We are happy when we are growing

http://rachelheldevans.com/

by Rachel Held Evans
April 25, 2011

Today’s post serves as a final entry in the Common English Bible’s Lenten Blog Tour. If you have a few moments, check out the rest of entries. 

    Happy are people who are downcast, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

    Happy are people who grieve, because they will be made glad.

    Happy are people who are humble, because they will inherit the earth.

    Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, because

    they will be fed until they are full.

    Happy are people who show mercy, because they will receive mercy.

    Happy are people who have pure hearts, because they will see God.

    Happy are people who make peace, because they will be called God’s children.

    Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous

    because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

    -  Matthew 5:3-10, Common English Bible

*****

I’ve always been a bit unnerved by Bible translations that render the operative word of the incomparable Beatitudes “happy” instead of “blessed.”

“Blessed” is the word we use around our Christian friends when talking about food, shelter, and responsibilities. “Happy” is the word we use when ’30 Rock’ is all-new or when the Krispyy Kreme "HOT" light glows or when our contentment comes without any guilt or pressure to spiritulaize it.

Happy just sounds less holy.

And besides, how can one be downcast and happy at the same time? Is the happiness that Jesus speaks about in the Beatitudes reserved only for some future state, unattainable in this lifetime?

Poet W.B. Yeats wrote that “happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing nor that, but simply growth. We are happy when we are growing.”

Indeed, studies indicate that the happiest people are not those who have achieved all their goals, but rather those who are making progress toward their goals. It is in the striving that we encounter the kind of happiness that is best described as joy.

I don’t know about you, but I often suffer from what Tal Ben-Shahar called the “arrival fallacy,” the belief that when I reach a certain destination, then I will be happy.

• “If I can just get that raise…”
• “If I can just finish school…”
• “If I can just find the right man…”
• “If I can just publish a book…”
• “If I can just write a bestseller…”

Then, I’ll be happy.

I do this all the time when it comes to my doubts. I figure I’ll be happy once I stop having them, once my Christian faith makes perfect sense in both my heart and my head, once I no longer struggle with all these relentless questions.

Perhaps you feel the same way at the end of your Lenten journey. Perhaps you expected to be “finished” by Easter, all the lessons you hoped to learn in your 40-day fast permanently etched into your character.

Too often we ask ourselves, “Have we arrived?” when the better question is, “Have we grown?”

Growing isn’t easy. It often comes with grief, humility, costly mercy and an insatiable hunger for more. But Christ promises us that the story ends well—that we will be made glad, that we will see God, that we will be fed until we are full.

I guess we just have to believe him when he says that we can be happy in the meantime.

David Fitch: The End of Evangelicalism? 1

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/25/the-end-of-evangelicalism-1/

by Scot McKnight

April 25, 2011

Many today are predicting the (even imminent) collapse of evangelicalism. Others, like Brad Wright, show that evangelicalism is flourshing, while others, like Chris Smith, show that while it may be flourishing it is not what it used to be. At work here are two questions that I want to deal with before we go another step:

What is evangelicalism? I have been, am and will stand by David Bebbington and Mark Noll. Evangelicalism is a movement in the Protestant church shaped by differing but clear emphasis on four beliefs: the centrality of the Bible, the centrality of the atoning death of Christ, the centrality of the need for personal conversion, and the centrality of an active mission to convert others and to do good works in society.

Who decides who is evangelical? No one, really. Others, mostly. There is no one who decides who gets to carry the evangelical card but there is a a general conviction on the part of others who is “in” and who is “out.” I have an opinion, and you may have an opinion, and the one with the louder voice or the bigger voice might be the most compelling but … let this be said: God does not equate “Church” with “evangelical.” But because it is a movement, and for some the movement is so important that it is nearly the same as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, it matters deeply to some.

So to you: What is an evangelical?

But what does matter is that evangelicalism is a longstanding movement, it seems to unite millions of Christians in the world, and it is contested.

David Fitch, in his new book, The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission: Towards an Evangelical Political Theology (Theopolitical Visions), thinks evangelicalism’s influence is more or less over, that it needs to reexamine itself, and that it needs to rediscover what it could be in our world. This book by David Fitch could be one of the most significant studies of evangelicalism in the current academic climate. In some ways, he is doing deconstruction from the inside out.

To begin with, David Fitch believes evangelicalism’s social, cultural and political influence have waned to the point of being a minimal cultural presence.

