, so this is not an attack on paradox, but when a system requires you to create concepts in order to protect a concept, there is a problem with the system.

- A System allows "acceptance" without understanding its basis
Finally, a major problem with systems is that people come to accept the system without understanding the basis of it. Because the basic premises of the system say things that people like about God, themselves, or life in general they “buy into it” without really realizing all the baggage that they are bringing with it. For instance in Calvinism, I meet people all the time who want to hold to the system without acknowledging Double Predestination. As a Calvinist I did not (and still do not) have a problem with God being able to have predestined people to hell if that is His desire (I don’t believe it is the biblical presentation – something to be looked at later, but I have no problem suggesting He is fully within His rights as God to do as much – He is God), but there are a lot of “Calvinists” who do have problems with it even though the system itself requires it. A similar thing could be said for the “4 point Calvinists mentioned above. Finally, this phenomenon could also be applied from an interpretative and philosophical standpoint as well. I am amazed at how many people who claim both Dispensationalism and Calvinism I come across; though at their heart they are completely incompatible from an interpretation standpoint (because the basis for both systems in their conclusions are completely at odds). Systems lend themselves to this sort of divorce between basis and conclusion because so often they express only the conclusions, without relating or identifying where those conclusions come from. They argue that they are just applying the Bible, when in fact they are proof-texting through a lens of a certain philosophy or worldview.****

A big part of my journey out of Calvinism was a journey of discovery of its basis and the way the system didn’t deal with the greater picture of God’s relationship to man. It was also a discovery of how Calvinism had become in many ways its own sort of idol for me – the irony being that at the very moment I was speaking words about the “greatness of God” I was actually enthralled by the greatness of my own intellect. John Newton (A Calvinist) put it well when he wrote:

“And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self- righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.”*****

The difference between me and Newton is that I see this as almost an inherent part of the system of Calvinism, because I believe that systems themselves have inherent dangers, and when placed together with some of the content of Calvinism, such is almost unavoidable. In the weeks ahead I hope to outline more specifically where I believe the system of Calvinism has eclipsed some of the content of Scripture as it pertains to Grace and in so doing, stepped into an untenable position biblically speaking.

*I place the words Doctrines of Grace in quotes because I don't believe they rise to the level of Doctrines AS THEY ARE STATED in Calvinism. Doctrines are central tenets of the faith that can render one orthodox or heretical.
** Spurgeon wrote: “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.” Spurgeon, “A Defense of Calvinism.”
***http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/09/atonement-in-plain-english-god-saves-us.html I have a lot of respect for Wade on many levels and do not wish to cast aspersions on his overall character at all.
**** Augustine and Calvin’s understanding of reality itself is problematic and fed into the system they both adhered to in relation to the “Doctrines of Grace.”
***** John Newton, quoted in Credenda Agenda, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 2, from The Works of John Newton, Vol 1, Banner of Truth, p. 272.

