God, Salvation, and the Human Will - Monergism vs. the Divine-Human Cooperative

Tenth Avenue North Live - My Love Never Ends

(Maple Grove, MN - 10/7/12)

Thus saith the Lord, "My life for your will."

- Tenth Avenue North

What this means is the continual presence of the Lord in our lives for our

perpetual trust and faith in Him as we live the "yes" to the call of God.

Guest Column from Austin Fischer: Monergism

link found here

by Roger Olson

October 3, 2015

Comments

As some of you who have been my long-time readers know, Austin Fischer is my protégé even though I can’t take credit for his intelligence or writing skills. He’s a brilliant thinker, teaching pastor (The Vista Community Church, Temple, Texas) and excellent writer. His book “Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed” (Wipf & Stock) has sold very well and is making a real impact among young Christians who have doubts about Calvinism. But I count Austin as more than a protégé or former student; I’m proud to call him my friend. He has provided guest posts here before. This is his newest one–offered without prompting by me.

* * * * * * *

Wikipedia - Monergism is the position in Christian theology that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about the salvation of an individual through spiritual regeneration, irrespective of the individual's cooperation. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism (such as Presbyterianism and the Dutch Reformed Church) and its doctrine of irresistible grace, and particularly with historical doctrinal differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.

This position contrasts with synergism: the belief that God and individuals cooperate, to bring individuals salvation.

* * * * * * *


“Monergism: Maybe True, Definitely Unnecessary”

by Austin Fischer (Author of Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed)

Monergism (“one work”) is the belief that God works alone in salvation. It’s usually set against synergism, which is the belief that while God alone does everything in working for our salvation, humans must cooperate with grace in some form or fashion (the cooperation itself, of course, is possible only because of grace).

Monergism is an integral part of Reformed soteriology, because without it Reformed folks feel humans could boast in their salvation and steal God’s glory—two unpardonable sins. As James Montgomery Boice has said it, those who reject monergism cannot give God alone the glory: “They cannot say ‘to God alone be the glory,’ because they insist on mixing human power or ability with the response to gospel grace.”[1] One gets the sense that for many, monergism is not only true but also necessarily true.

---

[r.e. slater - more simply stated, the position of monergism does not take into account the fact that God decreed into creation the necessity of human response to His grace. That without man's response to His grace God cannot do its work of revitalization, reclamation, renewal, redemption, rebirth, nor resurrection. Thus, Reformed doctrine denies God's decree of "free will" into creation and how it then works in the realm of soteriology (e.g., "salvation," how man is redeemed).

Moreover, to the statement, "How does God overcome the human will in its depravity?" Here, the Arminian doctrine of "God's prevenient grace" comes into account, that God, by His Spirit, "wakes up the soul of the dead" to His grace and forgiveness.

Thus is God glorified as opposed to the stricter Reformed doctrine of monergism denying the necessity of human response to God's grace via free will as decreed by God into all of His creation. This also removes God from the role of autocrat/dictator to the role of Sovereign/Redeemer.]

---

I’ve discussed monergism in other places (in my book in particular), and used to affirm it, and understand how people think the Bible teaches it. I think they’re wrong and find it curious the early Church Fathers didn’t teach it, especially it if it was so essential - and [especially so] if Paul, allegedly, clearly taught it [which doesn't seem to be the case]. As the great Calvinist theologian Loraine Boettner states, with laudable honesty:

“The earlier church fathers…taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed

that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel…They taught a kind of synergism

in which there was co-operation between grace and free will.”[2] - LB

I know of very few historical theologians who would even begin to contest Boettner’s claim (and again, Boettner was a Calvinist), so I think advocates of monergism have a good bit of explaining to do here. But again, in all sincerity, I understand how people think the Bible teaches it.

But what I would like to point out is that you don’t need monergism to prevent human boasting or protect God’s glory. Nope—all you need is a healthy doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)…or better yet, creatio continua (continuing creation).

From early on,[3] Christianity affirmed God created the universe from nothing and without necessity and that the whole of space-time is dependent, moment by moment, on the superabundant source of being that is God. Existence itself is grace—a gift, unforeseen and unnecessary and gratuitous, given anew in the unfolding of each moment in which there is something instead of nothing:

“It is the condition of absolute contingency that defines creaturely existence. Every finite being is groundless, without any original or ultimate essence in itself, a moment of unoccasioned fortuity, always awakening from nothing…”[4]

“All-that-is and all-that-has-been and, indeed, all-that-will-be is given existence by an Ultimate Reality that is other than what is created.”[5]

“The power of life stands outside us and is given to us.”[6]

• God doesn’t need creation.