The theory he will explore in this book is that belief plus practice (of that belief) shapes a community’s disposition in the world, and that means he can infer back from the lack of influence and viability of evangelicalism that it’s beliefs (or its practices of those beliefs) are no longer viable.

So David Fitch is seriously questing for what can be called an evangelical political theology, but he isn’t talking about political parties — instead, he’s talking about how to be a body, a present body, a body of influence for the gospel, in our world.

He believes evangelicalism has become an empty politic, and here’s why: the four (he blends two and three above) beliefs of evangelicalism were fashioned to be a “politic” in modernity and modernity is corroding and eroding and fading. He thinks those four beliefs, framed as they are, are to our culture what “Caffeine-Free Diet Coke” is to a drink: “a drink that does not fulfill any of the concrete needs of a drink” (xxi). So, let me state how David frames the three (blended four) beliefs:

1. Inerrant Bible.
2. Decision for Christ.
3. Christian Nation.

These are “ideological banners” but really are a “semblance of something which once meant something real” (xxii).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent Comments

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.       When evangelicalism began calling for defining and affirming propositional statements about “truth” and ceased being a vibrant contrast culture in terms of *way of life,* it became another entity tolerated by a pluralistic culture. The powers that be don’t mind what propositions evangelicals fuss about among themselves, but when evangelicals live in a way that threatens (not violently) the way life is supposed to be in “the American dream” society, let’s say, then evangelicalism has once again become salt and light. Evangelicalism is now degenerating into the 21st century Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots and lots and lots of Essenes hunkering down in their cultural Qumrans ’til Jesus comes back.

2.      Best line – God does not equate “church” with “evangelical”.  Nor does God equate “Christian” with “evangelical.”

3.      It seems to me that there is one more characteristic of the old evangelicalism and that is “generous orthodoxy”. Thus evangelicalism was not limited to Arminian or Calvinistic or other particular disputable understandings of scripture. Evangelicalism was not separatistic as I see many are who now call themselves evangelicals. Fundamentalism was a descriptive term rather than a movement unlike the old evangelicalism which was a movement. It is time for evangelicals in the old sense to move on and find a new descriptive term for themselves and leave the term evangelicalism to the fundamentalists.

4.      Gingoro #3 brings up some good points. I think it is interesting that the picture used is Falwell (who I don’t necessarily think of when I think of an evangelical), instead of someone like Billy Graham (“old evangelicalism”).

5.      Evangelicals make up roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans, helped elect G. Bush, overwhelmingly supported McCain, and identify as Republican at around 70%. That’s probably why the media is focused on evangelicals. Evangelical’s influence on electoral politics still appears strong. Keep in mind that it’s older adults who vote and Americans are living longer than they used to.

6.      I know in this age of the internet it is tempting to think that the American church boils down to the voices we hear the most on the internet, but that is not the case. By far the largest group within evangelicalism is traditional arminians. The only large evangelical group that people can even pretend is reformed is the Southern Baptist Church and survey after survey shows that less than 1/3 of the SBC, the largest evangelical denomination, is reformed. They might not make a lot of noise in online discussions, but all those “evangelical voters” that put George W. Bush into office, they are almost all traditional, southern, arminian evangelicals. So we need to do away with the notion that the “future of evangelicalism” is going to be defined solely by what some minor groups (neo-reformed and emergent) choose to do in the next decade.

7.      You nailed it. I’m persuaded that many people equate “what I am hearing” with “what is.” Seven yrs ago the NeoReformed voice was quiet in the internet/blog world, and some of its leaders were against the focus on blogs. Then about 3-4 yrs ago they began to be a presence and now they may well be the majority of voices in the blog/internet world. But blog/internet world is a slice of the pie, and not all that big or representative. And I wish some sociologist would compare blog reality with “real” reality and tell us about it.

I would agree that the biggest chunk of evangelicalism is probably southern, though there are many in the north tool; they are softly “Cal-minian”  (a mix of Calvinistic + Armenian doctrine) in thinking that salvation is assured but strong on free will and very avoidant of classic themes like election and divine sovereignty (except in praying to God to make a different); and they are both politically and theologically conservative.

8.     I’m a bit split in what I think of this. To begin with, I don’t really believe in predictions of catastrophic failures of social entities. So, decline of Evangelicalism? Probably. End of Evangelicalism? Probably not for a very long time. But also, I grew up SBC and my family is staunchly rooted in the SBC but I know longer identify with that group. I see in my own family evidence that the SBC is becoming more and more disconnected with the world around it. And this, to me, marks the decline. People like me are leaving the Evangelical banner and fewer and fewer are going back to it because it doesn’t seem to match reality.

