Apologies To The Parents I Judged Four Years Ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kara-gebhart-uhl/mom-judgments_b_1319775.html

Kara Gebhart Uhl
Blogger, pleiadesbee.com
March 6, 2012

To the Parents I Knew Four Years Ago: I'm Sorry

I have come to realize many things since having three children. For example, I now know that I can read "We're Going on a Bear Hunt" seven times in a row without going insane. No matter what people say, throw-up is throw-up and I don't care if it is my daughter who is throwing up but her throw-up makes me want to throw up. I am a really fast diaper changer. And it's true: love does not split, but grows with additional children.

But perhaps one of the biggest realizations I've made as a relatively new parent (my daughter turns 4 in March, my twin boys turn 2 in May) is how incredibly judgmental I was pre-children.

You, the woman at Kohl's who pushed a cart with your screaming toddler draped on the rack underneath it, ignoring her as she scraped her feet on the floor because she couldn't have the toy she wanted: I judged you.

Girlfriend with children who had Nick Jr. on the entire time I visited: I judged you.

Parent at the park who did not pack an organic, free-range, all-food-groups-represented, no-dessert lunch complete with sandwiches cut in cute little shapes, who instead fed your children chicken nuggets, cold French fries and (gasp) chocolate milk? I judged you.

Not out loud, of course. But internally, I was smug. I thought things like I would never have children who would behave in such a manner in public. Or, Doesn't she know the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV until the age of 2? Or, How can he possibly be feeding his children that crap? Has he not read any of Michael Pollan's books?

And what's worse, now that I'm a parent, I realize internal smugness isn't so internal. As a parent, I know when I'm being judged. I can sense it, even when nothing is being said out loud. It's in the look. The double-take. The whisper to the companion they're with.

It's hard not to care about what other people think. But still, that quiet judgment can sting, especially on days when my nerves are shot and my children are in the worst moods -- a combination that often leads to a situation judge-worthy by many.

But now, as a parent, I do things judge-worthy even when my children are being good. Last Thursday is a perfect example: My son had a physical therapy appointment a good half-hour drive away. On the way back from the appointment both of my boys fell asleep -- we had eaten lunch out, complete with Oreo cookies and Popsicles for dessert, (judge!) after the appointment and it was close to their naptime. Of course they fell asleep. My daughter, however, who has long given up naps (!), was still awake.

When I pulled into my driveway, I had two choices: Wake up the boys and deal with their short tempers having only slept for 25 minutes, or sit in the van with them while they slept, bribing my daughter with apps on my iPod and promises of candy once inside if she would just sit and be quiet for a half hour longer (!). I chose option B without blinking. And I left the car running (!) the entire time.

When the boys woke up, they were furious because of the cricks in their necks -- thanks to the car seats we bought without good head support to the side simply because they were cheaper (!). My daughter was at her wit's end with being trapped in a car seat in a car that wasn't going anywhere just because I wanted some peace and quiet (!). I took everyone inside, plopped them on the couch, got out some gummy candy and turned on "Little Bear." Two episodes. (!!)

Pre-children: I was going to cloth diaper.

Post-children: I did with my daughter, sort of, but not with my twins.

Pre-children: No TV until age of 2 and then only 30 minutes a day.

Post-children: Ha.

Pre-children: Only organic, healthy, homemade food.

Post-children: My kids love Wendy's.

Pre-children: Public tantrums are unacceptable.

Post-children: Removal of the child is only sometimes doable; predicting when a tantrum is going to strike is often impossible.

Pre-children: Complaints about childrearing and its hardships annoyed me (this was your choice, no?) and saddened me (parenthood is supposed to be a wonderful thing!).

Post-children: Parenthood isn't wonderful 100 percent of the time.

My day-to-day routine isn't what I envisioned it would be four years ago. Some of the things I imagine I'm judged on now are minor, others, a little more major. But mostly they are simple faults and I now know that they don't make me a bad parent. Sometimes I leave dirty diapers on the changing table. My children's socks don't always match. I forget to brush my daughter's hair. I use TV as a way to take a breather. I utilize the fast-food drive-thru. I bribe. I'm sometimes too easy. I'm sometimes too hard. I sometimes make the wrong decision, give the wrong punishment, ask too much, ask too little. But within all these minor and major faults is a singular truth: Most days, I'm doing the best I can. And I honestly believe that's a truth that can be applied to most parents: Most days, we're all doing the best we can.

Because here's another realization I've made as a parent: Everyone's situation is different. There is a story behind every action and inaction. Every parent has his or her own style. Every child has his or her own temperament. What might be a stellar day for my family has been a downright awful day for another -- perhaps the parent's job is in danger, their parent is sick or they just had an argument with their spouse. Perhaps the child is failing math or being bullied at school, or the toddler hasn't slept for two weeks. This can explain the short-temper in the grocery store or the harsher-than-necessary punishment, or the lack of care when it comes to sweets or TV or a late bedtime. We don't know, can't know, someone's entire story.

That said, I believe there are absolutes in parenting so yes, sometimes, I still judge. (And I realize that the irony of this piece is that in writing about not judging others, I'm now judging those who judge.) I know that, for some, it's impossible to provide their children with life's basic necessities: food, clothing and shelter. But I believe we, as parents, must try. I believe we must do what we can to protect our children from harm. I believe we should always love our children, even when, especially when, we don't like their actions, we disagree with their decisions or we're just having a difficult day with them.

But everything else is minor. Everything else doesn't matter. There are children who are abused, who go to bed hungry, who have never known love, and four years ago I was judging the toddler who watched an hour of "Sesame Street"?

I feel bad about my pre-children smugness. I feel bad about the sting I may have, unknowingly, made another feel. I feel bad -- and laugh out loud at the thought -- that I, at one time, before I had children, believed I knew better. Parenting is difficult enough -- there's no reason we should judge one another, not for the things that don't matter, anyway, and not for the things we see a snippet of rather than knowing the full story.

So to the parents I knew four years ago, I'm sorry. I know better now.

Emergent Christianity is like a Bowl of Chili !