• Creation actualizes no latent potential in God.

• God, from all eternity, is an infinite, vibrant, dynamic, and endlessly creative triune community of abundance, delight, peace, feasting, revelry, and joy.

• As such, all that is exists in an irreducibly gratuitous fashion and creation is an expression of God’s primordial generosity; a generosity Jesus taught us to call love.

Which brings us back to monergism.

I am deeply grateful for the Reformation. Several harmful trajectories had formed and the Reformation was a much-needed corrective to them. But the dogged focus on the inner mechanics of the soteriological mystery set, in my opinion, another harmful trajectory in which the horizons of the gospel were narrowed and monergism started attempting to say what creatio ex nihilo had already said far better; namely, that EVERYTHING is a gift of grace, to be received with open hands and wide-eyed wonder.

Why?

• Because creatio ex nihilo and creatio continua prevent human boasting and protect God’s glory far more effectively than monergism, accomplishing and exceeding what monergism aspires to with effortless beauty and grace.

• Because when one realizes every creature—not to mention space-time itself!!!—is sustained, nanosecond by nanosecond, by the wild and unconditioned generosity of God, monergism is simply unnecessary. It might still be true, but it is not necessary. The infinite God, Being behind all being, does not need monergism to protect his glory.

This won’t end any debates on monergism and you can still make a biblical case for it (though I think you can make a better case against it), but perhaps it can help Reformed folks understand why, to a great many of us, monergism is well-intentioned but misguided small potatoes in a universe breathing grace.[7]

- Austin Fischer

[1] Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?, 167.

[2] The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 365.

[3] See Langdon Gilkey’s outstanding Maker of Heaven and Earth for an examination of the historic consensus on creatio ex nihilo.

[4] David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 250.

[5] Arthur Peacocke, The Music of Creation, 7.

[6] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, 137.

[7] I’m reminded of Kevin DeYoung’s review of my book, wherein he was a bit miffed that I so easily shrugged off the supposed importance of monergism. I can only say that in any theological world where there is a robust doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, monergism simply isn’t essential.

Book Description

Does it really matter? Does it matter if we have free will? Does it matter if Calvinism is true? And does what you think about it matter? No and yes. No, it doesn't matter because God is who he is and does what he does regardless of what we think of him, just as the solar system keeps spinning around the sun even if we're convinced it spins around the earth. Our opinions about God will not change God, but they can change us. And so yes, it does matter because the conversations about free will and Calvinism confront us with perhaps the only question that really matters: who is God? This is a book about that question-a book about the Bible, black holes, love, sovereignty, hell, Romans 9, Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, C. S. Lewis, Karl Barth, and a little girl in a red coat. You've heard arguments, but here's a story - Austin Fischer's story, and his journey in-and-out of Calvinism on a trip to the center of the universe.

* * * * * * *


More from Wikipedia -

Monergism

Monergism states that the regeneration of an individual is the work of God through the Holy Spirit alone, as opposed to Synergism, which, in its simplest form, argues that the human will cooperates with God's grace in order to be regenerated. To most synergists, regeneration is a process that begins when a man responds to God's initiative, repents, and begins the labor of loving God and his neighbor. Monergists believe that regeneration takes place as a single act in which God regenerates a man from his fleshly state and, thus now enabled, a man can believe, and that he inevitably and invariably will do so. [r.e. slater - this monergistic position thus describes what synergists call "prevenient grace" as explained above in my comment while also recognizing human free will as decreed by God's creative choice].

While most synergists hold that God initiates all the work but that the work of salvation requires man's "free will," monergists maintain that God alone initiates and completes all the work of salvation [res - sic, without man's acknowledgment or cooperation]. To a monergist, a person does possess human freedom before regeneration (if by freedom, is meant the ability to choose what one wants). Yet, a man; because of his unregenerate and fallen nature is in slavery to sin (i.e. man chooses sin; because that is what he wants); because he is dead in his sin before God's regeneration and in this state he is unable to choose God (because he does not want GOD; he may want the gifts from GOD, but not GOD). Synergists, on the other hand, have varying beliefs regarding man's freedom to respond to God. According to monergism, faith in Christ only springs from a heart first renewed by God. Among various arguments, proponents believe 1Corinthians 12:3 to mean that no one can possibly confess Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit's prompting and being a true conviction of his heart.