Why I am Not a Calvinist, Part 2

2009-09-15T11:44:00.002-05:00

Psalm 111

Perhaps it is best to start this discussion relating what it is about Calvinism that attracted me to it in the first place. While I cannot speak for someone else, I believe that the things about the system that I found attractive are what lead a lot of people into it. Again, I am not trying to “convert” anyone out of the system; I am simply trying to offer understanding and perspective to those who are not Calvinists and also to lay some foundational topics of discussion that will be components of future installments in this blog. In short, while I believe that each of these elements are laudable motives for pursuing a position (some are indispensible), I will be relating in future blogs why these perceptions of this system are not all that they purport to be.
I was attracted to the system of Calvinism because it is:
- Biblical: It is a rare event to run into a committed Calvinists who cannot quote you chapter and verse of numerous texts that are at the heart of their position. Specific references to predestination, God’s hardening of men’s hearts, being chosen, Grace, the Glory of God, and other emphases of Calvinism are ubiquitous in the Scriptures. Indeed, the presence of these passages is the primary warrant for Calvinists to make the oft-quoted statement that “The Doctrines of Grace are the Gospel” – that is, their position is synonymous with Scripture itself. And let’s be honest, what evangelical Christian does not want to be biblical with every position that they hold – such observations are attractive. When I started into college and really began for the first time to dig into the Scriptures, to search the text for myself and to ask the hard questions before me, Calvinism offered me “biblical” answers.
- God Centered: There is an overwhelming desire that is created within people who discover their lostness and experience God’s Grace to want to do all that they can to praise Him with all that they are. Grace IS wonderful, Grace IS miraculous, Grace IS AMAZING! And when you begin to reflect on this wondrous salvation that has been granted, who wouldn’t pursue a doctrinal position that advocates so clearly man’s complete inability and God’s complete sufficiency? Like the Psalmist, we ask “Who am I?” and relative to who God is, the answer is nobody! Much of Christian teaching in revivalistic churches (such as Baptist) centers on us – My testimony, My salvation, My future, etc…, it’s good to be reminded that God must be the center of everything.
- Unambiguous: Life is full of ambiguity. It is sometimes hard to know right and wrong and to find black and white. In the midst of such experiences, a firm, unshakeable foundation is a joy to find and an immense relief. Calvinism offers this – there are no shades of gray in the system and that is attractive – It’s only God, only His grace, only His choice, only His glory. Ultimately, we can’t argue, we can’t question, we can’t doubt (though we do in our journey – Calvinism recognizes this) because it is His will and who are we to question it? In Bridges book Trusting God (one of my first interactions with Calvinism) this ultimate control, coupled with God’s Goodness, is used to help people get past their circumstances to see a bigger purpose – that purpose being God Himself. Such clarity is comforting it’s easy – even in the face of (or perhaps for some being enhanced by) the self-denial that goes with it as expressed in point two.
- Irenic: There is a calmness to the system that exudes thoughtfulness, depth, and logic. For young people raised in churches full of emotionalism and self-centered teaching, Calvinism offers authenticity to their need to connect with God because it is not about self and it advocates repeatedly letting God be God. This is in some ways an extension of the unambiguousness of the system, but goes more to the heart of the need for depth in churches where shallowness is the norm. That’s attractive, especially as one is trying to “earn his stripes” as an academic and as a means of responding positively to the hypocrisy evident in so many churches that are “man centered” in their teaching.
Looking at the reasons, it’s easy to see the attractiveness of the system. But in my own journey, as I began to gather the bigger picture and to look at ALL of Scripture, and ALL of Christianity, and ALL of who God has revealed Himself to be, I discovered that, in fact, the system doesn’t deliver any of these – except in ways that are inappropriate expressions of them. In the coming weeks, I will outline this as I believe Scripture teaches and God has revealed Himself.

Blessings!

Why I Am not a Calvinist - Part 1

2009-09-08T13:21:00.005-05:00

Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him judge whether they are right or wrong. And with the Lord’s help, they will do what is right and will receive his approval. (Romans 14:4, NLT)

I have been told more than a few times that I represent a rarity, someone who was a Calvinist and left it as he became more educated. While I am not certain how rare that actually is, I am aware of the fact that there is a tendency that as people become more educated, they come to find more and more affinity with Calvinism. Indeed, in my own journey I was not raised a Calvinist, but as I moved into college it was the path that I followed. My early years at Seminary saw me develop even more along those lines and it really wasn't until I moved into advanced studies toward the end of my Master's and throughout my PhD that I moved away from the system known as Calvinism.

Relating this journey to some, they have asked me to write my thoughts on the subject. So over the next couple of weeks, I will attempt to do this in a way that is appropriate and in a way that demonstrates my belief in a sovereign God who is in real relationship with HIS people.

Starting out, let me say a little about the beliefs that I will be expressing over the next couple of weeks:

- It's not about "fairness": One of the elements often raised by those who oppose ONE element of Calvinism - predestination, is that it is not fair of God to choose one for salvation and to choose one for condemnation. I firmly believe that God is God and I cannot determine what is "fair" for a Being who created the concepts of justice, mercy, and grace in the first place. It is about consistency with the revealed word of God.

- It's not about denominationalism or eschatology - While being a Baptist certainly informs my positions, there is a very strong strand of Calvinism in Baptist history. There is no inherent reason why someone cannot be both a strong Calvinist and a Baptist at the same time (despite what some argue :-)). Furthermore, the primary opposition of Calvinists are often diehard Dispensationalists -since I am not a dispensationalist and in fact reject a lot of the interpretative presuppositions of dispensationalism, the struggle between the two schools of thought does not come into play in this discussion. It is about consistency with the revealed word of God.