Recently I read an article about the different kinds of chili that can be found across America. I'm not a cook myself, nor do I care much for anything made with beans, so I found this quite interesting because I had never thought about that before, as much as from my ignorance as from never sampling such a wide variety of culinary creations in my vagabond travels by taste and by choice.

But after reading through this humorous tract it made me think of the many types of churches, faith congregations, and individual worship styles and beliefs existing around the world when it comes to all things Christian. And it is exactly this style of effort and expression that causes me to think of a broader, wider, deeper vein of faith not found in many of its more earnest forms today that seem separatistic, individualistic and dogmatically driven.

However, it is exactly this style of faith that Emergent Christians should look forward to as a participatory body with one another. An Emergent faith that revels in its plurality, its flavors, its expressions, colours, tastes and attitudes. That refuses to be locked down by any one ideology or cultural portrayal. That is wide, generous, vital, and beautifully expressed around the world as one multi-ethnic, multicultural, pluralistic body of Christ. And like chili, though it is made with differing ingredients, methods, and a variety of culinary dashes of expression, is still in its essence, chili.

This is the promise of Emergent Christianity... and for that matter, any Christian faith that would lift Jesus up as Lord and Savior. A faith that is adaptive to society, progressive with the times, assimilating to the responses of humanity, regardless of race, colour, nationality, class, gender, rich, poor, sideways or anyways. One that lifts Jesus up before all else so that every idol, every ambition, every idea, trade, pride or possession bows its knees to the Messiah King of all Creation. At its heart this faith is Christological, Christ centered, Messianic, and Spirit bourne.

Moreover, the Christian faith is an authenticising faith, one that cuts a path deep and wide as a leveler of society among all the religions and dominions of mankind. Where those who bear the cross of Christ flavour their faith with love, tolerance, respect, justice, righteousness, care and mercy. One that is selfless, sacrificial, and serving. A faith that may be hard to define, hard to grasp, even hard to follow because of its many costs, but one that in the end is founded upon Jesus above all else whatever its differences of expression. This is the strength of God's new covenant with a redeemed humanity. A covenant that reaches out to all men everywhere with life eternal that begins here-and-now in our present experience. Our present lives. Our present earth-bound societies and communities, friends and family. It is an experiential faith bearing spiritual realities too sublime to grasp when Spirit-born by blood and by water. One that is separated from an earthly faith filled with fear, threat, uncertainty or disambiguations.

Though hard to define the Christian faith is nonetheless, in its essence, still the faith of its Savior. Let us then praise God for His wisdom and grace! For the beauteous fellowships of His many peoples and faiths! And perhaps, when we think about it, we can see God's wisdom when He describes Jesus' life, and the faith of His followers, to that of necessary foods and drink - as yeast, salt, wheat, bread, wine, water, various fruits, drinks, seasonings, spices, herbs, honey, olive oil and on and on. A faith that can be as bitter as it is sweet. Filling as it is beggarly. One that is nurturing to the needy. Bounteous to the believing. Considered as nothing to those lost in darkness and pride. A sumptuous feast to those who would dine. But a contemptible table that is despised in the land of sin and the wilderness of the devil. Or as a table of plenty for those lost in wildernesses of disillusionment and destruction. Perhaps a sustaining flask of oil-and-meal to those found at life's end like the hated prophet Elijah fleeing before the wicked hands of an idolatrous king and queen but helped by a merciful widow caring for a starving son. Or like manna from heaven that waits upon expectant hands.

We have a wonderful God who is a living Savior that will provide for the children of His household. "Come and eat," says the Groom. All has been set and is ready for service. "Come," says the Bride, "Come dine with me at my bridal table." The table has been set and awaits your attendance. "Come," says the Spirit. "Sup of the fruit of the vine and find life everlasting." It is the table of Gethsemane on the eve of the Savior's hardships and cross. "Come," says the Savior, "I am thy bread and thy wine." Let us bow our heads and offer thanksgiving together at this moment of sacrifice and redemption.

Come then, and worship the Lord God Almighty, all ye who are weary and laden with sin. Come to the table of the Lord our Savior and King of Kings. The Alpha and the Omega. The Lion and the Lamb. Our High Priest and holy offering. He who serves as the very temple vessels themselves before the Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire in the Holy of Holies. He who is God's smoke by day and heat by night. Who gives grace to beggars by the pools of healing. And mercy to the lame and blind upon God's right hand. He who is, and was, and is to come. The trumpet of the seven seals of God on that last day immemorial. The coming One who walks among the seven churches of God. Who lives both now and forevermore. Come and eat as thy very fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of life. He who is the bread of God and Manna upon the high altar of holy fire. Come.

R.E. Slater

March 1, 2012

MOTHER LODE: If you give an alien a bowl of chili...

http://www.mlive.com/advancenewspapers/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/mother_lode_if_you_give_an_ali.html

Published: Friday, February 24, 2012, 12:05 PM Updated: Friday, February 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

By Cathy Runyon | Advance NewspapersAdvance Newspapers

Now and then I come upon some aspect of American culture that is puzzling to me, so puzzling that I wonder how anyone from another culture could possibly make sense of it. It happened just the other day when I was talking with some friends about recipes for chili.

Imagine a friendly alien from outer space landing in your driveway and knocking on the door requesting lunch.

“Sure, come on in,” you say. “I’m making chili.”

“Ah!” says the alien, anticipating the collection of some new data about this amazing planet that is the current topic of study. “Please explain. What is chili?”

And you say, “Chili is the favorite meal of Americans in January and February. There are contests to see who can make the best chili. It starts with ground beef and lots of onions and green pepper. Add canned whole tomatoes and smash them with a metal spoon. Mix in kidney beans, salt and pepper, and as much chili powder as you like.”

You serve up a big bowl of home-style chili to the alien, along with a slice of fresh cornbread or possibly saltine crackers. The alien thanks you, then heads back out to the exploration unit (the mother ship is hovering far above) and flies off to Texas to take a few more notes.

Thanks to the warm reception it received earlier, the alien knocks confidently on another door. The owner arrives holding a shotgun and restraining a large barking dog, but the alien doesn’t mind. The customs of other native groups intrigue him.

“Do you by chance have any chili?” it asks.

“Durned if I didn’t jist take a kettle off the range,” says the homeowner, chaining the snarling dog to the leg of the sofa and returning the gun to its pegs above the door. “Sit yerself down.”

