The Poetry of R.E. Slater

 ~ UNDERCONSTRUCTION ~ 

The Poetry of R.E. Slater
(click to go to website)

http://reslater.blogspot.com/2014/01/index-re-slater-poems.html

POETRY

General Poems

R.E. Slater - A Country Idyll (prose)


Process Theology, ​Death, and Grieving


How Does God Address Racism in the Bible?

R.E. Slater - When I say I am a Christian (Black Lives Matter All the Time)

R.E. Slater - 7X7 Anger (Black Lives Matter All the Time)

Remembering George Floyd - The Day America Died


What If... ?


Langston Hughes - I Dream a World


Maya Angelou. Poet, Activist, Storyteller.

Howard Snyder - I Dreamed a Great Revival Came (poem)


14 Favorite Ways to Twist the Gospel


The Certainty of Completion Against Despair


Of Dads and Daughters, of Parenting and Love: "Wakefulness in a Night of Fireworks"


Verses on Humanity and Goodwill, Compassion and Forgiveness


R.E. Slater - Rebirth (poem)


R.E. Slater - The Glory of the Lord (psalm)


Love Between Friends


Best Coin Ever Spent...


An Evening Prayer, by Sir Thomas Browne


Poetry Magazine's Editor Christian Wiman Discusses Faith


Sam Walter Foss: A Christian Poet with an Optimistic Spirit

T
The Calf Path of an Open, Discerning Faith


Rebirth: Towards An Open Bible and Emerging Faith


The Wonders of God's Creation - Kuroshio Sea and Poem


R.E. Slater - Expressing Love (poem)


R.E. Slater - Star Light, Star Bright (poem)

Padraig O Tuama - "Go in Pieces" (poem)


R.E. Slater - A Prayer (a poem)


R.E. Slater - The Power of Our Words (poem)


Geroge Herbert, "Easter Wings" (poem)


R.E. Slater - Jars of Clay (poem)

O
Of Calvin, Barth and Poetry

THEOPOETIC

R.E. Slater - A Country Idyll (prose)

R.E. Slater - Seeing God in the Color of Blue


R.E. Slater - The Wheel of Time (The Wheel or the Anvil?)


R.E. Slater - The Holy Trilogy: Process Theology, EcoTheology & TheoPoetics

POEMS BY R.E. SLATER

What Is In a Christian Label? Examining Conservative, Progressive & Processual Christianity

The Future of Quantum AI


RCPT, Part 7 - (2015) A radical theology for the future: five theses

Radical Christian Process Theology, Part 6 - Radical Approaches, Propositions & Applications


RCPT, Part 5 - Chatbot and I Discuss Radical Christian Orthodoxy v. Radical Secular Theology v. Process Christian Theology


Radical Christian Process Theology, Part 4 - Secular v Christian Radical Theologies


Radical Christian Process Theology, Part 2 - "Radical Love"


Odes to Creation, Life, Purpose, Nation Building, and Parenting

POETRY - R.E. SLATER

R.E. Slater - A Country Idyll (prose)


Tolkien Untangled with Poems, Songs, and More Video References

The Church's Most Radical Theology is Learning to Teach and Be Love


R.E. Slater - Seeing God in the Color of Blue


R.E. Slater - A Radical Democracy (Being a Radical Church of Refuge and Inclusivity)

R.E. Slater - And Death Shall Go Before Them (ditto)

R.E. Slater - T-Shirts I Have Worn in Life

R.E. Slater - In the Processual Beginning


R.E. Slater - Being and Begetting (Gary Lachman - Caretakers of the Cosmos)

R.E. Slater - Middle Earth Prose (Tolkien Untangled)

With Malice Towards None... A World in Search of Peace


R.E. Slater - The Wheel of Time (The Wheel or the Anvil?)


R.E. Slater - The Power of God's Love (Process Sovereignty vs Church Sovereignty)


R.E. Slater - In the (Processual) Beginning (The Quantum Physics of a Particle Universe)


R.E. Slater - The Birth & Death of God


R.E. Slater - Ruptured Soils


Palm Sunday Readings, Poems & Observances


R.E. Slater - Butterfly Wings of Promise


R.E. Slater - 7X7 Anger (Black Lives Matter All the Time)

R.E. Slater - Being and Becoming


R.E. Slater - The Eighth Day of Creation


R.E. Slater - Meditations


Envisioning a Process Relational Theology


The Son of Protagoras - "Standing Between Wisdom & Destruction"


Film Review - Annihilation: Death or ReBirth?