- It's not about division or purification - I don't want to disfellowship from Calvinists and I hope that those who know me know that I consider all Christians (Calvinist or not) to be brothers and sisters in Christ and worthy of my respect, prayers, and fellowship. I am, in fact, saddened by the militant strides that have been taken on both sides of this issue (both within my denomination and outside it) in classifying "opposition" as being lost, apostate, or ignorant. Disagreement does not have to devolve into name calling or marginalization. I understand that since I am arguring that my approach is biblical, that, by extension, I am implicitly arguing that those who hold to a different approach than me are not. But one can hold a position, argue it forcefully, and still maintain a level of humility and a recognition that fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are servants of the same Master I am and are seeking the same truth I am. Paul compels all believers to understand that in relating to other believers, we remember that God is the Master not us, and that as servants, we let the Master deal with other servants about disputable things. In some ways, I see this discussion to be about disputable things.

My purpose over the next several entries will not be to bash Calvinism. I am not writing these articles out of some crusade to see the view squashed - as if someone writing a blog could have a real impact on a movement that has been part of Christianity since at least the time of Augustine (1600 years now). Rather, I am writing this for people who have found my position unique and have wondered about my journey. I won't entertain debate on the subject and I don't believe I will change any Calvinists' minds. I am simply expressing the journey I have traveled over the last 20 years of my life as a theologian.

Blaming God for Sin

2009-09-02T10:37:00.006-05:00

James 1:13 - And remember, when you are being tempted, do not say, “God is tempting me.” God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else." (NLT)
Jeremiah 32:35 They have built the high places of Baal in the Valley of Hinnom to make their sons and daughters pass through [the fire] to Molech —something I had not commanded them. I had never entertained the thought that they do this detestable act causing Judah to sin! (HCSB)

Over the past several months I have experienced the carelessness of men and women toward their brothers and sisters in Christ on many different levels. Sometimes the carelessness or cruelty has been targeted at me and sometimes at those around me. As one might expect other brothers and sisters in Christ step in at such moments to offer their words of encouragement to the wounded and to let them know that God is with them in the midst of their loss. This is good! This is what the Church is supposed to do and who Christians are supposed to be! And, when the encouragement is offerred to me I take it as it has been intended and I am grateful for people who care enough to encourage!

Still, at times the words that are expressed by well meaning believers can communicate a view that the sin of those who have caused harm is God's. "God has a plan" is a phrase that offers hope and encouragement that God will turn the evil of man into good without making Him responsible for the activity. But more than once I heard phrases that made the sinful acts of man somehow God's doing.

Since Augustine, determinism has been a part of a Christian worldview to varying degrees. Some are full-fledged determinists who believe that God does actually cause the actions of men.

Calvin wrote: "That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture." (Institutes 1.18.1).

Few (if any) of the people I have encountered over the last few weeks would be comfortable with this quote, yet their words of what God is "doing" in the sinful actions of men reveals that they have been shaped by this sort of thought. Of course, all monotheistic religions struggle with the degree of their god's interaction with the actions of men - If the Christian's God is sovereign all things in some way fall into His purview.

But, how does Calvin's perspective square with passages that clearly state that God is not the author of sin? Herein lies the problem with systems. Once God has been categorized, identified, and defined by our theology - then ALL must fall into that system. And systems rarely seek balance between different revelations, rather it emphasizes one over the other in order to create a "logical" outcome. For the Calvinist the doctrine of God's Sovereignty, for Arminians the doctrine is God's benevolence, for those who are neither any number of doctrines can become preeminent at the expense of others.

What I want to suggest here is that a perspective or outlook on life that blames Him for the evil of man is not consistent with the total picture given in Scripture. Please note I am not saying He only gives blessings and has no role in the bad that happens to people in general, what I am saying is that as moral agents WE ALONE are responsible for the sins we commit - God does not tempt.

I will be expanding on these thoughts in the weeks ahead. But for now, choose words carefully. Every phrase we utter communicates something about what we believe.

Waiting on the Lord

2009-07-20T16:30:00.003-05:00

There is a time for everything, a season for every activity under heaven. (Ecc. 3:1, NLT).

I have often related to my students in class the importance and power of timing in all that we do in ministry. Now that I am in a pastorate, I find myself having to learn that lesson in practice that I already knew though my intellect. I see things that I would like to do, places I would like to go, and activities that I would like to implement - but I know that for most of those things, the time is not right yet.