But the alien does not recognize the food before him. It is chunks of meat in a smooth sauce, with no beans or tomatoes, with tortillas on the side. Its first taste makes it wonder if humans’ mouths are lined with polyethylene, but the alien is not one to complain.

“Thank you,” it gasps, and quickly flies off to California for more observation. At an outdoor café it orders chili, and is served a creamy white soup containing bits of chicken and white beans. Perhaps the server, wearing rollerblades and bobbing his head to music coming through earphones, did not understand the request. The alien leaves a handful of diamonds on the table in payment and quietly leaves.

More research does not resolve his confusion. Chili, it seems, contains meat or no meat, red or black or white beans or no beans, tomatoes or no tomatoes, sweet potatoes or winter squash in chunks or pureed.

There is, however, one unifying characteristic – chilies, either whole or powdered. But chili powder might be a mix of many kinds of peppers, and the powder may contain cumin and/or oregano, garlic and other stuff.

Life is like a bowl of chili – all good, but hard to define.

  

FOODS OF THE BIBLE

Seasonings, Spices and Herbs

• Anise (Matthew 23:23 KJV)
• Coriander (Exodus 16:31; Numbers 11:7)
• Cinnamon (Exodus 30:23; Revelation 18:13)
• Cumin (Isaiah 28:25; Matthew 23:23)
• Dill (Matthew 23:23)
• Garlic (Numbers 11:5)
• Mint (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42)
• Mustard (Matthew 13:31)
• Rue (Luke 11:42)
• Salt (Ezra 6:9; Job 6:6)

Fruits and Nuts

• Apples (Song of Solomon 2:5)
• Almonds (Genesis 43:11; Numbers 17:8)
• Dates (2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3)
• Figs (Nehemiah 13:15; Jeremiah 24:1-3)
• Grapes (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 23:24)
• Melons (Numbers 11:5; Isaiah 1:8)
• Olives (Isaiah 17:6; Micah 6:15)
• Pistachio Nuts (Genesis 43:11)
• Pomegranates (Numbers 20:5; Deuteronomy 8:8)
• Raisins (Numbers 6:3; 2 Samuel 6:19)
• Sycamore Fruit (Psalm 78:47; Amos 7:14)

Vegetables and Legumes

• Beans (2 Samuel 17:28; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Cucumbers (Numbers 11:5)
• Gourds (2 Kings 4:39)
• Leeks (Numbers 11:5)
• Lentils (Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 17:28; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Onions (Numbers 11:5)

Grains

• Barley (Deuteronomy 8:8; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Bread (Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 6:19; 16:1; Mark 8:14)
• Corn (Matthew 12:1; KJV - refers to "grain" such as wheat or barley)
• Flour (2 Samuel 17:28; 1 Kings 17:12)
• Millet (Ezekiel 4:9)
• Spelt (Ezekiel 4:9)
• Unleavened Bread (Genesis 19:3; Exodus 12:20)
• Wheat (Ezra 6:9; Deuteronomy 8:8)

Fish

• Matthew 15:36
• John 21:11-13

Fowl

• Partridge (1 Samuel 26:20; Jeremiah 17:11)
• Pigeon (Genesis 15:9; Leviticus 12:8)
• Quail (Psalm 105:40)
• Dove (Leviticus 12:8)

Animal Meats

• Calf (Proverbs 15:17; Luke 15:23)
• Goat (Genesis 27:9)
• Lamb (2 Samuel 12:4)
• Oxen (1 Kings 19:21)
• Sheep (Deuteronomy 14:4)
• Venison (Genesis 27:7 KJV)

Dairy

• Butter (Proverbs 30:33)
• Cheese (2 Samuel 17:29; Job 10:10)
• Curds (Isaiah 7:15)
• Milk (Exodus 33:3; Job 10:10; Judges 5:25)

Miscellaneous

• Eggs (Job 6:6; Luke 11:12)
• Grape Juice (Numbers 6:3)
• Honey (Exodus 33:3; Deuteronomy 8:8; Judges 14:8-9)
• Locust (Mark 1:6)
• Olive Oil (Ezra 6:9; Deuteronomy 8:8)
• Vinegar (Ruth 2:14; John 19:29)
• Wine (Ezra 6:9; John 2:1-10)

Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?

As I re-read Roger's article I began to think in terms of classic theism as versus process theism... the first asserts God's freedom of dependency from Creation, the latter asserts the necessity of God's dependency upon Creation. In the one view God is Creation's governor, in the second it's necessary partner. A third view, one that I have been calling "Relational Theology" reaffirms the classic position but then goes on to say that God has further declared Himself in partnership with His Creation, thereby admitting the various truisms of process theology. But rather from a volitional, and not a non-volitional argument, and thus avoiding the panentheistic corollary of involuntary bond(age) between God and His Creation which says each is necessary for the other's existence. The Classic view says this is not so, and the relational view goes on to further assert that God has voluntarily bound Himself to His creation not out of coercion, necessity or actuality, but from a free will or libertarian choice. In this way I find Dr. Olson's article on this subject a little more intriguing when thinking through the infinities of God's ontological estate (to place it dryly in its systematic vernacular), or better, the majesty of our infinite God who created by choice and by grace something apart from Himself in which He inhabits, partners with, and devotes Himself to, by choice and by grace.

R.E. Slater

March 1, 2012

Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?

http://rogereolson.com/

by Roger Olson

posted May 17, 2011

Many (not all) Calvinists argue that libertarian free will or, the power of contrary choice, is an incoherent concept. (E.g., Jonathan Edwards, Lorraine Boettner, R. C. Sproul, John Frame, John Piper, et al.) The reason is, they argue, that it amounts to belief in uncaused effects. They argue that people act according to their strongest motive.

What I’ve often wondered is whether Calvinists who argue this believe God has power of contrary choice. If God has power of contrary choice, then it cannot be a strictly incoherent concept. But to say God does NOT have power of contrary choice seems to make God a prisoner of creation; without power of contrary choice God’s decision to create would be necessary and that would make creation less than gracious and, in fact, a part of God’s own life – not a free act as if God could have done otherwise.