R.E. Slater - Ancient Rhythms


R.E. Slater - The Holy Trilogy: Process Theology, EcoTheology & TheoPoetics


Love and Time Explored Through Prose, Video, and Poem


Kintsukuroi - "Broken Jars of Clay Repaired with Gold"


OneRepublic - Come Home (prodigal son)



R.E. Slater - Kindred Fellowships (a poem)


The Certainty of Completion Against Despair


Verses on Humanity and Goodwill, Compassion and Forgiveness


R.E. Slater - Rebirth (poem)

R.E. Slater - The Glory of the Lord (psalm)

Best Coin Ever Spent...

Rebirth: Towards An Open Bible and Emerging Faith


The Wonders of God's Creation - Kuroshio Sea and Poem


The Poetry of R.E. Slater


R.E. Slater - Expressing Love (poem)


R.E. Slater - Star Light, Star Bright (poem)


R.E. Slater - A Prayer (a poem)

R.E. Slater - The Power of Our Words (poem)


R.E. Slater - Jars of Clay (poem)

Part 2. Further Observations on "The Need for a Creative Theology"

 

 

 

Some time ago I posted an article by the theologian Thomas Oord on "The Need for a Creative Theology." I thought then that I understood what he was saying as I was in the process of revisiting as many themes and subjects of Evangelical Christianity as I could from mine own relatively new Emergent Christian experience. I was doing this because mine own background was one that was expanding from my past involvement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity over many decades commencing in childhood (an altogether positive experience, I might add). I thoroughly enjoyed my time spent within a half-dozen or so churches from Michigan to Florida's Gold Coast and never doubted God's power and ministry during that time.

 

However, when becoming later involved within an emergent church setting these past thirteen years all things fundamentally changed in relationship to previous ideas and ideologies that I held.... More probably because by this time in life I had become older and found myself to be in a more youthful congregational setting more characteristic of the X/Y/Z Generation. As well as in fellowship with those congregants either previously overlooked by the church, or personally turned-off to the church. Regardless, I was in a highly-charged Emergent atmosphere currying all the foibles and volatility of a new Christian movement not unlike that of a case of nitroglycerin being roughly handed about by relatively youthful, and untrained, hands. I found it intoxicating and perplexing. Annoying and disturbing. Inspiring and meaningful. It had all the trappings of a new-age cultic movement but without any of the cultic heresies and apostasies (which made it all the more unusual in a historical and positive sense!).

 

My fellow Emergents blundered from one theological issue to the next, treating each one no better than the last, while allowing no internal disagreement except banishment and isolation from the "in-group of adherents." Though all were invited to participate not many were admitted... if like myself, because of my many doubts and need to discern the multitudinous rapid-fire assertions being boldly proclaimed to the refusal of any further review or retractions. Consequently, issues which were non-issues with me in my previous lifetimes became new issues that required review, prayer, and discussion (mostly patience with fellow Christians misunderstanding doctrine and imprecisely speaking it). Old line teachings long settled for me were fresh and raw (and largely, very poorly apprehended) within this newer group of muscular, energetic Emergent Christians longing for the Spirit's revival and healing both in their lives and within ministry itself. And in the midst of this spiritual revolution came (i) detractors (both within and without this very young gathering of believers); (ii) the presence of an unclear, eclectic Emergent theology (largely because it was being formed on-the-fly in the present tense, and would require a more careful re-evaluation many years later when the fires of conflict and heated debate died down... as we are now doing here in this blog); and, (iii) mandated the need for seminal re-evaluation of personal beliefs and admissions by this new movement - some of which needed resurrection, while others simply needed a deeper grave.