One reason for waiting is that people are often not ready for change, and even when they are, you have to take it slowly and methodically. No one wants to be jostled too much, too quickly (including myself). But a bigger reason for waiting is the need to hear the voice of God in the route He would have us go. Sometimes the plans that we have in mind are more about us than they are about Him. Sometimes the plans are His, but the timing isn't right.

I am not one that believes that we need to walk on eggshells about the future and the routes we take. I believe that if we are doing what God desires of all of His people on a day to day basis (prayer, Bible study, evangelism, worship), our very desires will be shaped by that contact and so we can operate with confidence; both in ourselves and the fact that God will be with us. On the other hand, I also know that the Bible is clear that it is God who orders the universe and sets things in their proper time. On one level that is extremely liberating, but on another it calls for a certain degree of sensitivity to God's leading and a willingness to wait on the Lord.

I have no doubt that I will make mistakes. I have no doubt there will be times of resistance. What I hope is that in the midst of those moments, one of the things I can fall back on is the realization that I am doing things as God would have them done and in a Spirit of trusting Him for the outcome, and not my own skillful planning. God is good and His timing is perfect. I just have to stop every once in a while and remind myself of that!

Am I Worthy? Developing a proper view of the good God does.

2009-07-10T21:19:00.009-05:00

Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning. (James 1:17, HCSB)

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about being a place that I had never been before. I wondered what the future would hold and the impact that the uncertainty would have on my Christian walk and faith. I concluded by observing. "I know God has prepared me for this journey and that He is with me through it all. I just hope that like Saul, when I come out on the other side, I will continue to "grow more capable ([Acts] 9:22)" in His power and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit."

Tomorrow I start a weekend process of introduction with the members of Woodland Heights Baptist Church in Bedford - a process that will hopefully culminate with a call to be their pastor. I am excited about the situation, I am amazed at the opportunity, and I feel unworthy of the responsibility (which of course I am). From where I am sitting, this is a totally positive set of circumstances. Almost, too positive.

Yep, you guessed it. My analytical nature has kicked in and instead of reveling in the wonder of God's goodness, I find myself asking questions. Questions like, am I worthy? Not "Am I worthy" in the sense of do I deserve these blessings from God - the answer to that is clearly "NO!" But, does the fact that there has been no break, no blips, no concerns, and no problems in this whole process indicative of the fact that I couldn't handle such hardships? I mean we read that He will not give us a temptation that is more than we can handle (1 Cor 10:13), so does that then mean if a situation arises in which there would have been temptation, but then passes without the temptation manifesting itself, does that mean we couldn't have handled it so God kept us from it?

I'm just having fun here! I hear logic like that all the time from students and others - taking texts and statements in directions they were never meant to go. And, truthfully, my mind wanders in those directions all the time and has briefly taken the trip described above - not to the degree described, but enough to cause me to not be thankful for the good going on in my life. But then I realize how foolish that is, I praise God that He has blessed me in ways beyond my expectations and I find myself once again in awe of a truly awesome God. (Besides, even if I didn't have to go through it because He actually was protecting - that in itself would be cause for praise of Him, not disparagement of myself).

James tells us that the Father of Light is the source of all blessing. I believe blessing is everywhere. Our very existence is an act of grace and the sustenance of God is a blessing beyond description. The speed at which this process has occurred didn't really allow for the type of uncertainty I was expecting (uncertainty is present, but of a different sort), but I do believe that through this process I have certainly grown in the Lord and in my knowledge of Him. Among other things, I have learned to be more vigilant in preserving a thankful heart. My tendency is to doubt the good, but when I stop to realize that all the good comes from God, I soon realize as well that doubting the good is in fact an expression of doubting His goodness - and that my friends, is sin.

Though this part of the journey was not full of the stresses I expected, I know there will be difficult times ahead. I pray that the lessons already learned will allow me to see the good in all that comes and to praise God who is indeed the only one who is worthy!

A Tale of Two Roads - Being Clear About Who We Are

2009-07-05T18:51:00.002-05:00

“You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket,a but rather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. In the same way, let your light shinea before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matt. 5:14-16)

During our visit to Washington DC this week, we took two trips out of the city. For the first trip, we left Washington to visit some friends in Maryland. Though we attempted to follow the Google directions, few of the streets in Washington go in a straight path and they also change names frequently. As a result we ended up getting onto the thoroughfare to Maryland at a different place than the instructions assumed we would. Normally this wouldn't be that big of an issue, but this particular road is marked only sparsely and when it is marked it is only named by its common name, not its official name - not being from the area, we were never really certain we were on the right road. In fact, it wasn't until we had traveled for sometime that we finally saw the official highway name and could relax that we were in fact on the right path.