9.      re: What is an Evangelical, I still like John Stackhouse’s definition on the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s website – his definition is a superset of Bebbington’s (and Marsden’s). question: Does Fitch look at evangelicalism globally? My impression is that it is exploding outside of North America (growth & influence) eg. China house church movement, Evangelical Anglican’s in Africa, Pentecostalism in Latin America. Comments so far seem to be focused on the US Evangelical church. Anyways, looking forward to this series.

10.  Does anyone have any number on the number of emergent churches or persons who identify as emergent in the U.S.?

11.  I don’t have numbers. Two observations: Gibbs and Bolger did a study of major churches, and Tony Jones’s dissertation did some sociological analysis. Tony might have numbers. But my second observation is this: it’s a movement and a trend, and some good ideas about how big it is can be gleaned from readership of books (which always represents a percentage of the movement) and sales of books. But I won’t guess on numbers.

12.   Evangelism needs to change if it’s to flourish. The old hokey, twangy ways no longer go in this society. We need to be more dignified and dare I say, more educated in our approach. Also, we need to separate politics from evangelism. American Christianity took a huge hit in credibility when people like Falwell, Robertson, etc. allied themselved with politicians. We also need to embrace the changing (improving)role of women in society. We won’t get very far if we say, “Follow Jesus, but you women are easily deceived and can’t do this and can’t do that,” and so on.

continue to -

 

The End of Evangelicalism 2 & 3

 

 

 

Kevin Corcoran's Critique of Derrida and Caputo

The Kingdom of God: Ever Coming Never Arriving?

http://holyskinandbone.blogspot.com/search/label/caputo

by Kevin Corcoran

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Tony J got me thinking. He got me thinking about God's kingdom, and the way in which Derrida and Caputo represent it as a perpetual deferral. Tony finds the D&C conception alluring and attractive. I suspect many in the emerging movement do. I myself don't find it appealing. I want to know what others think. And I want to wonder aloud about whether it might not actually be something else that Tony, et. al. find appealing in the D&C model, something that they misidentify as the doctrine of eternal deferral.

I make no pretense at all to being a Derrida scholar. So, I am open to correction in what I'm about to say, and I would invite others more knowledgeable than I to weigh in here and to offer correction where correction is needed. Let me lay out what I understand to be the gist of the D&C model of the impossibility and undeconstructibility of the kingdom, and say why, as a Christian, I think we ought to reject it.

As I understand it, the kingdom of God or Justice or The Wholly Other or Messiah is never fully present on the D&C model but always a reality yet to come, always a reality beyond, a future, a hope, an aspiration. Indeed, God is not even to be thought of as a being, an individual, but rather as an uncontainable, unconditional, undeconstructible Event that is, as some who talk about such things put it, "astir" or "harbored" in the name of "God".

Why is the kingdom eternally deferred? Because words and worldly structures are finite, contingent, particular, limited, deconstructible and thus inhospitable abodes for the Wholly Other and the un-deconstructible. At best what we are ever presented with are "traces" of the Event that is God, and these traces call us beyond and invite us into a transformed way of being in the world.

As I said, I'm certainly open to correction here as I am admittedly outside my own areas of professional expertise. But, to the extent that I've got Derrida/Caputo right, I'm inclined to think that this discarnational model of the kingdom is utterly foreign to the incarnational kingdom of Christian faith. Whereas the D&C "gospel" regards the contingent, particular and deconstructible with suspicion and as inhospitable to the Wholly Other/Messiah/Kingdom or Justice, the God of Christian faith dwells within, inhabits, incarnates himself precisely in the particular, deconstructible and contingent. And far from "traces" of God within the particular, deconstructible and contingent the gospel suggests a fullness of presence.

Moreover, while the idea of a transformative event lies at the very heart of the gospel, the Trinitarian God of Christian theism is not himself an Event, but a God-in-three-persons. Events don't have intentions, aims, loves, etc. I can't enter into a reciprocated relationship of love with an event.

What, then, might Tony and others find so appealing in the D&C idea of eternal deferral? I'd like to think that it's not so much the eternal deferral and impossibility of the kingdom that they find so attractive, as that hardly strikes me as good news. That's about as "good" as the news delivered up in Waiting for Godot. At least in the case of the latter the two main characters believe Godot is coming, though he never arrives. Not so in the D&C story where God's coming is impossible.