Wikipedia - J. Edwards

The way Jonathan Edwards attempted to get around this in The Freedom of the Will was to say that "God always does the wisest thing." Contemporary Calvinists who follow him closely agree. In other words, according to Edwards, God could have done otherwise than create the world, but he created the world because it was “most fitting” to do so.

My question is how this gets around the problem. To me it seems like a dodge; that is, it seems to attempt to answer the challenge without answering it. It seems like saying both at the same time – that God could have not created and that God could not have not created.

The question is simply this: Is it logically conceivable that God might not have created the world? Is it conceivable that God might have decided against this creation or any creation?

Edwards’ answer seems to say yes and no at the same time. That’s against the laws of logic UNLESS he can explain how the “yes” and the “no” are referring to different things. But in his explanation, they aren’t.

The question is: Is God the prisoner of his own wisdom (or of anything)? I’ve earlier discussed here the issue of nominalism/voluntarism versus realism – i.e., whether God has a nature. But even the strictest realists do not believe God is a prisoner of his eternal character. Rather, his eternal character guides his decision; it does not necessary govern them.

IF one says that God “always does the wisest thing” WITH THE ASSUMPTION that there is always only ONE “wisest thing,” then how is one not making creation necessary and therefore not gracious? (A basic principle of theology is that what is by nature cannot be by grace. If I HAVE to rescue you, it’s not an act of mercy or grace.)

Why assume that there is always only ONE “wise thing” to do – even for God? Why couldn’t it have been wise to create but also wise not to create? Of course, as any rationalist will ask, then why did God create? Was it simply an arbitrary choice – like throwing the dice?

Here I’m tempted to throw back at the Calvinist his or her own argument that God’s choice of "some to save" and "others to damn" is not arbitrary without any hint at what might explain it. In other words, if it’s fair for the Calvinist to argue that divine selection is not based on anything God “sees” in the elect or the damned (that differentiates them) and yet is not arbitrary, then why couldn’t the person who believes in God’s power of contrary choice argue that God’s choice to create is not arbitrary even though no specific reason for it can be given?

However, I prefer to argue that for God, as for us, there are moments when two alternative options are equally wise and no controlling, determining factor interior (such as motive) or otherwise determines which option one must choose to be right.

For example, some married couples confront the choice whether or not to have a child. I know couples like that. They wrestled with the decision, they thought about it long and hard, and they never really came up with a determinative reason to have or not to have a child. Some such couples decide to have a child, which is wise, and some decide not to, which can also be wise.

It seems to me that to say “God always does the wisest thing,” implying by that that God must do such-and-such (e.g., create the world), is the same as to say that God is a machine and that the creation and redemption of the world is not by grace but by nature. Only if God really could have done otherwise than create can creation be by grace only. Grace cannot be compelled and still be grace.

The upshot is, of course, that IF the creation and redemption of the world by God is truly gracious and not automatic, then God must possess libertarian free will, power of contrary choice. And if God possesses such, it cannot be an incoherent concept.

Now, it’s another thing entirely to argue that God possesses power of contrary choice but humans don’t. That’s a different argument. The natural answer is “Why?” If God possesses it, why couldn’t he give it to humans? There doesn’t seem to be anything about power of contrary choice that requires deity. It’s not like omnipotence, for example.

[By definition, Creation is not the same thing as God but is something set apart from God and yet bears God's divine Image or divine essence to itself. This realtionship is ontologically distinct from one another, though each bears the imprint of the other, and in a fashion each inhabits the other in some metaphysical sense, which is what is meant by divine Image or Essence. - re slater]

I think Edwards skirted the issue and so do his followers who repeat his argument in one form or another. To say “God always does the wisest thing” is either to imply that God is an automaton, in which case creation and redemption are automatic and not gracious, or to imply that God COULD do that which is something other than “the wisest thing.”

I reject the notion that “God always does the wisest thing,” not because I think God is anything less than absolutely wise but because I don’t believe there is always only one “wisest thing” in every situation of choice between options. To avoid making creation and redemption other than gracious, we have to suppose that God really could have chosen not to create. To say “God always does the wisest thing” is to imply that God really could not have done otherwise.

So, the Calvinist argument that libertarian free will - the power of contrary choice - is an incoherent concept falls on its own sword UNLESS the Calvinist is willing to make God the prisoner of his wisdom, that is of his nature, in such a way that creation and redemption are not gracious.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*For a related article see "The Origin of Sin, Hell and Universalism" -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/origin-of-sin-hell-and-universalism.html

The Origin of Sin, Hell, and Universalism

It seems that in order to talk about Hell and Universalism one must also talk about God and Sin. So let me back into the latter discussion by first addressing Universalism in terms of covenantal concepts. Then speak to God and sin. And lastly death and hell.

Sin and Universalism

According to Andrew Perriman (a view that I would agree with), the church is a corporate salvific community of believers within an ever-expanding and re-populating Abrahamic covenant resident through the testamental eras in an rapidly unfolding eschatological sense. And it is to this covenant's jurisdictions that superintends over all other soteriological considerations of "universalism" commonly argued within various branches of the Reformed Church. His is the biblical theological view that focuses on God's covenanted people, or incorporated communities, while the Reformed soteriological statement may focus on the systematic view of salvation delimited only to covenanted individuals. Curiously both theological positions originate from within Reformed theology itself out of which Calvinism's more systematic theologies were birthed bearing a multitude of logistical statements and theological deductions that seemingly require advance degrees in philosophy and linguistics to even begin to follow through its many centuries of synthetic arguments. Specifically as it expounds and exposits on that area of doctrine described as "soteriology" and better known in the vernacular as "the doctrine of salvation."