This road reminded a lot of the how the Church often functions. We too often lose clarity. Sometimes it happens when we assume people will know what we are about. We use the language of the culture, but we rarely speak about who we are and what we believe. As a result, strangers come in contact with us and the road seems beautiful and well traveled, but there is always an uncertainty as to exactly who we are, what we are about, and where we are going - we have exchanged "relevance" for the Truth that Christ has called us to and that the world needs to see. At other times we put up the signs, but we do so in a language that only the initiated and informed can read. When this happens, we might be able to say that we have been proclaiming who we are, but if those traveling our path can't make sense of our signs - what good are they?

A few days after our first trip we took a second. For this trip we were heading into Virginia. Interestingly, like the first route, the highway we were on changed names/numbers numerous times along the way, but this time, we never once doubted that we were on the right path. The reason for the difference is simply that every 10th of a mile there was a marker telling us exactly which road we were on.

This is how the Church ought to function. Time, culture and circumstance sometimes causes us to change paths methodologically - maybe to go by different names (like our brothers and sisters in countries where the Church is outlawed), or going in different directions (like some of the healthier cultural shifts that have occurred in the American Church over the last few decades). But in the midst of the changes we have to be clear in who we are - we can't assume people know what the Church is and become an group committed to entertainment with clarity or identity. But neither can we speak a language only we understand. Along the shifts and changes that we go through we have to clearly, and often, say who we are so that strangers who cross our paths know where they are and what (or rather Who) we are leading them too.

Jesus used the images of light, a city on a hill, and a lamp in a house to express the nature of His followers. Each of these images speak about clarity, faithfulness, and strength of position. The images are not about glory or fame - something the Church has often forgotten. As individuals and as a corporate body, let us all seek to be clear about who we are.

"And how is clarity to be achieved? Mainly by taking trouble and by writing [or existing] to serve people rather than to impress them." F. L. Lucas

A Critical Spirit, but a Constrained Tongue

2009-06-27T11:36:00.005-05:00

"but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poisons.(James 3:8, HCSB).

As I was considering what to write about this week, I went back and reread some of my previous posts. To my embarrassment, I noticed several typos and awkward constructions. I then started to think about all the papers I have graded over the course of my academic career and how many times on those papers I wrote the phrase, "awkward construction" and then proceeded to deduct points accordingly. I don't regret such grading, nor do I find my past activities hypocritical when I myself fall prey to such activity today - mistakes happen. But I do wonder, how many readers looked at those mistakes and thought "Geez, he should be able to do much better than that!" (readers, there is no need to reply on that point :-)). I also thought about how many times I had judged the quality of the person by the grammatical correctness of their speech, and it is to that issue that I feel led to speak.

I see children "correcting" each other about how a line in a movie really went or chastising each other over menial realities that don't really matter. I see adults with angry words about the idiocy of someone who just cut them off or critical of someone who wasn't as friendly as we thought they ought to be. It would seem that a critical spirit is part of the human condition. Indeed, it might be impossible, this side of heaven, to hold every thought captive that pops into our head about others. But I do believe there is a place in the process where we can take control, and that is before such thoughts are transformed into words and leave our mouths.

James says the tongue is "full of deadly poisons." This imagery is powerful about the need to control our tongue. Especially in light of the central image of the Church as the Body of Christ. Poison does not stay localized in a body. Once it has gained entrance, it spreads through the entire system, infecting and destroying as it goes. When we allow a critical thought or spirit to be transformed into a critical word, we have exponentially expanded the impact that such thoughts have on ourselves and all those who are part of the Body - We have poisoned the Body of Christ!

I have made it my goal to always consider my thoughts before speaking them. Sometimes this leads to awkward silence, and sometimes maybe even to awkward constructions. But I trust that such awkwardness will be more easily forgiven than the critical word that might have been spoken.

"He who sedulously attends, pointedly asks, calmly speaks, coolly answers and ceases when he has no more to say is in possession of some of the best requisites of man." - Johann Casper Lavater

My prayer is that I can be that kind of man!