Perhaps what TJ and others find appealing is the perpetual deferral of understanding, the realization that no matter what we come to understand of God and of his justice it is inexhaustible; there is always more. I wonder if it's not the idea that we ought never to be satisfied or settled with a particular theology or political arrangement, for example, but always questing, always reaching and searching.

In a way, insofar as the emerging movement can be viewed as a development within evangelical protestantism, it is easier for me to see how some of Derrida's ideas are consonant with emergent sensibilities than it is for me to understand how Caputo, a Catholic, would be attracted to such discarnate, disembodied, otherworldly notions. Catholicism's emphasis on the Eucharist, a place where Christ is really present (one almost wants to say re-incarnated) would seem to more easily prevent one from flights of disembodiment than the thin "commemorative" understanding of the Eucharist in low-church protestant denominations and non-denominations.

In any case, what do you think? Have I misrepresented the D&C model? If not, do you find the notion of an eternal deferral of the kingdom appealing?

Please note Kevin's web blog which may help frame the D&C discussion above a little more fully - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1054707203818412735&postID=1824111830709677492

A New Passover, a New Lamb, a New Exodus

 

 

¹⁰ And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of

the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Heb 10.10

 

 

The Last Supper - Matthew 26

 

The Passover with the Disciples

 

¹⁷ Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” ¹⁸ He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” ¹⁹ And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.

 

²⁰ When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.^{[b] 21} And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” ²² And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” ²³ He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. ²⁴ The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” ²⁵ Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

 

Institution of the Lord's Supper

 

²⁶ Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” ²⁷ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, ²⁸ for this is my blood of the^[c] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. ²⁹ I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

 

³⁰ And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

 

 

 

A New Passover, a New Lamb, a New Exodus

 

 

After Jesus' sacrifice as the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world the Jewish ceremony of Passover was forever changed. Her pilgrimage in the old world of Canaan from Egypt had become transformed to God's new living promise of spiritual redemption, revival, and renewal, by His Son Jesus. Henceforth, after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the Spirit of God would forever blow upon the hearts of believing men and women to raise up a new body of redeemed as God's empowered people forever transfixed upon the cross of Jesus. Who have died in the name of Jesus to be raised up by that same power of the Holy Spirit that raised Jesus from the grave to live forth God's love and forgiveness, mercy and justice, each resurrected day.

 

With the church's birth on Pentecost began its new exodus from the lands of sinful humanity unto the lands of spiritual renewal and rebirth. It's celebration was on the basis of the Lamb of God slain at Passover for the sins of mankind to be raised three days later from death unto life. Thus replacing the Jewish tradition of Passover to that of the church's celebratory Eucharist or, Communion Table, where Christ's broken body is symbolized with the breaking of bread, and His shed blood by the pouring out of new wine upon the lips of all penitents.

 

By this transformation has Jesus become the new bread and new wine to the new life in the Creator-God whereby He transforms, reforms, and conforms, each believing heart to His Son's Cross of salvation and empowering resurrection. That none escape so great a sacrifice and privilege of new life created in Christ Jesus, and by His holy power. That this old world be forever left behind into the hands of God who spared not His Son for the joy sent before Him - namely for the joy of redeeming those who would follow in repentance and confession before His holy name and living atonement.

 

For the people of God have arisen from the grave of sin and death unto the living joy that Jesus saw before Him by the Spirit of God in the Garden of Gethsemane. So great a joy that it carried Him to the Cross of Sacrifice and held Him by no other power than by the power of His own will and testament. That by this certainty in the power of His resurrection and salvation to come would arise a new Passover, a New Lamb, a New Exodus, redeemed from the land of the living to the land of the resurrected.

 

Holding forth a new Kingdom, and a new World, and a new Earth, to all who would become pilgrims until Jesus' second Advent-Coming as King, Ruler, Lion, Suzerainty, unlike His first Advent-Coming as Shepherd, Immanuel, Messiah, Lamb, Prophet, Priest, Rabbi, and Stricken Servant. For how could the Prince of Life truly die - He who was ever the Living Lord and Eternal God?

 

Nay, but for Love's sake, and Love alone, did the living God forge in the fires of hell swords made for righteousness, and ploughshares for peace and justice. With shields of faith and sandals shod with the Gospel of Life and Salvation. With hands and ears, tongues and hearts, that would serve others no matter how batter and bruised, with the book of life until He comes again. Forging an earthly kingdom prepared for His reign in grace and peace, humility and justice, love and forgiveness.