Through this journey I felt then that I should someday write, post, quote, or re-frame, as many topics and discussions as could be reflected upon from my own journey of spiritual conflict, development and re-creation. More so because many of my friends and family were more than willing to disagree with my Emergent observations and experience; deny my personal resolution to fundamentally revisit creedal reformulation; and quietly tried to banish me by pronouncing mortal epithets and alarmist proclamations (mostly judgmental), however kindly or unkindly they may have tried to put it (which, according to the last article I've included here in this post, may not have necessarily been the wisest thing to do in my case). Consequently, I often walked alone having no homeland to be affiliated with, nor present fellowship to enjoin with (because of ageism, as I have mentioned above, and my then current doubts about Emergent doctrinaire). I was caught "out-of-time" and "out-of-place," but in this journey felt the moment-by-moment presence and guidance of the Spirit of God in a way quite unlike any previous encounter.

 

God was my mainstay and my helper. My protector and friend. I was under a spiritual oppression that weighed me down and could not get rid of... it threatened me in every form and fashion - from despair and hopelessness, to frustration and religious passion - but God was there even when I felt He was not. And ultimately, it was God's illumination and inspiration that drove me many years later to obsessively put to "(electronic) paper" my thoughts and burdens. And from that overly long journey has resulted this webblog as a form of help and guidance to those on similar journeys of doubts and questions about the Church. About Christianity. About God Himself. But thanks be to God that through His Son Jesus my spirit was resurrected into a new place I hitherto had naught come. A foreign land unmade by human hands breathing the new airs and elixirs of spiritual poverty and health. A land where once I had been and had known, but somehow had lost, to re-discover again, by the Spirit's help and direction, long years later.

 

Hence, I had posted Oord's thoughts last year on the need to do creative theology because it appealed to what I was trying to presently then do (however successfully or unsuccessfully my attempts may have been). And to this effort came a recent reader who submitted the following observation -

 

"On the topic of evil, what are the ways to have creative thinking? What does creative theology even mean? Also, I agree with your statement about theology being tied to our views of the world. The obstacles I face in life either second guess my own theology or make it stronger. Was that what you were meaning? How could creative theology evangelize to those who do not know Jesus?" - jh

 

In reply, I wrote my following observations found below. And after having written it thought to repost my comments into today's present article. At the last, please forgive any neglected centralizing tenants of Emergent Christianity that I may have forgotten through oversight. And remember that those Emergent themes that I've listed below are but some of the many Emergent topics that can be found here within Relevancy22.

Thank you.

 

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Part 2. Further Observations on

"The Need for a Creative Theology"

 

My Reply

 

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2012

 

 

While I don't presume to answer for Thomas Oord himself, I would give this webblog here as example of creative theology... especially as pertaining to re-opening the Scriptures afresh in new light-and-meaning to today's questions-and-turmoils. While Christian tradition is understood and appreciated, it should never be allowed to hold contemporary theology hostage. And while God has been taught as the unchangeable One, we do now observe that He is also the changeable One through Open Theology and Process Thought we are calling Relational Theism.

Not only has science and religious pluralism been discussed here, but so too has been added other discussions on - what postmodernism brings to the area of opportunity for the message of the Gospel and for ensuing local and global ministries; the necessary expansion of evangelical Christianity into the many forms of emergent Christianity now occurring; the meaning of Scriptural authority and its relevance for us today; the importance of narrative theology (the story-form of biblical theology) in place of systematic theology; the importance of the church and cruciform ministry to believer and nonbeliever alike - both within-and-without church fellowships and organizations; the errors and fallacies of Evangelical folk religion and biblioatry; the affects of the 19th century's Enlightenment as well as that of the 20th century's Modernity in relationship to postmodernity's progress towards the Age of Authentication; of the inter-relationship between theology and philosophy; of the centrality of Jesus and the Kingdom of God; how Jesus' Gospel message is displacing evangelicalism's message of Pauline justification through the "New Perspective of Paul" that is occurring in a re-examination of the Gospel teachings of Jesus to the religious Jewish bodies of His day; of the relevancy of God's love over the more restrictive semantic barriers of truth (or, what we imagine "truth" to be in our cultural subcontexts); and so forth.