According to monergists, all men are conceived and born with an unregenerated human nature, and faith to believe is beyond the power of this unregenerated human nature. God [must] circumcise the heart. The apostle John is understood by some monergists as having recorded Jesus saying that we love darkness, hate the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19,20; monergists assume that "doing the truth" and "loving the light" in consequence are the results of God's irresistible grace which brings a love and faith enabled by grace. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own; since he is at enmity with God; and so, will not understand spiritual things (meaning the experience of loving GOD; i.e. seeing GOD's loveliness) (1Cor 2:14). Reading or hearing the word of God alone cannot elicit saving faith in the reader(1Thess 1:4,5). The monergist believes in heralding the gospel indiscriminately, and the Holy Spirit regenerates who He will, according to His sovereign grace.

Monergists know that once the "eyes have been made healthy" a person will inevitably follow God; because the Infinite is effective to what the Infinite wills to effect. "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose." Philippians 2:12-13. GOD always does according to His good pleasure; and no thing can stop an infinite Being's good pleasure.

Opposition to monergism

Synergists have a variety of beliefs. Many would hold the same views listed above in describing how God opens the eyes and ears to a person to both see and hear the Salvation of God before he has faith. They would make the distinction, however, that a man can reject this revelation and maintain his desire to remain as he is. They would maintain that God, in his grace, comes to all human beings to follow him, but he allows the "free will" of the individual to not respond to him. Some synergists believe that because man is made in the "image and likeness of God," he has the ability to make free choices for good or for evil. Other synergists believe man is unable to do good but God has extended grace to all people which gives them the ability to have faith in Christ (see prevenient grace). Synergists believe salvation is a matter of human and Divine synergy, not divine choice alone without human cooperation. Synergists interpret Biblical passages, such as the parable of the talents and the passage "If today you hear the voice of God, harden not your heart."[Hebrews 3:15]

Some synergists believe that monergism is fatalistic; because they interpret it to believe that a man is not free to resist God's (outward) call. Many monergists, however, would counter that when the heart has been regenerated, man accepts God's (inward) call freely and so would defend that their Christianity, while not predicated on "free will," does, in fact, involve their freedom. Opponents of monergism would argue that this type of freedom is akin to being free to take the one-and-only choice available. But again, if freedom is simply the ability to do as we please; then, how that freedom is brought to pass is irrelevant. Moreover, if we are at enmity with God, we will never be pleased to love or have saving faith in God; as synergism states that we can. See Romans 8:6-8: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

These arguments are both aspects of the general argument that monergism means that God chooses individuals without any condition provided by the individual (See the "U" in T.U.L.I.P. - i.e. Unconditional Election). Therefore, according to monergism, the only reason that one person is saved and another is not is because God sovereignly decided, without any conditions provided by the two individuals, to save one of them. It follows that the only reason people are not saved is because God sovereignly chooses not to save some individuals. Therefore monergism is said to lead to the conclusion that God does not in fact love every human being, as God's Word declares; " I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer; they shall seek Me early, but they shall not find Me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:" Proverbs 1:26-29. Nor want to save every person, as GOD's Word declares; " Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory..." Romans 9:18-23. By contrast, Synergists maintain that God does not save certain individuals because they do not desire to be saved. According to both monergism and synergism, God will not force His will or His forgiveness on those who do not desire it.

Opponents[who?] claim that there is no writing in Church literature prior to Augustine which can be construed in a monergist way. Yet, the Scriptures given above demonstrate that the Church literature (i.e. Holy Writ) in the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles could be interpreted to support monergism[how?]. However, this interpretation has not found favour with the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches, which have remained firmly synergistic.

* * * * * * *

Calvinists have long had 5 points (spelling TULIP) to explain the basic doctrines of Reformed thinking (many of the terms of which are quite misleading):

CALVINISM: TULIP

T: Total depravity – Every facet of every person everywhere has been marred by sin.

U: Unconditional election – God chooses those to be saved based solely on His will.

L: Limited atonement – Christ died only for those who are elect.

I: Irresistible grace – The elect cannot resist God’s call to salvation.

P: Perseverance of the saints – The elect cannot lose their salvation.

ARMINIANISM: DAISY

D: Diminished depravity – Humanity is depraved, but God uses prevenient grace to restore man’s ability to respond to Him.

A: Abrogated election – God bases His election on His foreknowledge of those who freely choose Him.

I: Impersonal atonement – Christ died for everyone, making salvation possible for everyone.

S: Sedentary grace – God calls everyone to salvation, but many freely reject it.

Y: Yieldable justification – The saved can fall from grace and lose their salvation.

Of course this only works for 5-point Arminians (i.e. those who deny all five points of Calvinism, which most Arminians I know wouldn't do, and many more combinations of some of the points but not others are at least consistent than most people have thought).