 

By no other tools or gospel does the Church of God come to humanity but by these holy implements. By these works and words shall we know the true people of God who have hearts made obedient upon Christ's witness and testimony in this life so many long years ago. Who serve on bended knees and with helping hands. With humbled hearts and bowed heads. Dispensing God's rich blessings against this life of sin and death, cruelty and harm.

 

Praise be to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for their Almighty love and gracious mercy upon us poor sinners this day. To the God who is our eternal hope, and daily presence, be praise both now, and forever more, Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

April 22, 2011

rev. March 30, 2013

Observations on an Easter Weekend

 

 

 

 

McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 9: Conclusion

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/21/exploring-love-wins-9/#more-15948

by Scot McKnight
April 21, 2011
Filed under: Universalism

Of the problems Rob Bell wants to deal with in his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, two of them are what God is like in some (distorted) presentations of the Christian message and the focused intent of “evangelism” or becoming a Christian on the part of (perhaps) many. Let’s finish off the last chp of this series with this prayer again:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

Caricature and ridicule have a place in Christian rhetoric, if done well and done with the right intent. Rob caricatures a view of God at work in some understandings of the Christian message. Here’s how he says it: “Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next [no one says God is cruel, but he has caricatured the God who judges to hell as cruel], if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years [this issue deserves more attention in this book and more attention by all of us], no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or good coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring untenable, unacceptable, awful reality” (175).

And then this: “So when the gospel is diminished [and it often is] to a question of whether nor not a person will ‘get to heaven’ [and just listen to so many warrants for evangelism and you will hear this], that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club” (178). I agree: “The good news is better than that.” Again, “When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather than joyous participation…”. Yes, yes, I agree. Enough preachers and parents present the gospel this that it deserves caricature and ridicule.

These are the two primary problems at work in this chp, and probably in this book. We need to get our view of God right and we need to see what the gospel is designed to accomplish.

In this last chp he begins with the two sons and the father in the prodigal son story. His point is that the younger son had a story: that he was not worthy. The older son had another story: that he had slaved for his father, and that his father was not fair. And the father had yet another story: come to the party, you have always been with me, I will accept you. In other words, “I love you.” Three different stories, and the point of the parable is to see if they will accept the father’s story and not theirs.

There is a fundamental problem here: the younger son’s story was true — he had sinned, violently in fact, and he came to his senses, confessed his sin — in terms of not being worthy (and Jesus says that very thing in Luke 18 about someone he approves) — and found the father forgiving. Rob seems to me to cut the fabric of the story’s plot: fellowship, sin, realization, confession, and the discovery of the mercy of the father. The younger son’s story was true and it was in telling that truth that he found forgiveness. Until we tell the truth about ourselves we cannot face God.

At the same time, the older son couldn’t bring himself to see the truth of his own condition, and so refused to join the party. The sons put on display what was at work in Luke 15:1-2: sinners (younger son) and the carping Pharisees and scribes (older son). Again, a good example of his emphasis on choice and freedom, which are at the heart of love (wins). I don’t see three stories with one being true, but two stories — the younger son’s story which was true and the father’s story meshed perfectly, while the older son’s story was false and didn’t mesh with the father’s story. It is tragic to miss the appropriateness of the younger son’s self-perception because it magnifies the gracious, forgiving, celebrating love of the father. In spite of the kid’s sin, the father loved him. And because he came to the father, he enjoyed the party.

Many do suffer from bad views of God and of bad views of the gospel, which he calls the gospel of goats. God is not a slave driver. The gospel is not simply about entrance but about enjoyment … he’s right about this, and too few presentations of the gospel are shaped in the direction that they can lead to this (except the health and wealth folks). The parable of the prodigal son is an excellent place to tell this story of God’s gracious love and offer of fellowship through forgiveness.

And again Rob trots out the all too familiar (and simplistic) stereotype that God punishes Jesus, and while I know some hear this sort of thing, one can’t simply wipe out Romans 3:26 without at least doing some serious thinking: God doesn’t — according to this verse that says God is both just and the justifier — just wink at sin or wipe it away without thinking, but God must do right when he forgives. The way the Bible puts it is that God has to be righteous in forgiveness or it is an unjust forgiveness. Yes, God is the rescuer. But the way the Bible is that God both absorbs sin and injustice — “he who knew no sin was made sin on our behalf” — and forgives. We are talking about God’s self-substitution and not a turning of Father against Son. Yes, I’ve heard careless preaching and I cringe at the way some have presented the gospel in these terms. But it is just as careless to flop in the other direction and dispense with justice in the forgiveness process.