Children's Theology

2009-06-18T22:38:00.004-05:00

"I assure you: Whoever does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Mark 10:15, HCSB)

This past week while the boys were watching the worship channel (hoping the Tim Hawkins ad would come on) Will attempted to turn all the Scripture verses into a song. As a result, he started repeating the refrain "Your ways oh God are Holy!" - A precious moment to be certain. But the event took an unexpected turn when Jonathan decided to sing back-up by repeating behind Will's refrain "home-made, home-made." Though confused in lyric, the content of the repetition expressed a profound reality when one stops to think about it - God's ways are home-made, and in a couple of ways.

His ways are His - they are made by Him alone. We do not dictate to Him. That is in fact one of the elements of holiness - His separateness, His distinctiveness and His loftiness.

Also, God's ways must be the center of the home. They make the home and they shape our paths. The home that follows His ways is the home that stands the test of time.

It was not the first time that I had personally heard a child confuse words being spoken to powerful effect. I will never forget a young child standing in the seats in church while we sang "At Calvary," and instead he shouted:

"Mercy there was great, and grace was free;
Pardon there was multiplied to me;
There my burdened soul found liberty
AND GOD LOVES ME."

What seems clear from these events is that children make connections about their view of God and transfer those thoughts into words as they believe they fit. They're not always right, but there is a simplicity and clarity in their thought that is something to be valued. I know as a professor and pastor my passion is always to see people go deeper in their faith and to see them to start to catch a glimpse of the power that God is and the sufficiency of His Grace - to understand the life that we have in Him.

On the other hand, there is certainly a value to recognizing the simplicity of the Gospel. That there is a God and He is GOOD. A childlike faith is the heart of how we are called to accept the Kingdom of God by our Savior. A faith that is unfettered, unqualified, and unconditional. A faith that sees all theology as relational in nature - not us-centered (for that is childishness, not childlikeness), but a faith that understands that everything we believe must be understood in terms of the effect it has on our relationship with God and with others. Without that, theology is nothing more than dry dogma and false religion.

A Place I Have Never Been Before

2009-06-14T22:40:00.004-05:00

Acts 9:9 He was unable to see for three days, and did not eat or drink (HCSB).

I have often wondered what went through Saul's mind during these three days of blindness. His whole life had been changed with his conversion on the Damascus road and now he sits in that city waiting and wondering where that change would lead. What would he do, where would he go, how different would his life be? He did know one thing, his life was in the hands of his Savior and Lord and he was no longer walking the path of his own making. What a rush of emotions - excitement, wonder, curiosity, and even a great overriding sense of peace must have been his. Most likely, though blind at the time he knew he was seeing more clearly at that moment in life than he every had before!

Since receiving the word that my future no longer included a stay at Southwestern, I have entered into a totally new experience. I have always had a "base of operations" in my adult life that kind of defined me. I went from high school to college to seminary, with little to no break in between each. When I graduated with my PhD I was introduced as "Dr. Pierce, Assistant Professor of Old Testament." I have never had a time when I didn't have a planned future, a certain path, and a clear understanding of myself. Now that is exactly where I find myself - a place I have never been before.

What awaits me and my family? I am, like Saul must have been, full of excitement, wonder, curiosity. I don't know where I am headed, and truthfully there is some fear involved too. I am wandering around in a type of darkness and I want to see clearly. At this point, however, I just have to trust that the One who is leading me is enough - and in that knowledge I do find an overriding sense of peace.

I know God has prepared me for this journey and that He is with me through it all. I just hope that like Saul, when I come out on the other side, I will continue to "grow more capable (9:22)" in His power and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

God is Good!

Sermon: Praying for the Right Things

2009-06-10T17:05:00.003-05:00

Sermon on Praying for the Right Things, from Mark 10:34-45.

Delivered at Highland Terrace Baptist Church During the Contemporary Service, 05/24/09

Practice what we Preach?

2009-06-09T15:30:00.005-05:00

Over the last couple of weeks I have been struggling with the role of integrity in the ministry. Actually, I have been struggling with what matters and what doesn't as it applies to integrity. I am well aware of the matter of non-essentials and how the Church has been called to look past these matters of debate in favor of the big issues of Church unity and the cause of the Gospel (Rom. 14). But what about when something is a non-essential and a person chooses to be deceptive about it?