The DAISY acronym is much harder to pin down as there are several different versions. Also, many Arminians do not like the acrostic. Several versions of DAISY have been pushed by Calvinists as caricatures of Arminian theology. Many Calvinists seem to also enjoy making the lame joke that the Arminian flower is a daisy because they pull the petals off saying, “God loves me. He loves me not.”

*r.e. slater - basing election on God's foreknowledge assumes a "closed universe" where God fore-knows all things which will happen within this universe. However, for many a process theologian (myself included) the universe is in an open, evolving relationship to its Creator thus making any discussion of the what God will know in the future moot. Hence, the entire area of biblical/doctrinal foreknowledge might be thrown out. And when used in the Bible, to think of that area of ontology and metaphysics as an ancient apprehension of this doctrine alone. That in today's postmodern world of science and biblical hermeneutics, the philosophical idea of whether the future is closed or open from an "open theism" viewpoint is that it is open, not closed, to all possibilities, and not to some predetermined possibilities.

The good news is that God is still Sovereign without demanding that He "controls" His creation but allowing creation it's own freedom to become what He has decreed via free will. In creation's case this "inanimate free will" has been heretofore described as "indeterminacy." Thus, man has "free will" as an evolved sentient being but "creational will" as an inanimate object is "indeterminate" as evidenced from within its chaotic and random nature represented by the science of evolution.

Thus, the position of "free will" allows both its Creator and creation to evolve with one another through event and movement in an infinite number of actions and reactions. It thinks of the future more fluidly as "becoming" instead of the more static concept of "being." It allows the future to be opened while recognizing the teleological principle of restoring creation itself back into fellowship with its Creator (I will reference two articles below to further explore these ideas).

related articles - Open Theism and Process Theology (Wikipedia)

the reader may also review Relevancy22's articles on these

related topics via the topic column to the right

Hence, a third position, known as Molinism, defers to the idea of God's expansive foreknowledge based upon a closed universe where every action has been accounted for and thus, closes the future towards only divinely desired outcome and not an outcome based upon togetherness, collaboration, coordination of energy, between the Creator/Redeemer and His creation. It is a distinctly earlier doctrine based upon the eras of its conception both ancient and medieval/enlightenment:

MOLINISM: ROSES - A doctrine based upon God's foreknowledge (sic, Wikipedia here)

R: Radical depravity – Every aspect of humanity is depraved, but we are not always as bad as we could be.

O: Overcoming grace – God’s grace is persistent in the life of the believer, but it can be resisted.

S: Sovereign election – God desires the salvation of all, but our salvation is based on His choice not ours.

E: Eternal life – God grants believers eternal security in their salvation.

S: Singular redemption – Christ died sufficiently for all people, but efficiently only for the saved.

(Note, Timothy George, a Calvinist Baptist, uses the same acrostic as Kenneth Keathley, a Molinist. The differences lie in the way the terms are defined.)

* * * * * * *

Wikipedia - Open Theism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Open theism, also known as openness theology and free will theism,[1] is a theological movement that has developed within evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. It is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and philosophically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.[2][3] It has been said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[4]

Exposition of open theism

Open theism as a theological movement developed within evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. It is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and philosophically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.[2][3] In short, open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism would picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism would see it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.[5][6] Thus, the future as well as God's knowledge of it is open(hence "open" theism). Other versions of classical theism hold that God fully determines the future, entailing that there is no free choice (the future is closed). Yet other versions of classical theism hold that even though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism are out of sync with:

the biblical concept of God
the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom

and/or result in incoherence. Open Theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love, and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it.[7]

Comparison of open and Reformed theism

The following chart compares beliefs about key doctrines as stated by open theists and Calvinists after "the period of controversy" between adherents of the two theisms began in 1994.[8] During this period the "theology of open theism . . . rocked the evangelical world".[9]