These discussions, and many more, have been written about (as evidenced in the sidebars along the right-hand column of this webblog) and will give to the reader a multitude of examples by what is meant by writing out a "creative theology" as versus a static and dead theology which lives and breathes the dust of the past. A creative theology is not static, but living, reforming, recreative, relevant. It re-fuses (or joins together) past Christian theology (though not necessarily past Christian traditions, be they Protestant, Jewish or otherwise intended, unless it is Messianic first and foremost). So that God's Word is a living revelation, and not a restrictive, codified, legalistic religion; that authoritatively speaks about Jesus to today's postmodern societies and cultures in terms that can be grasped and felt. And when the time comes when a new philosophical era should arise, then the re-approbation of Scripture must be made once again into those societies and culture's global contexts. For God (and His revelation) continually expands and grows with the worlds of men. If not, we have but made God a dead idol by the works of our hands and lips through dead traditions, and disconnected, meaningless confessional teachings.

Creative Theology but points down the road and says "Think about this" and does not say "We have thought all the thoughts we can think about God and can no longer think of God in any further future context". We don't necessarily seek answers so much as seek better questions. We attempt to not limit ourselves by limiting God. And this is done by not limiting God's Word and His current activity among us amid real-time life events. We allow God to be bigger than our concepts of Him. And use past church history as but a guide to enhance God's message to mankind of love, salvation, hope and faith. In this way theology stays fresh. Relevant. Creative. I hope this helps.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

"Rejection confirms for independent people what they already feel about themselves,

that they’re not like others," says Johns Hopkins Professor Sharon Kim.

"For such people, that distinction is a positive one leading them to greater creativity."

(Credit: iStockphoto)

 

 

Creativity may be a nerd’s best revenge

http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/creativity-may-be-a-nerd%E2%80%99s-best-revenge/

JOHNS HOPKINS / CORNELL (US) — Social rejection can enhance creativity—if the person has a strong sense of personal independence.

“For people who already feel separate from the crowd, social rejection can be a form of validation,” says the study’s lead co-author Sharon Kim, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School

“Rejection,” she says, “confirms for independent people what they already feel about themselves, that they’re not like others. For such people, that distinction is a positive one leading them to greater creativity.”

Numerous psychological studies have found that social rejection inhibits cognitive ability in people who value belonging to a group. Kim and her co-authors, Lynne Vincent and Jack Goncalo of Cornell University, decided to consider instead the impact of rejection on people who take pride in being different from the norm.

Such individuals, in a term from the study, are described as possessing an “independent self-concept.” They are, the paper says, “motivated to remain distinctly separate from others.”

“We’re seeing in society a growing concern about the negative consequences of social rejection, thanks largely to media reports about bullying that occurs at school, in the workplace, and online,” Kim says.

“Obviously, bullying is reprehensible and produces nothing good,” she says. “What we tried to show in our paper is that exclusion from a group can sometimes lead to a positive outcome when independently minded people are the ones being excluded.”

The researchers conducted a series of three experiments with university students, measuring their creativity in completing standardized tasks after being told they had not been selected as part of a group.

The team’s conclusion that the more independent, “nerdy” subjects were the most creative after rejection has practical implications for employers, Kim says. They want imaginative employees who are creative in their approach to business problems, she says.

A company might, therefore, want to take a second look at a job candidate whose unconventional personality might make him an easy target for rejection, but whose inventiveness would be a valuable asset to the organization.

In the long term, Kim adds, the creative person with an independent self-concept might even be said to thrive on rejection. While repeated rebuffs would discourage someone who longs for inclusion, such slights could continually recharge the creativity of an independent person. The latter type, says Kim, “could see a successful career trajectory, in contrast with the person who is inhibited by social rejection.”

The team’s paper was recently accepted for publication by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. It also received a best paper award at the Academy of Management conference held in Boston in August.

Source: Johns Hopkins University



 

Is God Always in Control?

 

 

Since inception of this website I have been attempting to wrestle with the legitimate question of whether God is in control of this world or not, having presented it in differing contexts from salvation history (the history of Israel and the Church); to scientific (found in the science sidebars here relative to anthropologic and cosmic evolution); to mundane world and personal events (floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, personal experiences of tragedy, unnecessary suffering, abusive families, friends, religions and governments); to present day Church and fellowship experiences (found in the turbulent ecclesiastical reformations occurring in today's denominations, associations, universities, media outlets, and even political parties). What I have discovered is that I can answer this question both ways by accepting, or not accepting, the updated responses of (i)  Evangelic Classical Theism (God IS in control) or of (ii) Process Theology (God is NOT in control). However, what I fundamentally believe is that it is the question itself which is wrong. To ask the question is to show both our ignorance and our fundamental misperceptions of our view of God and the world. It is a complex relationship and cannot be treated so naively nor simply.