But the covenant view focuses on (i) the gracious charter of God "cut" or established between man and Himself through enactment of sacrifice. In the ancient Near East this is known as the Suzerainty-Vassal covenant treaty binding each agreeable party to variously named obligations, blessings and curses. Its structure is readily recognizable throughout the entirety of the book of Deuteronomy in all its chapters. While the soteriological systematic view focuses only on the implications of not heeding that charter as implemented between God and man. (ii) The first view sees a covenant meant for all peoples living in a land of universal blessings, whereas the other sees it as meant for "the elect, the predestined" who may only participate in God's delimited blessings. (iii) The first view avoids reflecting on the metaphysical implications of death and the grave, while the second view creates stricter boundaries upon death by giving considerate focus upon hell itself. So that, regardless of Perriman's purpose of debating implied universalism or not, he has intentionally raised a range of problems presented by the "systematic view of personal soteriology" (known as Calvinism) as versus the more natural or reasonable reading of a "corporate biblical theology of a covenanted people of God" found in Scriptures known as Remnant Theology (as versus replacement or separation theology):

• Replacement Theology - the Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.
• Separation Theology - the Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.
• Remnant Theology - The Church and Israel overlap in some manner of continuity and discontinuity.

Overall one may say with reasonable assurance that God has come to restore all things unto Himself. And that the covenanted church's mission is to proclaim this restoration through the cross of Jesus. That the journey for mankind is the discovery, or realization, of God's universal and inescapable love and the "blessings" that come to a covenanted people reconciled to God as their gracious Suzerainty. But to those who reject the love and sacrifice of God as free-willed beings there will also be required the "curses" that come to a previously covenanted people of God willing to break treaty, and in this case, specifically not bow to the Lordship of Jesus Christ who enacted redemption upon a Cross of Sacrifice. In strict terms, those "curses" may be considered self-made or self-inflicted because the Christian idea of sin is that which is not of God. To not be in God is to be in sin. And because it is a personal choice than it can be considered a self-made hell which is a grievous enough choice that God will continually, and unabandonly, assists us to not make regardless of the personal hell and depravity we carry with/within us through this life. But "curses" does not mean that God will automatically inflict harm and destruction upon those who break from His universal covenant... it simply means that we have chosen sin's harm and destruction upon ourselves by breaking covenant with God. In this way God is not found to be capricious or mean God; nor a totalitarian or despotic ruler; nor even a cosmic monster which can arise with the Calvinistic doctrine of soteriology through its doctrines of personal "election" and "predestination" and its implied "double predestination" to those damned for all eternity under the TULIP system.

Hence, the Abrahamic Covenant is historically re-enacted by Jesus on the cross of Calvary whereon He presented Himself to be literally "cut," or sacrificed, as the Lamb of God so as to establish a finalised ratification of the Covenant of Redemption between the God of the Heavens and the peoples of the earth. Marking this universal covenant as eternally bounded by God's very own sacrifice Himself and consequently reinforced and empowered by His self-made (and willful) covenant with mankind. Thus, it was (and is) a universal covenant with universal obligations, blessings and curses (as so described in the above paragraph). And it is in this manner that the Suzerainty-King is vindicated and is shown to be just and righteous when He returns to enforce His ransomed, conciliatory, covenanted people. All the more so because it was the Suzerainty Himself who was sacrificed in order to enact this binding covenant with man such that no surer sacrifice could be made except upon the personage of the Godhead ratified and invoked (sic, compare the book of Hebrews with the book of Deuteronomy specifically in this regard).

However, what does this all mean? And how did the church begin to diminish the love of God as it raised the bar on the justice and wrath of God? Is God a God of Love or is He a God of Justice? And do these non-sequitur's of truth bear a similarity of image and intent but miss the mark completely upon the very purposes of the Godhead meant and designed for a fallen Creation?

Was the Act of Creation Sinful?

In this way I find the argument of universalism misguided as a systematic theological argument by missing the intent of God's act of reconciliation. True, God's love is universal. But also true is the rejection of that love offered time-and-again by the Spirit of God to a rejecting mankind. Scripture attests again-and-again that God's relationship to creation is one of reconciliation, restoration, and the glorious re-ordering of Creation's sinful bent away from Himself back unto Himself. In a sense, we have all that is "pure" on the one side of things, and all that is "impure" on the other side of things. Or, we have all that is "God" on one side and all that is "not God" on the other side. But when God recreated His image into something separate from Himself, in the transference man was given free will as part of God's very own image of volition, which thing was also expressed into Creation's very own essence. Thus, God's image was stamped upon Creation's image, (i) part of that being volition or free will. And (ii) part of that being the essence of God however we describe it. So then not only man, but Creation itself, is marked by God's very essence, or Image, and within that essence or Image came free will (I see this explicitly in the creative order when considering quantum physics principles of indeterminacy and uncertainty). And yet, we might ask, how then did sin arise? And how can anything be separate from the very being of God? Even "Creation" itself, like man, proceeded from God and is of God... So how did "sin" result if all had come from a perfect and sinless, holy God?

Perhaps it was the mere fact that Creation was made "separate" from God in some ontological sense - that it took God's perfected, volitional, essential will of harmony as it was reflected and imbued in His Godhead - and it became corrupted in a disharmonious separation from that same Godhead. Maybe, though this is conjecture and not known. But we cannot say that it was without God's foreknowledge of this disharmonious event that it resulted. Why? Because God was not ignorant of the affects of His creative activity upon Creation. This would declare that God was not omniscient. Nor can we say that God was powerless to contain or prevent these same affects or results. This would declare God as not being omnipotent. Nor can we say that God is somehow separated from, and unaffected by, His creative act. This would declare God as not being omnipresent within all parts of His creation. What we can say is that when God created Creation He knew that it would become sinful, and that it would affect His Godhead as much as it would affect itself (omniscience). That He would still continue in the act of creation purposefully (omnipotence). And that its separation from Himself would break fellowship with His holy presence and refuse reconciliation with its all-present Creator-God (omnipresence). Thus we may say that the act of creation is a mystery. That its continuance is a mystery. That its sustenance is a mystery. And that its operation is a mystery. But a mystery that is miraculous and marvelous nonetheless!

