Predestined for Free Will

I want to confront the idea of divine-determinism.  This topic recently arose among friends of mine and it got me thinking about how I might articulate why I disagree with determinism and if it provokes dialogue or rebuttal, well that is also welcome.      

  

Before continuing, however, know that I am fully aware of the neuroscience-world’s discovery that determinism and freewill may be moot points because we do not make decisions like we think we do, or possibly at all (That’s right, my wife is so wrong about me).  While I fully believe they have shown us to be severely restrained by our genetics, neurons, physical limitations and emotional baggage, I have trouble believing that we can definitively prove we are completely incapable of choice and moral responsibility. The fact that we can distinguishably desire right and feel wronged and consciously influence situations one way or another seems to point to something deeper happening, but right now I am presupposing this not proving it (See Malcolm Jeeves Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods or Bill Newsome’s work at www.testoffaith.com for more on this topic). 

    

TULIP… No, not the flower

One of Christianity’s main advocates for divine-determinism was John Calvin who believed God was micromanaging/orchestrating everything good and bad. This can be seen in his “five point” T.U.L.I.P. doctrine:

1. Total Depravity (Humanity is so sinful that we are incapable of desiring, thinking, doing, or being good. Only God’s will can accomplish that. Hmm not sure this is consistent with the Atheists, Buddhists, or other non-Christians who have an intrinsic desire for good, but it might be might be more arguable if you give up the next doctrine);

2. Unconditional Election (God elects those of his own choosing for good and salvation while others are created for evil and hell. Wow that sounds more like a demented tormentor than a God who loves his creation);

3. Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for the elect.  Was Jesus aware of this in Jn. 3:16-17?);

4. Irresistible Grace (Those elected cannot resist God’s grace as it irresistibly/forcefully draws only them to himself.  Didn’t Jafar try something similar in Aladdin? That didn’t turn out well);

5. Perseverance of the Saints (You cannot lose your salvation, also known as once saved always saved.  Honestly I wish this one was true, but unfortunately I cannot scripturally defend it).

Despite my snarky attitude against Calvin’s heresies, my bigger point is that his view did not stem from a right understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence, but rather Calvin might be guilty of proof-texting the Bible (that is, isolating verses out of context that seemingly offer an absolute resolution to what are complex issues.      

God is out of Control

Before looking at the seemingly “deterministic” scriptures (in the next post), it must first be said that deterministic thinking in which God preplans good alongside pain, evil and suffering to somehow show off his glory paints a picture of God that is incompatible with good, love and God’s other character-revelations in scripture.  God entered into our pain, evil and suffering and through it decisively defeated it and inaugurated the vanquishing process of those things, but it was not what he intended for any of us.[1]  So, am I saying that God is not in total control of the situation?  In point of fact I am!  This can be seen throughout the Bible from God’s response to the fall, to the prophets and on to the Messiah.

Sin

First, the very fact that God is not happy about Adam and Eve’s disobedience leads me to think he did not plan it (Gen.3:11-19).  It is as simple as that.  How could he be that angry toward them or Sodom and Gomorrah (or any other sinner) for behaving the way he created them to?

Prophets

Second, the prophets consistently come with words of warning for the people to turn from their wickedness so that calamity and exile does not occur (like Jonah and Nineveh or any of the pre-exilic prophets).  God has seemingly taken the risk of relinquishing control and giving us choice and freedom, but as moral agents we are participants in God’s creative activity which has the same potential for good as it does for evil. 

This could not be any clearer than in Jeremiah.  He constructs many “if” and “if not” statements revealing an undetermined/open future. Much of dialogue between God and Jeremiah indicates that there are actions that are good and lead to life, but there are also ways that are harmful toward creation and carry weighty consequences that God does not wish for Israel or their enemies (Jer. 12:14-17; 17:24-27; 21:8-10; 22:1-5; 38:17-18).  As Terence Fretheim puts it:

the people are given choices that will shape their future, which in turn will shape the future of all other creatures as-well-as the future of God (God will do different things depending on what the creatures do)…  God “plants” the people, but it is they who take root, grow and bring forth fruit (Jer. 12:2).  What creatures “grow up into” and the fruit they bear makes a difference both for themselves and for their world, for good or for ill… pleasant portion or a desolate wilderness (12:10).[2]

If this is the way the way in which the Creator relates to his creatures within the world, then determinism and micromanaging is not the “system” God set forth.