Doctrine	Open Theism	Calvinism
Scripture (the Bible). "In the Christian tradition, the Old and the New Testaments are considered Holy Scripture in that they are, or convey, the self-revelation of God."[10]	"Committed to affirming the infallibility of Scripture"[11]	Scripture is "the infallible Word of God".[12]
God's Power. "God's power is limited only by God's own nature and not by any external force."[13]	"God is all-powerful."[14]	"God is all-powerful."[15]
God's Sovereignty. "God's ultimate Lordship and rule over the universe".[13]	Portraying God as ordaining whatever happens reduces "humans to robots".[16]	"Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will.Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed."[17]
God’s Perfection. "God as lacking nothing and free of all moral imperfection".[13]	Believes in "(because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God."[18]	Believes that, because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".[19]
God's Foreknowledge. "God's knowing things and events before they happen in history".[20]	"God is omniscient" about "settled" reality, but the future that God "leaves open" can be known only as open "possibility" without specific foreknowledge.[21]	Classically Augustinian-Calvinist view: "God knows the future because he preordains it."[22]
The Fall. "The disobedience and sin of Adam and Eve that caused them to lose the state of innocence in which they had been created. This event plunged them and all mankind into a state of sin and corruption."[23]	God "does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do". God's decisions are influenced by "human attitudes and responses".[24]	"Ultimate reason" for the Fall was "God's ordaining will".[17]
Free Will. "The term seeks to describe the free choice of the will which all persons possess. Theological debates have arisen over the ways and to the extent to which sin has affected the power to choose good over evil, and hence one's 'free will'."[25]	Promotes incompatibilism, the doctrine that "the agent's power to do otherwise" is "a necessary condition for acting freely".[26]	Promotes compatibilism, the doctrine that "freedom" of the will requires only "the power or ability to do what one will (desire or choose) to do" without constraint or impediment, even if what one wills is determined.[27]
Free Will and God's Sovereignty. A "caustic debate" began about 1990 over "God's sovereignty and human free will".[28]	Saying that God governs human choices reduces "angels or humans to robots in order to attain his objectives."[29]	God governs "the choices of human beings", but without "cancelling [their] freedom and responsibility".[30]
Theodicy issue. "The justification of a deity's justice and goodness in light of suffering and evil".[31]	To meet the "conditions of love", God exercises "general rather than specific sovereignty, which explains why God does not prevent all evil".[32] Also, God "does not completely control or in any sense will evil" because the world is "held hostage to a cosmic evil force".[33]	Because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".[34]

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER TO CONTENTS BELOW:

1 Exposition of open theism

• • 1.1 Comparison of open and Reformed theism
• 2 Historical development
  • 2.1 After 1980
• 3 Philosophical arguments
• 4 Varieties of open theists
• 5 Criticism
  • 5.1 Literary debate
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading
• 10 External links

* * * * * * *

What Do We Mean by God as "Creator-Redeemer"?

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/evolutionary-creationism-what-do-we.html

Evolution and the Separate Problems of Teleology and Human Consciousness

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/01/evolution-and-separate-problems-of.html

Become Kingdom Makers, Not Kingdom Waiters

Last week I attended my school and seminary's "Talking Points" seminar as I do most every year since it began. This year's topic would be on the Kingdom of God, and as I went I knew full well it would play to the conservative evangelic side of the discussion which I grew up in and know very well down to the chapter and verse and eschatological charts used from a multitude of viewpoints: dispensational, Reformed, or even amillennial.

Mostly I attended in hopes of seeing some digression or nod of the head towards some form of a more progressive gospel over the spiritually infused words of heavenly hope accompanied by the lethurgy of social inaction refusing to address the greater needs of society. Why the disinterest in serving the world and only God? Because in the parochial line of thinking (at least within my fellowships) Jesus is coming and that should be enough to content oneself with until some cloudy day when He does actually come in the air to take away His church from this wicked world.

And although there might have been a nod towards a more earthly kingdom the day's opening speaker held to the school's current stricter position of wishing "for another day to fly away unto" and until that day "to rest in the secure knowledge" that a future heaven and earth would be a guarenteed wonderful place to be when this old world goes away by fire and destruction. And though I knew this kind of heavenly-minded sermon was coming my reaction was still one of heart-felt dismay for my old haunts of decades ago.

What I was hoping to hear was a more contemporary tone advocating for a more progressive Christian view of "Kingdom Now" as versus "Kingdom Later" kind of emphasis. But what I got was the sanitized side of a "New Heavens and New Earth" which is the safe, pedantic version of a conservative Bible gained from an evangelic-Calvinistic view of the future filled with hope and deliverance from God's coming judgment upon the world. But the more progressively-minded "Kingdom Now" view is the gutteral, ghandi-type version of God's Kingdom done from the bottom up of theology within an Arminian structure of Christ's gospel (sic, "human freedom" vs. "divine control" debates as errantly perceived of divine sovereignty evangelical Calvinists).