Furthermore, the "why's" of God's divine acts must be left only to the divine counsels of God other than to understand that this God created out of pure joy and wished to share Himself with those things other than Himself. Does not the artist do the same thing? Does he not wish to share his heart, his temperament, his being with those around him? Is it not the same difference that we see from the image of the Creator within the artist? That He would share Himself - His heart, His temperament, His being - with all around Himself, or surrounding Himself, or within Himself, beyond that of His very own divine Fellowship? A Fellowship that needed to express itself beyond itself to something that had never existed before; from itself to something other than itself; through itself to the very empowerment of a created world of universe and nature, creature and mankind, each-and-all bearing the imprimaturs of the Divine's wisdom, glory, magnificence, eternity, infinity, and holiness? How like the artist is the very God of the world who colours this world with sublimities beyond the mortal pale? Who makes visible the invisible? And the invisible visible? Who brings sight and sound to the living? Breath and burden to all creatures? Who raises sun and moon with one hand, and lifts clouds and winds with the other? Who speaks peace one moment when at the next moment He trods through the valley of death and destruction? Who bows all things living to His will? Who deigns to walk stride-for-stride with any who are lost and alone, destitute and deprived, without hope or mercy, seeking deliverance and salvation? Yes, this is the God of creation. It is He that is Almighty God. Who will rule and reign. Who seeks His will. His shalom of peace and divine order in all that is, or is not, obedient to His will or peace. Who brings order from chaos. Who uses chaos to bring order. Who is Infinite Wisdom, Power, Ability and Purpose. He it is that is the Creator God of the Universe and none other. Neither image or idol. Neither fallible thought or foolish opinion. Neither pretensions of doubting hearts or ignorant spirits. It is the Creator God that gives all life and breath. Who wishes to share Himself with all that is separate - even as it exists as an integral part of Himself - in the divine mystery of what it means to be creation.

So then, we may only say that Creation is separate from God but inexplicably related to God; that it was birthed from the divine essence of God but in that birthing became corrupted by sin somehow; that sin did not exist until the angels were birthed; and later, even as creation itself was made with man as its central player of disobedience; that God's omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence is neither diminished nor limited in its fullness through His act of Creation; that one of the main characteristics of Creation is volitional, or libertarian, free will; that the Image of God is found in Creation and speaks as much to Creation's holiness as to its fallenness; and further, that the very act of God in creating further portends to Creation's holiness. Consequently, the physical characteristics and fleshly composition of creation is not what makes Creation sinful (contra the doctrine of pelagianism, for one).... It is sin itself resident within Creation that has made Creation sinful. For to be freed from the body is not to be freed from sin - else death and the grave would have no hold! It requires the freedom of redemption to free man and creation from sin. That only and nothing less than this (contra doctrines of self-denial, mortal austerity, fleshly abuse and discipline). It is the soul, and not simply the body, that has become corruptible and requires incorruptibility. The flesh but speaks to this fact. To be fleshly, or of this world, is not what makes sin present. Sin was already present and the fleshly "home" we bear but only attests to sin's presence. Sin has corrupted both our soul and fleshly pale. But looked at another way, all creation, including mankind, bears God's essence. His image. His being. We are holy vessels that have become corrupted through this thing we call sin. And yet, it is God's selfsame essence, will and purpose, that will complete His image of holiness in all things living, all things fleshly, yeah, even mankind. Who will raise (or resurrect, or re-birth) our mortal bodies unto a new heavens and new earth. Renewed by the very redemption of God Himself. Even our Lord and Savior Jesus will join Himself freely with His creation giving to it His glory, sublimity, majesty, honour, and love.

Was the Intent of Creation Sinful?

No. The intent of Creation was not sinful because its Creator-God is not sinful. But somehow "sin" did result and corrupted the volitionalism imbued within Creation (man included, for "nature/creation" has its own type of volitionalism or liberatarianism). Sin corrupted God's Image that had been transferred into His Creation - into that very substance that had been created from Himself as part of His essence, His being, His will. And yet to describe Creation as a "separate part" external to God is inexact. This position would then fall into the various forms of pelagianism which views all matter and flesh as sinful. For Creation is as much a part of God as God Himself is a part of Himself. In a sense, Creation is God and we are but witnessing the turmoil that is occurring within God as a part of God's turbulent creation at an ontological level that we are feeling, and seeing, on an existential level (one could say that the religion of Hinduism highlights these facts, although not strictly Christian it bears a form of Christian observation regarding creation's turmoil... but this is another matter for another time). A turmoil that cannot be left to stand as separate from God but must find reconciliation, restoration and renewal. For it is within God's nature to be whole. To be unified. To find harmony, peace, and "shalom" (the Jewish term meaning "order").

However, we also wish to avoid falling into a panentheism that says that God is as dependent upon Creation as Creation is upon God. This would be the view of Process Theism (or, Process Theology) which position then goes on to add "that each affects the other in a formative way" - which is true, but not true as dependent realities (more said on this in a moment). Nor do we aver a form of pantheism when speaking of Creation as God, and God as Creation, each both-and-the-same. This would be the view of Hinduism and similar religions like Hinduism. Whereas we do affirm that God is both separate-but-conjoined with Creation. Just as Creation is separate-but-conjoined with its Creator. That each bears the essence of the other. This is the view of Christian theism. Moreover, God volitionally declared Himself "bound" to Creation, as much by fiat as by fact (making process theology only partially correct); so that, He Himself must resolve this tension through reconciliation rather than through simple dismissal through destruction or death. This would be the views of both Classic Theism as well as Relational Theism. Furthermore, each affects the other in a formative, but not a dependent fashion. Which is also the view of Relational Theism but not that of its sister position of "Relational-Process Theism" (here commonly referred to as "process theism" within this website).

Lastly, and in some sense, I think God must resolve this tension from an ontological perspective as well. That since Creation is as much a part of His essence as He is of His own essence, then a reconciliation must be made. Or, proposed differently, we are of God's essence (both by His Image as well as by His Creative act), and because we constitute a part of God's Creation, we must be reconciled back to our Creator because His essence cannot be left unconstituted. It demands an ontological re-ordering. A divine reconciliation. Consequently salvation is both a determination made by the Godhead as much as it is an ontological necessity. Because of these facts sin, death and hell will likewise have mandatory consequences both because of divine determination as much as by ontological necessity.

Is the Nature of Creation Sinful?

I might answer this by saying that Creation itself was pure and holy. But when sin entered - however it entered for we do not know and can but only speculate as explained above - it did corrupt Creation both in its Image of God as well as in its nature to be in harmony with God: in the estates of fellowship, devotion, love and good will. Creation literally fell out of fellowship from the Godhead as it were, and has been tumbling on its own ever since, thus necessitating Reclamation. Restitution. Restoration.