For instance, through my years as a seminary professor I have often come upon ministers who take the term "Dr." on their name, though they alleged doctorate that they have is either honorary or from a degree mill. Now, it is no secret why a person would do such a thing - a doctorate adds "standing" to his or her work (and admittedly some churches won't look at a person who does not have that title). Furthermore, I truly believe that degrees are non-essentials in many respects. My brother has only a Bachelor's degree, yet I would not hesitate for a second to place my family and myself under his leadership as my pastor.

So, what is our demeanor to be when we run into a person who has a "doctorate," even though they did nothing to earn the degree? What does it say about a man or woman who is willing to falsify their credentials for a title?

Paul outlines the qualifications for a overseer/pastor/elder in 1 Timothy 3. The first of these qualifications listed is that the man must be "above reproach." It would seem to me then that integrity is considered the primary qualification for a man who seeks to be an overseer/pastor/elder. If that is so, when one goes down the path of claiming a title which one did not truly earn, I think the church has a responsibility to call him on it and to require an answer. It's not the degree that matters, it's the integrity of the heart claiming the degree that does. And I would venture to say that a person willing to cut corners on such a menial matter, will also be willing to cut them in other places - places that may leave the church in real trouble.

This is but one example of the matter of integrity - we all could be held to account for places where we cut corners. My focus here is not an individual or even pastors as a whole, my point, rather, is the call to be "above reproach" as a Christian. For we must all realize that Paul's list of qualifications in 1 Timothy were not meant to be understood simply as things desirable in Pastors, but pictures of the mature Christian we all seek to be. We ALL need to practice what we preach (myself included)!

Francis Bacon put it this way: “It's not what we eat but what we digest that makes us strong; not what we gain but what we save that makes us rich; not what we read but what we remember that makes us learned; and not what we profess but what we practice that gives us integrity.”

May we all seek to find integrity in what we do!

God's Gift to Me - My Wife Kristy!

2009-06-06T17:58:00.011-05:00

When I was only six months old, an event took place that would change my life forever, though I wouldn't realize it for 18 more years. On June 7, 1969, a little red headed girl was born to Kenneth and Penny Kilpatrick. Like many girls she would play with dolls, fight with her brother, and laugh with her friends. She came to Christ as a young girl in Williams, Arizona - a decision that would eventually lead her to Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, Texas.

At Wayland, some 13 hours away from Arizona, she would cross paths with with another Arizonan and win his heart in moments. Though it would take some convincing on her part, I knew immediately that she was the woman I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. She had beautiful Irish eyes, an amazing smile that could light up an entire room and a sweet disposition that made even my timid college freshman personality comfortable in her presence. Two years later in December, 1989, we were married. Six years later we would have our first child (a girl), soon followed by two boys.

Today, we're looking at 20 years of marriage. She is even more beautiful, more loving, and more amazing than when we first met 22 years ago. On this June 7, her birthday, I thank God for such a great gift. She has been my strength when I felt like giving in. She has been my encourager when things looked darkest - pointing me toward the One who is ultimately the Hope for all of us. She is a blessing beyond description. She is my light and my life. I praise you God for all my blessings, but none more so than my wife Kristy. Happy Birthday Sweetheart!

Does God Want People Dead? Imprecatory Psalms and the Christian

2009-06-05T18:17:00.008-05:00

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! (Ps. 137:9, ESV)

With the possible exception of the herem (Deut. 7:1-11; 20:16-18) [a topic for a later blog], the Imprecatory Psalms such as Psalm 137 represent some of the most difficult texts with which the Christian must grapple. After all, how can one possibly reconcile the above quoted sentiment with Jesus' commands to "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek?"

The question is one that is finding interest even in the secular media. The ABP reports that recently on The Alan Colmes show a fairly high profile Southern Baptist Pastor expressed that he presently prays Imprecatory Psalms. Apparently, Wiley Drake, a pastor in California and one time Second Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention prayed such prayers against George Tiller (the recently murdered late term abortion doctor) and admits to praying such prayers as well against President Obama (http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4126&Itemid=53). His reasoning is that such Psalms are the spoken will of God and that praying them is nothing more than agreeing with God. That being his position, he falls back on the "I just preach the Bible" line that has characterized a lot misappropriations of the Sacred Text over the years as if his understanding of such texts represents the plain, normal reading of the material and to question it is to question the authority of the Bible itself.