Now I am not discounting the grand and glorious view of my brethren's picture of God's Kingdom to come but for now, in this life, the only view which is deeply pertinent to the us (and consequently the living church of the living God) is the stereo picture of God's Kingdom lived now, here on this earth and in this life. Accompanied by a deeply burdened, if not hotly passionate picture, of God's church hard at work serving humanity based upon Christ's example and gospel love/witness as versus the heart-attitude of waiting for God's wrath and judgment to come to burn the earth to a cinder and all the unfortunate's living upon it.

In essence, the heavenly-minded "Kingdom Later" gospel leads out with preaching salvation to sinners (and basically a conservative party line of politics) with no hope of effect upon its listeners in this day and age. Which is a "Jonah-kind-of-gospel" where God's prophet Jonah grudgingly does God's will with a vigor of bitter resolve and then sits back on an overlooking hill waiting for God's wrath to fall upon his avowed enemies, the people of Nineveh. When this doesn't happen dear ol' Jonah is sorely displeased with God and bitterly asks why the nation's worst enemy (Assyria) isn't readily plunged upon by God in the same vigor that he had preached God's wrathful message? In effect, God says, "Their time has not yet come and My mercy burns with the same vigor for their souls as does your heart for their destruction." In consequence, Jonah, who had suffered great personal indignities at the hand of God Himself, now struggled with God's message of presumptive grace and sat back in a miserably depressed funk amazed by God's reaction of grace and mercy to those who would repent of their cruelty and injustices.

No less is today's hard-bitten church preaching God's word with a vigor of condemnation and then sitting back to await God's great wrath across the lands of sin and ruin. But true to form, in a mystery of atypical convention, what God does is not what the church expects, but what it doesn't want to see. God's love and compassion falls upon the cities of man to redeem the lost, show mercy upon the ruined, and grant deliverance to destitute lives committed to anything but God Himself.

It is the story of God's "Kingdom Now" coming unto this old earth rather than His future promised "Kingdom to Come" later. And it is bourne of a gospel which leads out with actually bringing both societal and personal salvation to the impoverished, the worker state, and to those held in societal chains of bondage. It is a disruptive kind of gospel which provokes imagination, heart, and soul.

As example, the plight of San Francisco was shared in several documentaries through HBO in September of 2015 (see accompanying article below). It showed a community's hardships through the lens of Alexandra Pelosi as it is being repeated again-and-again throughout the major metropolises of this world. And into this urban blight comes a response from the progressive church to a heartfelt and known social need unwanted in the vision of more structured views of the evangelical church believing desolation for desolation's sake is the response God has shown to those peoples who have rejected Him and refuse obedience to His holy name.

But it is a naive, and uninformed view which shows just the opposite through the documentary's piercing lenses. A view requiring action both within the government as well as from its citizenry. And especially from the churches of America declaring for the rights of the damned, the poor, the disenfranchised, the debt-ridden student, and distraught worker excessively burdened with no way out. It is a social occurrence that is all too frequent and must be framed both within our political discourses as well as within our walled-up, hard-hearted churches unwilling to allow a sympathetic tone or generosity to allieviate the ungenerous side of America's capitalism.

Most importantly, it must also be a response of compassion from both the church and society in general fraught within a banking system and corporate structure driven by share value and prowess. It is a "Kingdom Now" effort which makes most of us suburbanites feel uncomfortable having been delievered from this urban menance in our own lives by luck, chance, circumstance, or plain hard work and right decision making. But it must be something which gets us beyond our sense of normalcy, complacency, and hard-heartedness as it now stands within our surburban churces having escaped this great misery of the cities it has left behind.

And, it must proceed apace with a restorative ecology in mind and not simply a heavenly "new ecology" that someday may come (sic, the "new" earth part of "new heavens and new earth). To see an earth in need of reclamation as much as its peoples need to live in lands offering good soil, clean water, and nurturing space. Its not the kind of "Kingdom Later" theology which would spiritualized inactivity and cultural status quo with a do-nothing attitude because "its all going to burn up anyway."

The Jesus we see in the NT is a Jesus who serves and works for humanity as versus one preaching in a Pharisaical temple of God's "bounded' goodness and "controlling" wisdom. But a Savior of man who preaches a gospel declaring His temple as the city streets, the amphitheaters of the rocky hillsides, the seashores, and debauched dinning spaces of Jerusalem. It was to be a gospel formed by words accompanied by action (James 2.14ff), and action accompanied by words. It was a full circle kind of divine service to a humanity forgotten, disregarded, judged, and condemned by the religious regimes of Jerusalem aligned with Rome with a political lust for Rome's power. The bottom line is to be difference makers and not difference breakers in Christ's name.