 

 

And so, having striven to re-contextualize this question through my own views of Relational Theism (which is currently in the rough stages of development) I have been attempting to define this subject by what it is not - in relation to other systems of doctrinal thought (sic, Calvinistic Classicism and Process Thought) - but have yet to fully recreate a set of criteria of what Relational Theology could be or might become. To some extent we have already done this here through our simple explorations of emergent subject matters and topical themes. However, it has not been laid out rigorously as a (i) doctrinal theology or as a (ii) philosophical behavior and belief. And to some extent we should probably avoid this... but to the extent that this task is avoided (for fearing of misrepresenting God and His Word by systematizing Scripture) to that extent other lesser views will come along to expunge common sense biblical viewpoints with something else even less desirable. And so, it is accepted that whenever there are two strong opinions of oppositional thought, a third will mostly likely synthesize. This third I am describing as Relational Thought which may behave as an eclectic mix between Calvinism and Progress Theology until it can find a "stream of its own." In the meantime, the easy answer to our dilemma would be to continue to explore Narrative Theology which by its form and definition resists more systematic perceptions of God and his world.

 

Man made in the Image of God (Genesis 1:26 to 2:3)
Illustration from a Bible card published 1906 by the Providence Lithograph Company

 

Accordingly, the story of man is found in the story of God. And the larger story of God is found in the larger story of man (which means all of man's history - from world events to each person's experiences). God did not begin an act of holy creation to simply abandon it. No. Any artist can tell you that whether through creating a poem, a painting, a sculpture, a piece of music, all were some kind of personal expression. And to look upon our cosmos as God's expression of Himself is to re-visualize all that God is... for creation is the revelation of God. But not the perfect revelation of God. At least not yet. Only One has come to be this perfect reflection - both in essence (hupostasis) and in glory - and that is Jesus who perfectly revealed the Godhead exactly (Col. 2.9, Heb 1.1-3).

 

When God revealed Himself to man it looked like Jesus, exactly -

• "Show us the Father!" say the Pharisees and Scribes...
• "Why?" says Jesus. "In seeing me you see the Father!" (Jn 8.12-30)
 
•  "I and the Father are One" (Jn 14.7-8) -
• http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=+i+and+the+father+are+one&qs_version=ESV
 
• "I AM" - (Jn 18.6 and other NT references)
• http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=+i+am&qs_version=ESV
 

Other comparisons between the God of the OT and Jesus of the NT -

• In commanding the wind and waves to be still (Mt 14.22-36 comp. Psalm 77.16, Psalms 18.16, Psalm 144.7, Psalm 107.29)
 
• In declarations, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (Jn 8.58)
 
• In rebuking demons as He did storms -
•  http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=demons&qs_version=ESV
 
• Jesus is worshipped by believing NT Jews just as they would worship Yahweh of the OT -
• Psalm 81.9, http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=lord+jesus&qs_version=ESV)
 
• Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who was the long awaited One (Is 52.13-15; Is 53.1-12, Acts 8.32-33, 1 Peter 2:24 ("by His wounds have you been healed"), Matthew 8:17)

 

 

 

 

However, we also have the cruel distortions brought about by sin and death that arose to undo God's joy and fellowship. How it arose we cannot know. Genesis says that is came through Adam and Eve's disobedience. However, it was there before the Garden of Eden when discovering in Scripture Lucifer's angelic disobedience of pride and rebellion; and of a third of heaven's angelic beings falling likewise into the sin of pride and rebellion (Ez 28.1-19; Isa 14.1-22). And through astrophysics we've discovered that even in the very elemental stages of our universe's birth (sic, singularities and multiverses) death and destruction were the very ingredients used by God in creation's very nature of indeterminacy (sic, elementary particles being momentarily birthed and colliding to create reactive energies and forces). Of course, this last illustration differs from the first two in that those were instances of creaturely willful disobedience and pride; whereas the latter is of nature itself which is not so much "willful" but indeterminate (sic, see the science sections). Further, it is not a moral/ethical act of a sentient being but an amoral/non-ethical activity found within matter's interaction with itself and other bodies of matter. And so, how sin and death arose is unknown (I sometimes think it comes as part-and-parcel with the sublime act of creating a willful creation itself - as an allowed reactive process - but not as emanating from God Himself in His essence).