To be fair, there are those who take a different tact than Drake on such texts that do so using a view of the Bible that does question its legitimacy. Scholars have argued that these Imprecatory Psalms are nothing more than the residue of ancient superstitions and that such thoughts on the part of the Psalmist are, in fact, sinful. Obviously, those taking this view would conclude that these Psalms have no place in Christian life or thought.

But is there not a mediating position that both takes seriously such texts as divinely inspired texts without also going down the road of praying for the death of those we view as "sinners?"

At issue here are numerous issues - the nature of inspiration, proper biblical interpretation, and one's view of God.

Apparently, Drake has a view of inspiration which suggests that the Bible is solely God's words, thoughts, and expressions. I can speak for him specifically, but it would seem that his starting point is almost a dictation view of inspiration, with little to any contribution coming from the writer's outlook, life, and thought. This view goes further than the verbal plenary view of inspiration which many evangelicals (myself included) hold to which says that there is nothing in Scripture God did not want there, and nothing excluded that He did want there - every word is God's. Yet, God in His revelation did not seek to override the human to the point he disappeared. God spoke within history, using the hurts, questions, fears, and other limitations of man in order to perfectly relate His will for mankind and how we might relate to Him. This fact is revealed in the differing styles, perspectives, and observations of the biblical writers (cf. 2 Peter 1:21 - moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God.) In the Psalms, this interaction between God an human finds expression in words of real sorrow and grief, real hurt over circumstances, and real anger over the circumstances that caused that hurt and grief. In other words, they are words that God wanted expressed in the text, but not necessarily His desire in expression.

Biblical interpretation must be done mindful of the genre of the text and the historical context. The genre of Imprecatory Psalm is a subset of Lament - an extreme expression of grief. Historically, these psalms were used as a means of praising Yahweh's greatness and power over the nations and life, addressing the hurt and pain the people of God were feeling, and calling on God to address that hurt. They are not reflections on God's desire for people. On the contrary, their purpose was actually an instrument of God to change the hearts of His people and to reveal His greatness to the nations. Like ALL the Psalms, they are expressions of worship!

Therefore, if one is to pray these psalms, one doesn't do so because he or she believes God wants these people to die; rather, one prays these psalms in order to be moved into a perspective of the world from God's viewpoint. And what is God's viewpoint - it is always redemption of both ourselves and others! These prayers awaken a realization of the tension we live in between the fallen world and seeking God's will. God doesn't seek to destroy the person, but that in the person that separates us from Him. It is a cry of sorrow at the present world order, and a plea to God to alter it. Such prayers are simply another way of praying the model prayer's "your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Such texts are not easy. I don't claim to have the last word on them. But I believe I have approached the texts with a voice that is both consistent to the biblical worldview and able to speak appropriately to a world of God's grace and desire for redemption - not destruction. Oh, His wrath is real, but it is never portrayed in Scripture as the starting point.

Finally, it is not so much the faulty interpretation that is the problem with Drake's approach - we all have places where we misinterpret the text at times. Rather, it is the spirit of arrogance that suggests his reading is the only right one and that takes a much debated text (even among conservative evangelicals) couches his take on the matter as "God's viewpoint." Such is the spirit of a false Fundamentalism that exchanges our viewpoint for God's and actually puts us over the text instead of in subjection to it.

Sermon: The Family, Genesis 2

2009-06-05T12:37:00.006-05:00

Sermon on the Family from Genesis 2:
Delivered during the contemporary service at Highland Terrace Baptist Church, 02/01/09.

Inadequate in Myself

2009-06-04T12:11:00.002-05:00

We are not adequate to think anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy comes from God (2 Corinthians 3:5)

The grace of God! We often think of it solely in terms of justification and the transformation that takes place at that moment, but it encompasses all that we are and do. Apart from that grace we are nothing and can do nothing.

As I undertake the task of blogging, I do so mindful of the fact that in myself I have nothing to share. Any gifts I possess, any thoughts I express; all are the product of my relationship with God and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

The blogs here will sometimes involve reflections on theological or philosophical matters. Sometimes I will include elements from life and family (not that those first two can ever really be separated). But mostly, I think what goes on here will be a chance for me to fellowship with friends and family and to further catch a glimpse of how BIG God is and how sufficient His grace is to every aspect of my life.

Blessings!