One of his lines: “We shape our God and then our God shapes us” (184). So true: our view of God determines what happens to us. So let’s have a biblical view of God, and that’s what Rob is arguing for. For Rob there are two Gods: one God is Love, the other God is Cruel. No one wants the Cruel God, and I suspect that most who do convey a God who is cruel also think that God is loving. But there’s more here: Is the God who is Love capable of taking in the scope of the Bible or is this a select-some-passages God? Is this the God who is the Warrior-Lamb of Revelation? The God who stands behind Jesus’ warnings about Jerusalem’s destruction?

I want to push back by saying this: I am not yet convinced the God in this book is a God of justice. That may sound utterly nonsensical, but Rob has so distanced God from hell (hell is something humans do to themselves) and so distanced God from disestablishing injustice that the oppressed person may well find in Bell’s God little more than justification for the oppressors and the power of the already mighty. Just recently a friend sent to me a paper on James Cone, the well-known American Black liberation theologian, who argued that without wrath in God there is no love in God. If God doesn’t care enough to dis-establish injustice, God doesn’t truly love those who suffer injustice. Until we embrace the utter justice and justifiable wrath of God we will drive ourselves to a sentimental God or to Marcion’s God. The poor must have a God of justice and the rich need to hear that God is just.

God is Love, but that same God self-describes with “I am holy.” Yes, I agree — the witness of the Bible is that God is love, but how can we simply avoid God’s self-identifying words about holiness? And what does holiness say about some of the topics in this book? Can we simply dismiss the robust view of holiness at work in the Bible when it comes to descriptions of God? For some holiness is the defining attribute of God, for others it’s love. I don’t know why we get into such battles – both are true. God is holy and God is love, and God is lovingly holy and holy in his love. Holiness does not mean wrath; holiness means purity and moral perfection and utter differentness — the ineffability and the infinity of God. So I propose that there’s one expression in the Bible that puts these together in a way that needed more representation in this book: the God who is Jealous, the God whose zeal for his own glory is provoked when his people profane his Name and turn from him in sin. Jealousy and Love belong together and reveal the holy fiber at work in God’s love. Where is the jealousy of God in this book?

Rob says “We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell” (177). Hell, in other words, is not part of God’s world — or connected to God. This problem isn’t this simple. The fact is that Rob believes in hell, and that means God has created a world in which hell can exist. Whether you say God made hell for sinners or whether you say humans make their own hell, you’ve got a God who is connected to hell. God made a world with consequences, and that means we are driven to connect God to the consequences, if only to say God made the possibility of such consequences. We need to ask what kind of God that is.

And I ask this to finish: Why the ridicule like this? “This is why Christians who talk the most about going to heaven while everybody else goes to hell don’t throw very good parties” (179). Those who believe love wins, and who believe God is love and who believe what we believe ought to matter ought not to ridicule others like this. The truth of the matter is that I’ve been to some mighty good parties by those hell-embracing folks and some bad parties at the homes of those don’t give a damn about hell.

DAISYs, TULIPs and Open Theism

 

by RE Slater

April 21, 2011

Pertaining to that system of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I have applied Dr. Olson's interview with Homebrewed Christianity to Calvinism's flaws (part 1, part 2) for the direct and immediate purposes of showing the logical consistencies that is found in Arminianism but which is so poorly understood by today's evangelic rank-and-file. In my estimation, it is one of the reasons why emergent Christianity is disliked by traditional evangelicals who mis-understand Arminian doctrine which perfectly balances God's Love with Man's Free Will.

These discussions are provided in hopes of persuading our evangelic brethren to better behave their tongues and speech when loudly declaring Emergent Christians as heretics (found exquisitely verbalized in reaction to Rob Bell's book Love Wins). Dr. Olson gives to the reader a very clear idea as to the illogic of Calvinism and, I think, of the demeaning popular charges of false doctrines being lumped upon the Love Wins readership who wish to discover the beauty and necessity of God's Love for all mankind.

However, Emergent Christianity's seminal ideas and missional message has been uniquely expressed through Love Wins... that God loves His creation and is actively involved in loving His creation. This is the heart-and-soul of the good news found in Jesus Christ who is the Incarnate God become fully man and fully God,  as He messages God's love to this, our fallen, wicked world. Who atones for our sin, propitiates for our offenses, justifies our repentance, and is resurrected to place stamp-and-seal upon our glorification into the Father's name in this life and the next.