 

What we do know is that God is using sin and death, devil and demon, the cosmos, and human experience, to evolve this world into a renewed creation - into a heavenly kingdom of light-and-life. Where no sin exists. Where no death can be found. How this occurs is a mystery. How this is unlike our old cosmos is a mystery for it seems that the death of particulate matter (from cells to atoms) must still occur in our new world if life is to continue and so, cannot be abandoned but re-purposed. We do not understand these things. Nor can we so simply say that God is in control (for this would ignore the ravages of life) or is not in control (which would then ignore the redemptive story of the bible as found in this world's history and present circumstances). Consequently, it is both. In some complex mix of divine sovereignty and indeterminacy (sic, which would also include the "unknowingness of the future" which theology falls yet into another "sea of turbulent debate" known as Open Theology... also examined here in the sidebars).

For me, it is enough to know that God is God. And that He is my God. And that I am His. Beyond that we can debate and argue around-and-around-and-around our particulate views of the world we think we apprehend but can not. For God is beyond our comprehension and He will do as He will do. He will react as He will act. He will grieve as He will sing for joy. He will suffer as He will bring healing. This we do not understand but know that God is our Redeemer. And that through God His creation will be redeemed from the final throes of sin and death by the atoning work of Jesus made on the cross of Calvary.

And that during those experiences of suffering and death to not accuse God as the author for someone's cancer or a child's death, but as the God who suffers with us in our pains and losses. Who will do anything and everything that He can to help us within the parameters of this sinful world's free will turbulence and turmoil. Who allows sin and death its course but who also will direct sin and death to His ultimate ends of renewal and recreative wholeness with His Spirit. Even in sin and death, even in pain and suffering, even in defeat and death, shall God "win" and reign. God will not be defeated though we suffer. For we suffer towards renewal and recreation. Though harm and destruction comes still God's Spirit continues to work through holiness, love, justice and truth all that is Himself into the very corners and textures of a comos and humanity held in the grip of sin and death. At the last, these too shall be put  away with finality (Rev 21-22).

What this means we cannot explain. Our present cosmos is unimagined in its current construction and operation without the reality of death present within its very framework  (perhaps not sin, but death certainly, as is the bedrock of indeterminant re-creative construction of something from nothing formed within the continual process of randomness and evolution). For myself, I don't normally link sin with death (that is physically, not spiritually)... for physical death feels more natural within this world of ours and I can't imagine a physical world without it. However, sin seems very destructive and unnatural within this world of ours. It speaks to a spiritual death to be borne by sentient beings - be they human or angelic or some other form - who are willfully at cross purposes with their Creator. Each though, in their constitutions as sin or death, do bring harm and ruin to our mortal bodies.

Curiously, sin's effects upon our mortal bodies (not our souls) cannot be death... only its results. But on our souls it is immediate (thus we can effectively say that sin brings death). Sin is a process of dying. A presence of death. But I speak in spiritual terms of sin and not in physical terms. In comparison, death's effects can be seen upon our mortal bodies immediately beginning at birth as it wears away at our soul and upon our bodies. But for the Christian, death is seen as a period of transformation towards God. It can begin early in life when discovering Jesus' love for us while taking a lifetime of spiritually transformative living to fully-and-finally occur... this is what we mean by the term "salvation" (in its fullest sense). Though saved in Christ we are in the process of becoming saved in this life as we work out the effects of our salvation against the countermanding effects of sin's spiritual death. But eventually we die and must return to the earthen soil of our constitution (dust we are and dust we become - but remember, we are made of stardust!). However, with sin, it is there with us from the start. And like death, continually wears away upon us, only to be prevented when met by the power of the Holy Spirit begun at the birthing of faith come through the spiritually transformative event of Christ Jesus' living atonement and abiding resurrection. From that point onwards we are removed from spiritual death though we remain within our bodies and souls to suffer sin and death's adverse affects upon us. Even so, the cycle has been broken with promising renewal and recreation at the hands of an Almighty God. These things are mysteries and within Christianity we have all kinds of doctrines that help us explain what this means more explicitly. But this is my simplified understanding of how our Sovereign God rules in, through, and over a cosmos of sin and death.