For myself, yes, there will be a New Heavens and New Earth. Whether fiction or fantasy I don't know, its what's declared in the Bible. But I also know that God's Kingdom must also be now and not simply later within our theologies. To see a Christian Church always at work in this world both by gospel message as well as with rolled up shirt sleeves and dirty hands administring the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ as servants to His holy name and glorious majesty. It is a gospel that works for the rights of others to be freed from the bondage of sin and its earthly hardships borne by the sin of society working against God's will towards obedience, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. A bondage that is unrelenting unless it be broken by burdened souls and communities dedicated to the rights of others through any form of redemption they may bring to help and unshackle the loss and the destitute in the gospel of Christ. A gospel that works instead of waits. Serves instead of condemns. Sacrifices instead of grasp all the more tightly to its own deliverances. It is a gospel of a Kingdom both later and now and evermore. Thus our admonition to be kingdom makers and not a kingdom waiters. Serve. Love. Dedicate heart and soul to a divine humanity lost within this wicked world and found once again. Amen and amen.

R.E. Slater

October 12, 2015
revised October 15, 2015

*For more discussion on the American economy and how the church may change it, go to this link here discussing "The Soul of the Next Economy" by Brian McLaren and company: "The vision of the Soul of the Next Economy dialogues is to help us move from an extractive, exploitative economy to a regenerative economy that prizes the flourishing of people as well as the planet." Cost is $20.

http://mclareninoakland.eventzilla.net/web/event?eventid=2139080014

* * * * * * * * *

Courtesy HBO

Alexandra Pelosi

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

09.28.153:33 PM ET

San Francisco’s Alarming Tech Bro Boom: What Is the Price of Change?

Director Alexandra Pelosi, whose doc San Francisco 2.0 premieres September 28 on HBO, writes about how her city is emblematic of a changing America, and the new segregation.

By now you must have heard the rumblings coming from the West Coast about “the battle for the heart and soul of The City.” Not a week goes by without a headline about the growing pains brought on by the tech Gold Rush in San Francisco. For my ninth HBO documentary, San Francisco 2.0, which premieres Monday, September 28, at 9 p.m. on HBO, I chose to point the camera at my beloved hometown, where the influx of tech money and the sharing economy are disrupting the natural order of things.

Inside San Francisco, it’s impossible to talk about progress without stepping in a messy local streetfight. As the natives try to encourage the techies to see The City as their community, not their playground, a backlash against gentrification has erupted. But the rest of the country can look at the vanishing middle class of San Francisco to see our fate—the new segregation between rich and poor that is emerging in San Francisco 2.0 is the challenge of the new American economic reality.

“I’m worried about a city that is becoming uniformly wealthy and out of reach,” former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains. “San Francisco is London, it is Vancouver, it is Manhattan, it is places that are increasingly desirable to live in, that are becoming gated communities.” Have middle-class Americans lost access to their cities? Who gets to live in The City? Will middle-class people still feel like they belong? Or will our cities be for only those who can buy their way in? This is not simply an economic question, it’s also a spiritual one: What is the price of change? And what will the growing divide between rich and poor do to the fabric of America?

As we struggle to come up with fair answers to these questions, we must embrace the fact that you can’t fight change. You can’t refuel a city by standing still. San Francisco is not a boutique, it’s a center of commerce with the highest median tech wage in the country. No one can deny the benefits the tech boom has brought to San Francisco—all the new money is clearly good for the city’s tax base. “Every mayor in America would die to have these problems,” my uncle, Tommy D’Alesandro, says. He, like his father, served as mayor of Baltimore during much more divided times in American history. We must be grateful to the tech companies for bringing jobs and tax revenues and cleaning up their neighborhoods. New jobs have trickled down.

San Francisco 2.0 by HBO

For each new tech bro hired, there are new job openings for baristas, manicurists and personal trainers. This is the new feudalism of San Francisco 2.0, the landed gentry need more people to service them. So we need more bartenders, and they can't afford to live in the City…but what about the schoolteachers? Or the fireman and police who protect our families? Don’t we need to make room for them?

For some, the only way to hold on to the city with its skyrocketing home sales and rent prices is to join the sharing economy. Renting out their apartment on Airbnb or driving for Uber. But as Reich asks, “What happens to the widening inequality? What happens to job security? Everybody who becomes more of a contingent worker, more of a precarious worker—whether you’re an Uber driver or you are an Airbnb proprietor—your source of income is that less certain. A freelance economy can be a very cruel economy. It can be a form of social Darwinism.” This is the dark side to progress. For capitalism and democracy to actually work, we need new rules to make the playing field fair for everyone.