In response, God has set about to do this very thing - to reclaim, to restitute, to restore - in a complex array of salvific events that will renew the original charters of Creation back unto Himself. Importantly, man figures advisedly into God's plan of renewal. Somehow, in the depths of God's being man has been determined as an instrumental factor, and even a major element, in the restoration of Creation. "From Adam came sin" it is said by the Apostle Paul, and "from the Second Adam (Jesus) comes sin's defeat and death." This would also speak to, and include, all followers of Jesus, called the Church, which has the divine commission to "defeat" sin and death through the power of the Cross, by water and by blood, through the Spirit of God. For through Jesus - and through that divine fellowship known as His body the Church - comes the very renewal of life and restoration of Creation in the wisdom and mercy of God.

Thus, while God tarries, the Church is to be about its mission of spiritual salvation and reconciliation; corporate and civil justice and equality; economic benevolence and fairness; and ecological restoration and provisioning, among other things here considered. We are not to simply wait for Christ's Parousia but are to put to use all the talents and abilities, insights and passions, energies and imaginations, of the Church of God into our blighted, misused, mispurposed, benighted world. In this way has the Kingdom of God come unto men. A Kingdom that will be ultimately rejected. An upside-down Kingdom that is not understood. That leads by example through selfless servitude, sacrifice, and sharing. But a Kingdom proclaiming God's heart-and-will within the fallen realm of God's creation destined for final reclamation, restitution, and restoration.

Conversely, if Creation were left to itself it would lead to a completion of death, ultimate disorder, and be invariably marked by hatred and animosity. This state of affairs could then no longer be a part of God's essence. Nor His divine Godhead. Nor of God's holiness. For injustice would be the reigning ethic in this anarchical "kingdom" of total despair, total isolation, consummate self-absorption, consummate brokenness, and consummate societal destruction known as death. A death that would either be "temporary" and compelled towards a final annihilation. Or a death that is eternally locked within itself upon its own self-propagating prison walls and dungeons of chaining darkness, torment, and "hells." But a death no less. And one that its Creator-God must rectify. Must correct. Must resolve. Even prevent. Not only because He wills it so, but because He can do no other but reconcile His Creation back unto Himself. His Godhead. His essence (sic, the concepts of relational theism and ontological order have now been placed together as interlocking positional themes).

Annihilation as a Theologoumenna

As a brief aside, my own view of death is one of annihilation as the only logical consequence rather than an existing "eternal state of death" we call hell, or the Lake of Fire, posited by theologians as an eternal residing part of God's creation forever and ever and ever. But in either case, whether Death is annihilatory, or whether it is eternal in its estates, God's essence is rectified and order is established however He chooses its ending determinations. Yet it seems to me that a more perfect order of wholeness subtends itself towards the view of annihilation, a view we call a theologoumenna, which is not strictly a biblical doctrine but more of a theological supposition that seems biblical.

And I think the Love of God would demand this too. That He be not consider our eternal tormentor and executioner, but our everlasting Restorer - either to life eternal, or to a final, completed death that is extinguishable. Perhaps we might say that death in-and-of itself is ultimately distinguishable. That in its very nature or essence is ultimately found its perishability. And it is in this wise that sin and death cease an eternality of existence. So that even in the very concept of death itself can be found the overarching shalom, or restorative order, of God. Something that can not continue because it simply can not continue paradoxically. That in itself it finds a finality and an end. That said, the force and nature of God is to reconcile, to restore, to overwhelm a creation bent on refusing God's divine personage and glorious being. Creation's sinfulness cannot continue. It cannot succeed. It can only succeed in holding to its own rebellion with its consequential results of death and final destruction however that works out.

Summary

And so we are told that even in Creation's rebellion it will be defeated through a final death... and a final reordering of creation. In the end, the Suzerainty-King shall rule, and He will rule completely. Neither sin, death, hell or devil shall defeat His universal grace, mercy, hope and supreme majesty. As there has come a "Day of Reconciliation through Christ," so there will come a "Day of Wrath" (described as the "Day of the Lord" in the OT) visited upon those who refuse God's covenant of love, truth and justice enacted upon Christ's life and ministry, even as it was enacted upon His death, His resurrected ascension, and His returning Parousia to rule and to judge. Till that time we proclaim God's purposes. His heart. His intent. And His abiding desire. That His Just Love demands no less. That His Loving Justice cannot be refuted. That His purposes cannot be defeated. That His essence must reign supreme.

R.E. Slater

February 28, 2012

*For a related article see "Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?" -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-god-always-do-wisest-thing.html

A new perspective on universalism and hell

http://www.postost.net/2011/03/new-perspective-universalism-hell

Andrew Perriman

Wednesday 16 March 2011

One of the things that has surprised me in the Bell’s hell controversy is the assumption behind much of the criticism that the denial of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment amounts to an endorsement of universalism—or at least as a “preliminary step” in that direction as it was put to me by Steve Hays on the Triabloggers site. Practically speaking, Steve has a point—consider, for example, this personal testimony from The Beautiful Heresy:

In my mid-40s I discovered Universalism about mid-2004 and immediately began reading all I could about it. I was raised as a Pentecostal Fundamentalist and could never quite grasp why G-d was so angry with me and the rest of the world that He wanted to condemn us to Eternal Torment. G-d seemed weak, angry and schizophrenic to me. This journey is about my discovery of G-d’s universal and inescapable love.

But universalism is not at all an inevitable corollary of the argument, on the one hand, that the supposed “hell” texts in the New Testament mostly have reference to historical events, and on the other, that the final destiny of those whose names are not written in the book of life is simply destruction, death (Rev. 20:15). In fact, it seems to me that the historicizing hermeneutic that locates the wrath of God in history—judgment on rebellious Israel, judgment on an aggressive, idolatrous and over-bearing paganism—also weighs heavily against the universalist position.

I can only offer a very limited response to the universalist argument here, prompted by a question about my statement that universalism “like much traditional evangelical thought, it is premised on the priority given to soteriology”. I will not look at the various texts usually put forward as evidence for universalism. I will simply outline some general lines of thought.