Thus, I would direct the reader towards investigating the tenants of Arminianism's DAISY system and its doctrines of "God's Love" and "man's free will" to help more fully digest and appreciate Dr. Olson's separate discussions presented on Calvinism's major flaws. In addition, I have added here my own several observations that I think lend credence to the Arminian claim of logical consistencies.

 

Arminianism's DAISY System

First, for the uninitiated, the moniker DAISY, stands for, among other things, something that simply makes me want to crease my eyes and smile when I think of the open, sun-drenched flower of the field we call daisies - each so friendly and inviting to the heart-and-soul as to whisper good cheer and love to all, who gather and look upon its crowned head.

Otherwise, as a doctrinnaire system it stands for:
 

D - Depravity of all

A - Atonement for all

I  -  Inclusion of all

S - Salvation as gift to all

Y - You, or anyone, may accept or reject

It revolves around the idea that "God's love is for the purpose of creation and not simply for God's greater glory" as Calvinism would state. That God is glorified because God loves, not because He banishes His love from the non-elect, the undestined, the hell-bound. No, God is glorified because he seeks all mankind, loves all mankind, receives all mankind. This is how God gets glory and is glorified - not simply for who He is, but by what He does because of who Hhe is. As Irenaeus would observe, "The Glory of God is man fully alive" and we can rightly say that God's love is the purpose for creation.

Further, God's (prevenient) grace is always resistible (vs. Calvinism's "irresistible" dogmas) and when it's no longer resistible than it becomes salvific grace.

Alongside this concept is that of common grace which is not salvific but holds back the worst effects of the fall so that man may create just societies - great societies - societies that worship and honor the Creator God. Common grace is given at the very act of creation and is distinguished from God's attribute of mercy that is given to man at Adam's imputed Fall.

Because man is fallen (we call this total depravity) the initiative must be from God, which then avoids the semi-pelagian (sic. pelagianism) monikers Calvinists heap upon Arminian doctrine that it is man-centered. For it is not man who first reaches out to God but it is God who first (and continuously) reaches out to man through his prevenient grace (grace that is given to man in his depraved state, in his pre-decision state of being). Thus, salvation's initial (and initiating) act, reciprocating act, and final act is always God-centered.

Too, God's grace is a gift that we do not earn nor merit but is accepted upon the basis as a gift. Nor does the very act of exercising free will invalidate its reception as that of a meritoriously-earned gift. For it is in the nature of man's free will to chose, and in this case, to chose God's grace gifts of love and mercy. Calvinists claim that Arminianists "earn" God salvation by the exercise of our free will, however, the Arminian claims that man is simply "endorsing" the gift God has already presented to him through His grace (in this case, Himself, His love, and His eternal life in all of its sin-departed fullness). Salvation by it's very nature is a transactional GIFT which is "unearned" needing only to be "endorsed" (much as a $100 check given to us as a Christmas or birthday gift requires our signature to cash it in) . A personal grace gift which we may receive, or refuse, but which is totally unearned by its recipients).

 

Lastly, the Arminian doctrine of free will guards and protects the character of God from becoming seen as a monster who elects or (double) predestinates a large portion of mankind (but not all of mankind) to hell. Whom God professes to love and yet casts into hell's deep away from His very essence that professes love to His creation. Moreover, Calvinism's TULIP system makes God out to be a kind of devil who lies about who He is, His intentions and purposes. That shows God to be defective and not good, nor all-wise and all-loving, by declaring purposes of "limited atonement" whilst at the same time deceptively declaring His love for all mankind. 

The Five Points of Calvinism's TULIP System

T - Total Depravity - man is born into, and enslaved to, sin thus causing man to be totally unable to seek or love God because man is evil in every portion of his being.

U - Unconditional Election - God elects men unconditionally by mercy alone and apart from any foreseen virtue, merit or faith in those elected. Conversely, God has chosen from eternity that He will withhold Himself from the non-elect, those men and women whom He will condemned to His eternal wrath.

L - Limited Atonement - or "particular atonement" asserts that Jesus' work at Calvary's cross is limited, and applied, only to the elect of God who will be atoned my Jesus' death. Hence, Jesus' atonement is theoretically given to all mankind but practically limited only to the elect of God.

I -  Irresistible Grace - God's saving grace is only effectually applied to the elect so that over time the elect can no longer resist God's grace and must submit to His will of saving grace. A grace which is determinative and co-op's man's free will to effectually cooperate, believe, repent, or obey. In effect, man becomes an automaton and not a free willed agent. One who is elected and therefore bade to enter into God's elective grace.