So then, be at peace and know that our God reigns - despite what we think of the unhelpfulness of the Christianized word, control. A word I don't necessarily prefer as an explanation for this current cosmos we live within at its behest. For with its usage comes our expectations placed upon God which asks when bad things happen "Why didn't you stop this!?? Where were you when we needed you?!!" A God who controls is a God that is weak when He doesn't answer. Or is unable to help us in dire straits. Or is unwise within the predicaments of sin and death. Or has become a futile figment of the human psyche built as a dithering idol to our hopeless predicaments within this life's never-ending perturbations and agonies.

But a God who reigns, who is Sovereign, is a God who suffers with us in our tragedies. Who comes to assist us in every way possible, even until the end. This kind of God is strong. He can deliver. If not by our own expectation, then by His own expectations of renewal and recreation. The God of the Bible is the God who works within the constraints of a freewill system of this created world. Who is present with us even in our worse moments. And so, we proclaim that our God reigns sovereignly - whether He controls this old creation or not is to ask the wrong question and see the solution in the wrong perspective. No. God doesn't control anything that has its own free will. But yes, God is creation's Sovereign. And as its Sovereign He reigns over heaven and earth, hell and death, even over sin and all its miseries. God is no more and no less - though He be Creator He was  ever-and-always first creation's Redeemer! And He is our Redeemer-Creator who will rule ever-and-always to that end. Amen and Amen.

R.E. Slater

August 27, 2012
updated November 3, 2012

 

Praise the Lord; praise God our savior!
For each day he carries us in his arms (Psalm 68.19)

 

 

1 John 1

 

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

The Word of Life

 

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— ² the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— ³ that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ And we are writing these things so that our^[a] joy may be complete.

 

Walking in the Light

 

⁵ This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. ⁸ If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Does God always get his way?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/does-god-always-get-his-way/

 

by Roger Olson

August 20, 2012

Comments

 

Does God Always Get His Way?

 

I suspect that question would surprise most Christians and atheists alike. Most atheists I read seem to operate on the assumption that Western monotheism includes God’s absolute sovereignty such that whatever happens is God’s will. Most of them fall back on some version of the problem of evil to attempt to sweep away belief in God as impossible (because no one expressly questions God’s goodness). But Christians (I’ll limit my comments here to Christians although they could apply to other monotheists) give atheists their ammunition by believing that “God is in control” (a bumper sticker I often see).

 

I see two versions of “God is in control” among Christians. One is theological and the other is folk religious. The difference lies in considered reflection versus unreflective assumption.

 

Many Christian theologians believe and teach that whatever happens, without exception, falls into the category “God’s will” in the sense that it conforms to God’s “blueprint” for history and individual lives and, even though evil and innocent suffering may grieve God, God ordains and governs them for a greater good (e.g., his glory). I call this divine determinism because it fits the ordinary definition of “determinism.” Those who teach it often deny that it is deterministic (at the very least it is meticulous providence). Not only Calvinists teach this; it is a view held in a perhaps more nuanced way by many non-Calvinists (e.g., conservative Lutherans).

 

My hunch (I haven’t taken a poll) is that most Christians believe some version of divine determinism often inconsistently. This is revealed when, after a tragedy, they say “God knows what he is doing” and “God is in control.” Very often, however, that is not what they say or appear to believe before the tragedy strikes. That is certainly the view I was taught growing up in the “thick” of evangelicalism. Or perhaps I should say I wasn’t so much taught it as I caught it from my elders. Many of the songs we sang in church reflected some kind of divine determinism or meticulous providence. (E.g., “Day by Day and with Each Passing Moment”)

 

Recently I introduced a group of students to my saying that “God is in charge but not in control.” Some were shocked and indicated they probably could not accept that even though intellectually they do not think God controls everything that happens. My conviction is that “God is in control” is a cliché that has taken on a life of its own among Christians and is inevitably conveys the impression that God plans and renders certain everything that happens without exception. That is, God always gets his way in everything.