            Jesus

            Last to this are Jesus and even his followers.  If we are to actually believe that Jesus is the visible image of God (Col. 1:15) and God’s determinism is the governing factor, then those who talked about Jesus got him wrong.  Jesus’ language should have been different.  For example, instead of saying that God sent him so that whoever believes in him can have eternal life, he should have said those who I am irresistible to (or some similar clause) will have eternal life, but  because the Father did not make everyone for good purposes it is not all inclusive (Jn. 3:15-17). 

Then Paul could have avoided those embarrassing statements such as “we” (in a general sense) are God’s workmanship created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and that those who God foreknew (which is everyone who had the potential of being born) he chosen to become like Christ. And Peter could have gotten it right and said that God wishes for some (instead of no one) to parish (2 Pet. 3:9) and apparently a lot considering the salvation road is narrow and the destructive path is wide (Matt. 7:13).  So also, it makes little sense for us to love our enemies and pray for those who curse us (Matt. 5:45) or even pray for anyone at all because the course is set and it cannot deviate (Gen. 10:12-14; Phil. 1:19; Eph. 6:18).

The point is Jesus never made people’s salvation about predetermined-election. Read each Gospel in its entirety and it is clear that God had good news for everyone, those elected were chosen to bear the responsibility of the other nations knowing that good news, but were never sole recipients of it (Isa. 49:6).  More importantly, God’s love and relational essence with his creation is evident, but determinism only opposes such a God. It is, however, consistent with preprogrammed machines.  (Stay tuned for prt. 2)  

           

[1] I cringe at the thought that any parent has ever been told the loss of their child was because of God’s “love” and/or greater plan.  Not your sick child, not the Sandy Hook massacre, not one act of terrorism, not the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atrocity, not the earthquake of Haiti was God’s “greater” plan at work.  Pain and loss was never part of God’s plan. It was the result of a broken creation and the creation’s enslavement to sin (1 Jn. 5:19-20).   It doesn’t mean that we are not more inclined to listen to God and become teachable in vulnerable situations. It also does not mean that God won’t bring good out of bad, but it was not planned for the greater purpose. God’s plan has always worked toward life and good and when bad comes apart from his will. What’s more is he rarely delivers us from it, but actually delivers us through it, even when death is the final result.

           

[2] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 172.

Quote of the Week

This week’s quote comes from a prominent Rabbi and while this work of his was published sixty years ago I feel it still resonates with the Church’s situation: 

“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.” –Abraham Joshua Heschel God in Search of Man (p. 3)

If the church is to move and work toward a new future, I can't help but feel like it will have to begin with the setting aside of discrimination complexes and doing some housekeeping in the form of reflective truth telling.

Be Fed

Van Gogh's Worn Out

I have not had the chance to sit down and write lately (due to some of the minor inconveniences of life) and I am not sure when in the next month or two I am going to.  However, until I can get back to writing I thought I might post quotes periodically for all you contemplative junkies out there, and also so I can feel like I am doing something.  So, to kick it off here is something from Rohr that is nothing short of profound:   

"Only love can know love, only mercy can know mercy, only the endless mystery I am to myself is ready for God’s Infinite Mystery.

When I can stand in mystery (not knowing and not needing to know and being dazzled by such freedom), when I don’t need to split, to hate, to dismiss, to compartmentalize what I cannot explain or understand, when I can radically accept that “I am what I am what I am,” then I am beginning to stand in divine freedom (Galatians 5:1).