 

P - Perseverance of the Saints - God is sovereign and cannot be frustrated by any human or human agency, nor by creation itself. Those whom God calls into communion with Himself will continue in faith until the end, whereas those who are not called will fall out of the faith. Conversely, those who fall away either never had true faith to begin with, or, were not effectually called by God. 

Variants to Calvinism's 5-Point TULIP system

Supra-Lapsarianism, or High-Calvinism - the Fall allows God to chose some to salvation and some to damnation.

Infra-Lapsarianism, or Low-Calvinism - the Fall was indeed planned but without reference to whom will or won't be saved.

4-Point Calvinism known as Amyraldism or (hypothetical) Universalism - where limited atonement now becomes unlimited atonement.

Hyper-Calvinism, that states that not all men are called by God's grace to salvation, but only the elect few.

Neo-Orthodoxy, Neo-Calvinism, Christian Reconstruction, and modern-day Calvinism are all variant responses in the Reformational faith movement to the Age of Enlightenment in its scientific, social and political imports. These deal more with the process and applications of the beliefs of Calvinism as a church culture and as a religion.

I should lastly note that by-and-large, evangelicalism is based upon Reformed theology and that Calvinism's systematic doctrinal TULIP system does not fully define Reformed theology. Rather, Reformed theology is a very large, very consistent, hermeneutic dispensing with the approbation of the Scriptures through covenant theology and all its particular details related to the covenantal ages of the bible.  And because of this, has given rise to many other systematic points of departure within Protestant faith communities, associations, denominations these past 500 years. But this is for discussion at another time. 

Some Observations about Open Theism

Within Arminianism has grown a new branch known as Open Theism that says the future is unknowable because God doesn't know the future decisions of his morally "free" creatures (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, John Cobb, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell). This concept, and related arguments, are based upon the nature of time rather than on the nature of God. And so, this is not a declaration against God's sovereignty and omniscience. Rather, it is an observation about the nature of time being "unknowable" (see references here). - R.E. Slater

 

"For the future is composed of some  things that are already settled, and, some things that are possible and not already settled. And that God knows them exactly as they are in that way so that God's knowledge is co-extensive with reality. As such, God knows all true facts of the past, the present, and the future." - Roger Olson  (in an interview with Homebrewed Christianity)

 

Further, says Olson in his interview, "Arminians are traditionalists when it comes to understanding God's foreknowledge, that God knows the future exhaustively and definitively so that it is not necessary to push Arminians into Open Theism as claimed by classic Calvinists (who seem to simply not like Arminianism and wish to push it off into whatever direction that will get it into the most trouble)." - Roger Olson

But rather than get into the particulars of this any further, I will publish at a later date more extensive articles on the eschaton of God, his foreknowledge and that of man's freedom and relationships as relates to all three groups. To this we should also discuss Universalism and its implications. - R.E. Slater

Final Observations on
Biblical v. Systematic Theology

Overall, I find myself to be a "systematic" eccleticist who tends to critique systems and take the best out of all of them; who purposely and objectively re-frames logical philosophic discussions towards what I think is the overall intent and meaning of the Scriptures. And since deductive logic and syllogistic systematic theology is a specialty of man and not of God's narrational Word per se, we may do this. Man's words are not God's words, and we may agree to debate one another's logicisms and fallacies of internal doctrines, finding in each argument its strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, in the end, we do not wish to work from a systematic theological viewpoint that I have here presently focused upon within this section. But from a biblical theological viewpoint that is rigorously defined while left open-ended to the changing societal perspectives, needs and apprehensions of the ages of man over time.

 

For within the field of systematics we may only expect to uncover theological paradoxes, logical frustrations, and philosophic debates. Whereas, within the heart of biblical theology we may find the expression of the mystery of the Godhead, of creation and the salvation of man, his hope or his demise. That we can speak to these tender issues with sublime wonder, thanksgiving and humility. Which, I think, is the heart-and-soul of a new form of Christianity currently known as Emergent, or Emerging, postmodern Christianity.

 

And it is through biblical theology, not systematic theology, that we can do this task - and do it very well indeed! - through the study of biblical theology as applied to the Scriptures. But when we do we must know why this is, and how we must proceed, as the only sure course of apprehension and expression of our Christian faith, according to the will of God and the power of His Spirit. 

 

 

For More Information

Arminianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Prevenient Grace - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

Calvinism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism

Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-pelagianism

 

 

 

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"