It may help, in the first place, to establish a distinction between two ways of defining Christianity.

1. The traditional understanding has been that Christianity is essentially a general religion of salvation, which makes the primary task of the church the salvation of the lost, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that as many people as possible escape the punishment (or perhaps annihilation) of “hell” and gain eternal life with God in heaven. In this construction personal salvation precedes the corporate existence of the church—and very often we find that neither ecclesiology nor missiology develops beyond a simple multiplication of this primary function.

2. The alternative approach regards “Christianity” (the quotation marks indicate reservations about the validity of the term) as an intrinsic continuation of the calling of Abraham, against a background of persistent and escalating human rebellion, to be the progenitor of a people marked out by a more or less exclusive covenant commitment. My argument in Re: Mission is that the people of God was from the outset determined as “new creation”: Abraham is promised the original blessing of creation, he is told that he will be made fruitful, that he will multiply, and that his descendants will fill the microcosm of the land of Canaan. The Christ-event lay at the heart of a massive convulsion in the historical existence of this “new creation” people, but the basic “missional” purpose remained intact: to bear concrete, embodied and prophetic witness amidst the nations and cultures of the world to the redemptive presence of the Creator and to the final hope of renewal. In this construction things are the other way round: the corporate and political existence of the church precedes the “salvation” and incorporation of individuals.

Under the first option there can be a reasonable debate about whether all humanity or only part of humanity will be saved. That is what I meant by the statement that universalism is “premised on the priority given to soteriology”.

Under the second option this debate makes less sense. The people of God is by definition a limited set [(a "remnant" people - skinhead)]. It is a people called out of the world—chosen, elected, set apart, transformed, sanctified—let us say, for the sake of the Mission Dei. When that people gets into trouble, it needs to be saved—from Egypt, from Babylon, from Antiochus Epiphanes, and critically from the condemnation of the Law that finally brought the wrath of God upon it in the form of the war against Rome. The manner of that final salvation opened up the door to Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-22), but it did not thereby transform the renewal movement into a general religion of salvation.

Most of the “salvation” or restoration texts in the New Testament, I would suggest, have to do with this deliverance of the historical community of Israel from destruction or obsolescence. Within the covenantal and narrative-historical framework the question naturally arises whether all or only part of Israel will be saved. So Jesus is asked as he makes his fateful journey towards Jerusalem, “Lord, are those being saved few?” His answer suggests that he thought it unlikely that many would find the narrow path leading to life (Lk. 13:22-24; Matt. 7:13-14). It seems to me that Paul was equally pessimistic about the fate of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), though his quotation of Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26 suggests that he held to the hope that following judgment—following the “punishment” of the war—all Israel would repent and be saved.1 It didn’t happen, and both Jesus and Paul were proved right.

There is also in scripture the prospect of a final restoration of all things—leadme.org (what a name to give your son!) points this out and draws the conclusion that this “involves the reconciliation of each human soul”. But I wonder whether that conclusion can be defended exegetically. Colossians 1:19-20 is the obvious text to consider here:

because in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell and through him to reconcile all things to him, making peace through the blood of his cross, through him whether things on earth or things in the heavens.

The idea of cosmic reconciliation achieved through the cross is not easily accommodated into Paul’s thought, though Romans 8:19-21 certainly has a bearing on the matter.2 But the point to note is that this reconciliation is framed precisely in cosmic rather than human terms.

In Ephesians 2:11-22 it is Jews and Gentiles who specifically are reconciled and find peace through the cross. In Colossians 1:15-20 it appears to be the larger structures of the cosmos that are reconciled: “whether thrones or dominions or sovereignties or authorities” (1:16). This is in some sense an extension or expansion of the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in the renewed people of God, but neither here nor in Romans 8:19-21 do we clearly have the thought that the restoration of the cosmos includes the “salvation” of all people.

In John’s symbolic vision of the new heavens and new earth it appears that the unrighteous, those whose names are not written in the book of life, “the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars”, are explicitly excluded from the restored cosmos. This may raise numerous other questions about the “ethics” of final judgment, but it is difficult to reconcile with the “beautiful heresy” of universalism.

• 1. See The Future of the People of God, 136.
• 2. See J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans, 1996), 103 n. 45.

KKSM Skateboarder goes to "Thailand 2012 & Beyond"

 

Thailand 2012 & Beyond...

A quick update of what dave voetberg is planning
on doing in Thailand in 2012 & beyond.

Financial support - http://bit.ly/wVlBHa

Or make checks payable to:

Ripe For Harvest

c/o dave voetberg #361

P.O. Box 487

Monument, CO 80132

Dave Voetberg's website - http://bit.ly/eTvC9b

Family Connection  Foundation - http://bit.ly/wbcckS

My Last Full Day at Home

http://davevoetberg.blogspot.com/2012/02/last-full-day.html

by Dave Voetberg

February 21, 2012

Today is officially my last full day in the U.S. before I disappear back into the heart of Thailand. It's been a refreshing 4-1/2 month "visit". I'm thankful to have had the opportunity & now am ready to get back. Nice to have last year's worth of experience in Thailand under my belt. Going back, I have a much better gauge now of what exactly I'm getting into. It'll be nice to not be as clueless this time around :)

I'm also very passionate about my going back this time around because of what this - & hopefully upcoming years - will contain as far as missions go. The ministry I've linked up with has me going to one of the poorest & most unreached areas with the gospel in all of Thailand. And I don't say that hoping to get sympathy. Rather, hopefully a reason for you to be excited for me. There's no reason to pity those who leave some of the familiar comforts of home to follow Christ in foreign places. Those who go, & are gauging their situation rightly, would call themselves privileged. The apostles "left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name." Christ puts purpose behind hardship/uncomfortability that is endured for His sake. I'll leave you with a quote from David Livingstone who, "gave his life to serve Christ in the exploration of Africa for the sake of the access of the gospel." He says:

"For my own part, I have never ceased to rejoice that God has appointed me to such an office. People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa....Is that a sacrifice which brings its own blest reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and with such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger, now & then, with a foregoing of the common conveniences & charities of this life, may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall be revealed in & for us. I never made a sacrifice."

love you all...
Posted by lonely sparrow.