We do not know how to stand there on our own. Someone Else needs to sustain us in such a deep and spacious place. This is what the saints mean by our emptiness, our poverty and our nothingness. They are not being negative or self-effacing, but just utterly honest about their inner experience.

God alone can sustain me in knowing and accepting that I am not a saint, not at all perfect, not very loving at all—and in that very recognition I can fall into the perfect love of God."   -Richard Rohr

Disgusted by a Good Samaritan

Ferdinand Hodler's Good Samaritan

So in the name of “full disclosure” I personally was not disgusted by a Good Samaritan, but I think somebody else was. We tend to think that Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan was a story of how to treat others kindly (as good as that may be) as if the Samaritan is our role model, but Jesus wasn’t actually answering the question of how to treat others kindly.  He was answering the question “who is my neighbor?” and he goes about answering it in a radically significant way.

Anatomy of Disgust

There is an aspect in the science of human behavior to help us understand what Jesus was doing especially since the stigma he exposes is ever-present.  Though the psychology of disgust was not a developed theory in first-century Palestine, Jesus managed to addresses it very well. Richard Beck actually presents this idea in his book Unclean in relation to other sayings and parables Jesus infuriated others with, but it also applies to the Samaritan. Beck’s definition of disgust is that it is a psychological boundary that marks objects, ideas, or persons as exterior, alien and therefore unclean.[1]

            He helps us to understand this idea through something called the “Dixie Cup” test.  The test is to imagine being asked to spit into a Dixie cup and then asked to drink the spit.  How would that make you feel?  Most people are automatically disgusted by the thought of drinking their own spit even though it was not so bothersome when it was saliva in their mouth, but as soon as it is outside one’s mouth it gets a new name and the feeling of uncleanness and disgust arise.[2]  We might have similar feelings occur when we find a hair in our food or are asked to consume a foreign dish containing bugs or worms, both healthy alternatives to processed foods, yet some become disgusted.

The expulsive aspect of disgust, however, does not begin and end with oral issues or food but extends itself to the stimuli of gore, deformity, hygiene as-well-as sociomoral disgusts like moral offenses and particular social groups.  Some of these boundaries can become problematic and worrisome. “Whenever disgust regulates our experience of holiness or purity we will find this expulsive element… The worry, obviously, comes when people are the object of expulsion, when social groups (religious or political) seek purity by purging themselves through social scapegoating.”[3]

The Parable

With this in mind, Jesus then tells the “Good Samaritan” story to a Jewish lawyer who wants to know who he should consider his neighbor.  Jesus tells about a man who had been robbed, beaten up and left for dead on the road (Lk. 10:25-37).  As he tells about the Jewish Priest and Levite purposely avoiding the man in the road, this lawyer would have probably made excuses for them.  He identified with them and knew the Jewish law and vows they were bound to as it was considered unclean to touch someone who might be dead… or pagan.  However, when the Samaritan passed by and stopped to help, much racist tension would have probably arisen within the lawyer because the two groups had a long-standing feud and disgust toward one another.  Now the lawyer has put himself in the place of the man in the road.  His thought process might have look liked him seeing the Samaritan as a dirty, long-nosed, sub-human, pagan that has no business breathing the same air as him let alone touching him, even if it was to save his life. This was an unacceptable gesture.  Suddenly, this Jewish lawyer has to face the idea that this ethnic group he and his country-men are at odds with is his neighbor. This social class his religious leaders had taught him were unclean he is now commanded to love. 

However, this would not have only been limited to the Jewish lawyer, but would have crossed the sensitive boundaries of disgust for most of Jesus’ listeners who thought of Samaritans as unclean and alien.  The previous goal was to set them on the outside marginalizing them, not call them neighbor and interact with them on a personal level.  A scandal for sure!   

When we answer this question in our personal spheres we might be disgusted to think that we too have Samaritans Jesus is calling our neighbor and are worthy of our love. Common tensions to consider might be U.S. citizens and illegal Mexicans, blacks and police, or even right-winged Evangelicals and the LGBTQ community.  Outside the US it could be Israel and Palestine, Russia and Ukraine and on it goes. Or, perhaps it’s less radical than these and it is a person you are critical of or a person who disagrees with you. The point is that we should walk away from the Good Samaritan asking ourselves what Samaritans have we drawn boundaries of disgust with?  Then consciously remove those boundaries because they are our neighbor.   