 

Let’s look at ordinary language. If I say that so-and-so is “in control” of a certain situation (and not only himself or herself), most people will automatically assume I mean that the person has a plan and is manipulating events to fit that plan. They will assume the person I’m talking about always gets his or her own way in that context. That’s what “in control” means (when said of a person about his or her management of a context).

 

Someone might quibble about that, but I believe especially when “in control” is attributed to God, who is believed to be omnipotent, it always automatically implies meticulous providence.

 

That is a problem, however, in light of Scripture and history (including contemporary events in persons’ lives). Many Scriptures more than imply that God was not getting his way in certain situation. The clearest one to me is Matthew 23:37: Jesus wept over Jerusalem’s rejection. Was God getting his way there and then? The Bible is filled with examples of God not getting his way even though he was able to bring something good out of those disappointments.

 

History also gets in the way of saying “God is in control” or “God always gets his way.” Just the other day I was told about an incident in a poverty-stricken country not far from America’s shores where a woman and her boyfriend invaded an orphanage at gunpoint, kidnapped three children they believed were theirs and took them away. When confronted by police the adults brutally butchered the children. What I want to ask people who say “God is in control” and who believe God always gets his way is: Do you believe God controlled that situation and got his way in it?

 

Now, many theologically minded Calvinists and other divine determinists will, when pushed against the wall and forced to answer, will say yes, even in such a horrible situation of innocent suffering God was getting his way and was totally in control. My complaint here is not with them although such an answer leaves me absolutely bewildered. I do complain about them and that answer, but not right now. Here my complaint is about the widespread, almost universal, unreflective assumption on the parts of non-Calvinists, non-divine determinists, that “God is in control.”

 

I theorize that this folk religious belief in God always getting his way sets especially young people up to adopt divine determinism, meticulous providence, when confronted with it. What’s wrong with that? Well, in my opinion, it can have the effect of making them immune to the real horrors of history and of sin and evil. If all that is God’s will, if in it all God is getting his way, if in it all God is “in control,” then why be fired up with indignation against it and go out to fight against it? Also, it may cause them to ignore whole chunks of Scripture and think dishonoring thoughts about God. Finally, I know from personal experience it leads some young people to think that they don’t need to resist sin in their own lives because, if they are succumbing to temptation, it must be God’s will [(sic, antinomianism - res)].

 

One of my favorite books about all this is by South African theologian Adrio König. It’s title is Here Am I! A Believer’s Reflection on God (Eerdmans, 1982). Here is one of the best statements against meticulous providence (whether theological or folk religious) I have ever read and it is by a Reformed theologian!

 

Anyone who levels things out in vague generalizations by attempting to explain everything and all possible circumstances as the will of God always ends up in the impossible situation that there are more exceptions than rules, more things that are inexplicable and that clash with the picture of God that is given to us in his word, than there are comforting confirmations that he is directing everything.…

 

[And] anyone who tries to use the omnipotence and providence of God to propose a meticulously prepared divine plan which is unfolding in world history (L. Boettner) will always be left with the problem that other believers might not be able to discern the God of love in the actual course of world events.… [i]t must be emphatically stated that… the Scriptures do not present the future as something which materializes [sic] according to a ‘plan’ but according to the covenant [of God].…

 

There are distressingly many thing that happen on earth that are not the will of God (Luke 7:30 and every other sin mentioned in the Bible), that are against his will, and that stem from the incomprehensible and senseless sin in which we are born, in which the greater part of mankind lives, and in which Israel persisted, and against which even the ‘holiest men’…struggled all their days.…

 

To try to interpret all these things by means of the concept of a plan of God, creates intolerable difficulties and gives rise to more exceptions than regularities. But the most important objection is that the idea of a plan is against the message of the Bible since God himself becomes incredible if that against which he has fought with power, and for which he sacrificed his only Son, was nevertheless somehow part and parcel of his eternal counsel. (pp. 198-199) (I apologize for the spaces; I cut and pasted this and some of the formatting went strange. I don’t have time to fix it.)