[1] Richard Beck. Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books 2011), 2.

[2] Ibid, 1.

[3] Ibid, 16.

Is God’s Creation Incomplete?

I am writing this as overflow from a very dense essay I have been researching for which deals with the idea that Creation is an ongoing process… and well, it seemed “mind-blowing” enough to make a brief blog post about. The simple construct goes like this: God is Creator; He never ceases to be Creator and therefore is still in the mode of creating (now I have to prove it).  I do believe this stands central to all that God does throughout the Bible both in the Hebrew Scriptures and NT.

Continuous Creation

Before I jump into that, however, I find there are generally two common views about God’s act of creating.  The first view is that God completed a creative activity in Gen. 1-2 and then transitioned to being Lord over it.  Yet, after the creation quickly goes south (Gen. 3-11) God begins salvation-mode as the alternative to the creative plan (Gen.12). 

The second view, to some extent, agrees with the first, but has critiqued the idea that Gen. 1-2 shows creation as complete and static. It is centered on the Hebrew verb bārā (found through Gen. 1-2; Ps. 104:30 and so on) which they contest should be translated as “ongoing creation” but in the sense that after God made it, he sustains it and is always holding it together.  

            Perhaps both get it a little right, but both are missing a possible bigger picture.  Terrence Fretheim is helpful in grappling critically with these views.  He points out that the second premise is right about the contested verb as it does in fact suggest a continuous act of creation.  Yet, it claims too much to say that God is sustaining it in such a way that if he were to stop then creation would return back to primordial chaos.  There are texts within scripture that point to God’s establishing “the basic and dynamic infrastructure” of the cosmos which is divinely promised to continue (Gen. 8:22; 9:8-17; Jer. 31:35-37; 32:17-26).[1]

We might then reason that since God was not so happy about the whole human-fall thing if he was being a micromanager with tight control then the incidents of Gen.3-11 would not have been able to happen.  In this sense the first premise is correct in believing that the initial stages of creation (e.g. ordering and establishing natural laws and function to the cosmos) were “complete” and self-sustaining, though God is sustaining it in a much broader sense.  

            However, to say that the creation narrative results in a “finished product” is just as misleading.  Again the second premise is right to argue that the Hebraic verb does connote “ongoing creation” but it cannot be limited to preservation. Fretheim, too, claims the verb “refers to the development of the creation through time and space and to the emergence of genuinely new realities in an increasingly complex world.  God’s continuing work is both preserving and innovative.”[2]  It should come as no surprise that God never ceases to keep the relationship as creation’s Creator given that he makes many promises to do a “new thing” and it will surpass all expectations (Isa. 42:9; 43:18-19; 48:6; 49:19-21; Jer. 31:22).  In this God will always continue to create afresh (over and over again) not only providing for needs, but continuing creative activity so to enable “the becoming of the creation,” as Fretheim termed it.[3] That is to say, God’s action of salvation within the created order (as discussed in those scriptures)  envisages a new and fully flourished creation.  Humanity is thus in process of becoming and has been invited to play a crucial role in the creative activity.  As a side-note this reveals many implications about creation’s future being open, not predetermined.                                       

Salvation Is Creation?         

Nevertheless, to claim creation is ongoing also claims that salvation is not God’s act of abandoning the cosmos and extracting humans from creation (as the first premise believed) and that has raised many questions about how to define salvation. 

The most common question is: does salvation mean redemption or is salvation synonymous with creation?  I believe we can define salvation and redemption as a creative activity (or a type of creation), but we cannot say salvation and creation are synonymous.  This means salvation is an act of creation, but creation is not always an act of salvation. Creation occurs in Genesis 1-2 in a way that is obviously not salvific or redemptive.  Therefore, salvation/redemption does not stand in contradiction with creation, but is both a creative act and stands in service of current creation.[4]   As Fretheim says, “the redemptive work of God is a special dimension of God’s more comprehensive activity as Creator... God’s redemption is a means to a new creation, and salvation will be the key characteristic of the new reality.”[5]

            So, if I can make any attempt to clarify, it is within the present creation that God is creating the new humanity, the new heaven and the new earth.  We are travelers in process of becoming new people in a new reality without death and (as I said before) we are invited to participate with the one who always seeks to relate to us as our Creator, but as His fellow creators in the process.  We believe it has yet to reach the fullness it will upon Christ’s return and that suggests that Creation is still an ongoing work until it reaches both the telos and sustained pinnacle of life  (Rev. 21:1-5).  This should change how we talk about and understand creation. 

[1] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 7.

[2] Ibid, 7.

[3] Ibid, 8.

[4] Ibid 11.

[5] Ibid, 12-13.

Dissident Reflections: Authentic Witness (PRT 8 of 8)

In this chapter Augsburger deals with how those who want bear witness to God’s kingdom might consider a more authentic approach.  Many have experienced the church’s relentless agenda to evangelize (be a witness of) the Christian faith (either in personal attempts or in reception thereof).  Yet, I think it is safe to say that the Western church has degraded, at least in some sense, what it means to be a so-called “witness”.  Two things stand at the forefront of what I am talking about.  

   

Jesus For Sale

First, through fine salesmanship the church has mastered capitalism by making Jesus intelligible, palatable and thereby sellable to everyone.  At its “best” it looks like Christian-apologetics and evangelism-tracks, and at its worst it looks like “health, wealth and prosperity”.[1] The first feeds the arrogant tendency to always correct others, breath superiority or sum Jesus up on a post-card, while the second feeds the narcissism that perpetually asks, what’s in it for me?    

However, can we really say Jesus is a commodity for mass consumption?  Absolutely… not!  If we are to be honest with others this is not a shallow endeavor and should never be presented that way.  To encounter Jesus is to first come face-to-face with the darkest parts of ourselves, the world and admit everything is not alright.  Only when we face such despair and the reality of an “end” can we see the need for new life and hear a message of hope that makes sense.  

Yet, Jesus as a message of hope will always look like naïveté and foolishness to those who believe they are independent or in control (hence the reason for its more frequent acceptance among those living outside of social and economic comforts). It easier to distract ourselves from the reality of our imminent end than it is to permit ourselves to feel and express the fear and pain of its constant presence.  Yet it is precisely in God’s embrace of this end (on the cross) that the new could finally begin. 

As a side note, confronting people with the Ten Commandments to show them how flawed they are does not do what well-meaning Christians think it does either. The Law usually only means something to those who already believe it or are scared by its condemning prospect in which case you are only selling “get out of hell” assurance and not a life with God that reconciles creation through us. Nevertheless, confrontational evangelism is not helpful for many and tends to push them away from God. 

Talk… If You Must

The second point is (and this wholly ties in with the first) people are turned off by the hypocrisy… and rightly so!  When there is nothing to authenticate our witness people will not have very much reason to listen. Anything we have to say may be words with content, but they have no visible context.

I think the remedy to this was said most clearly by Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words.”[2]  We must exemplify what we believe and yet we seem perfectly comfortable acting in ways that are opposite of love, patience, gentleness, kindness and so on towards one another (Gal. 5:22-23).  We can only authenticate our message with actions of congruency “when the content spoken and the context experienced validate each other… therefore the authentic witness is not the charismatic personality of an individual, nor the perfection of a particular life; it is the presence of a community of witnesses who verify, validate and authenticate their life together.”[3]

Moreover, this is a shared task and it begins with faithful presence, concern and service with each other. It has been said that this was probably Jesus’ fail-safe mechanism within the Gospel in that the only ones to be trusted with the “Great Commission” were the ones who epitomized love for God and love for neighbor in their daily life.[4]  We would do well to take notice of how Jesus sequences his instruction to the disciples.  Upon entering a city, when received in hospitality, eat with them (identifying in solidarity), then offer compassion, service and aid, (agape-love) and then lastly speak a verbal witness so to reinforce the living witness (God’s kingdom has come near you) (Lk. 10:8-9).[5]

At the same time, if we wait until we are good enough to bear sufficient witness we may never get around to it, as Augsburger also points out.  Certainly God works through us despite us as the truth itself is much more life-giving than the flawed ones who carry it.

But it does not diminish the point that “authentic witnesses practice the way of humble and authentic service as embodiment, and in time they give their faith voice and name, Jesus’s name. The spiritual practice of authentic witness finds its center in the life lived more than the word given.”[6]  This is something that should be prevalent in our daily rhythms of life, but it takes accepting that the problem exists before we can adequately address it. 

The End of My Series

This is actually not the last chapter of the book, but it is as far as I wanted to go with it.  Obviously there is much more to it all than I covered, but if anything I hope it conveyed some areas within the Christian life that we should be willing to question, challenge and grow in.  If we are really behaving like Jesus did, does and taught us to it requires a dissent from the current state of things so to attest to God’s subversive rule. 

Nevertheless, I must conclude that Augsburger does not disappoint and it is certainly worth the read for anyone seriously considering communal spirituality and discipleship in a way that reflects the Gospel… but that is just my opinion.  

[1] Apologetics is a field that was formed for the sole purpose of attacking the Enlightenment and proving our rightness by defending God and making him comprehensible.  Well I am pretty sure God does not need us to defend him, but he does want us to live in relationship with him and each other. That relationship looks like respect, love and humility that is given its content by God’s grace.

[2] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 171.

[3] Ibid, 176, 179.

[4] Ibid, 177.

[5] Ibid, 183-184.

[6] Ibid, 186-187.

Dissident Reflections: Concrete Service

(Augsburger prt 7) For this chapter, instead summarizing/reflecting-on its ideas I just want to leave a quote from it that I think sums-up what service should be. It is perhaps above all a condition of the heart that produces service, whether necessary-service and voluntary-service, rather than someone who strives to do good things just because they are supposed to (which most often leads to burn-out or turns into resentful efforts).

Service that is necessary—required, owed, obligated, contracted—may be offered with genuineness, concern, compassion, and thoroughness.  Or it can be done grudgingly, of necessity under duress.  One does what has to be done.

Service that is voluntary falls into a completely different category.  It arises out of unbidden concern, undemanded interest, unowed compassion.  This is the service that comes close to being the actions of love.  It is offered by free choice because of the nature of the servant.  One does what one sees as needed. 

Most service is mixed, with necessary and voluntary aspects occurring together.  Perhaps one serves because it is a career—a chosen course—and for a salary does what is necessary, fulfilling all requirements. But when one goes beyond what is expected, the service becomes voluntary; when one gives without self-centered motivation, the caregiving becomes an act of freedom; when one transcends what is expected or required, one serves joyfully, freely, out of the exuberant excess called love.  Service moves from the quid pro quo of “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” to the practice of benevolence and sacrifice in meeting others’ needs. 

Spirituality meets service as it calls one to go the second mile, to offer the second act of caring, to reach out without asking, “But what’s in it for me?” Spirituality is the voluntary element in serving another that links persons with loving concern; spirituality is the voluntary connection of social interest, fellow-feeling, and mutual aid…

…Spirituality and service are sometimes viewed as direct opposites.  Spirituality is believed to be detached from tasks of life, the concrete acts of caregiving, the mundane, the routine, the earthly, the material; the spiritual reaches toward transcendent, the ineffable, the heavenly… Spirituality in a tripolar key does not divide the heavenly from the earthly, the sacred from the profane. All can be viewed as service when service is defined as work done in voluntary, caring relationship.[1]    

Do you agree… disagree?  Think about it.

[1] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 156-157.