Courtesy of HBO

At a time when it is in vogue to hate our politicians, we need our elected leaders now more than ever to write the new laws that will guide us into the new frontier. As we try to figure out how to manage all this change, we need to make sure we don’t destroy the character of our communities. As more cities become a Tale of Two Cities, in which the class warfare between the haves and have-nots rages, and income inequality becomes a national epidemic, we need to find solutions that will keep our country together.

We are all looking West for solutions to these epic challenges of how to learn to share, manage change, and evolve as a community. And if any city can solve these problems, I’m hoping that my progressive hometown will lead the way into the new world economy—without leaving its heart and soul behind.

Foundations for a Radical Theology, Part 7 - Epistemology: Language, Lacan, and Postmodern Theology

"For many, life, as in language, must be marked by certainty. For myself,

I am learning to grow beyond the more fundamental needs of epistemology

that would limit my existential sense of being."

- R.E. Slater

An Epistemology of Inexpressiveness, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Inherent in language is its incompleteness. For all that language would promise in describing something or someone completely (for instance the idea of God) it too often falls short of its goal. For the postmodernist this is known as a "lack" as used by the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan of language's structural impossibility to fully describe anything except partially or vaguely.

The fact that we cannot say everything about anything means that we experience "a lack" simply by existing as a "speaking being" who is trying to re-describe our incomplete expressions (or impressions). Hence, we cannot "say it all" and therefore must admit to our "lack" of infinite expression. This is the incompleteness of language as both a gift and a problem that is spoken between verbal (symbolic) beings searching for structure, definitiveness, completeness between one another.

And yet, circumnavigating the missing piece of language's incompleteness is the epistemological phenomena of "desire." Desire is birthed by language's "lack." It is a "generative" reaction to filling in the void of our human experience unable to describe what we sense and wish to place in the stricter categories of (divine or human) structural knowledge. More simply, our feelings or consciousness of lack is what generates our desire. And desire may then become a positive reaction to an unfillable (or inexpressible) void of communication by whatever medium it is expressed. It is in this "white space" of our human experience which marks us as finite beings propelling us forward towards the need for fundamental expression between one another using concrete verbal structures while at the same time unconsciously admitting to a deeper void within our souls crying out for an expression that cannot be expressed. A "mystical" expression as some would say.

Someone once said "The fantasy modernism (or, "linguistic fundamentalism") subscribes to is that there is a picture for us to see, or a totalizing puzzle for us to complete rather than realizing that we are always engaged in a uniquely creative or, re-generative process, of completing the puzzle to our existential "lack." And hence, we react to this deep need by furnishing our own incomplete experience to an inexpressible existential void we wish to describe.

As a consequence, postmodern theology restructures the theory of knowledge from its fatal (or finalizing) sense of certainty to the re-generative spaces of uncertainty, doubt, and mystery built upon existential experience and desire. Conversely, knowledge absent desire becomes fatal (or finalizing) for any society, creed, or religion no longer willing to explore the mysteries of its existence, being, or beliefs beyond its fundamental appraisals of it. And thus, when coming then to definitive religious or theological statements written in the pen of artificial completeness (sic, era-specific creeds and confessions, doctrinal liturgies, ecclesiastical dogmas) it discourages removal of those staid (non-being) equations of expression by refusing to make room for the divine/human narrative of incompleteness beheld by later generations. As such, postmodern post-structuralism seeks to re-circumscribe our structurally-imposed experiences of life. Experiences which would confidently assert language's delimiters thus leading to its many deaths in the lands of linguistic secularity (or sterility) forming the status quo bonds of modernism.

For postmodern theology this then becomes a kind of existential agnosticism or atheism over against the religious certitudes and fundamental verities we have grown up with limiting the vision of our lives and theologies bound behind the socially acceptable structures of mundane society. For others, the beginning of this existential/hermeneutical (interpretive) void is the beginning of a life teeming with phenomenological expression using uncertainty and doubt (or a kind of religious/interpretive agnosticism or atheism) as the driving motivators beyond the fundamental certainties we carry within our breasts. This kind of postmodern theology is more formally known as a "pyro-theology" which gives assent or permission to burning down the past in order to rebuild another kind of post-structural foundation. Consequently, a generative postmodern theology demands another kind of "hermeneutic" or "interpretive structural vision," into the realms of language and experiences of life. It demands of language to be less taxing, less specific, and more open to the possibilities of discovery - or movement - from the Spirit of God, and the spirit of human nature, cast beyond the boundaries of "what is known" to those realms of "unknowingness." Spiritual qualities which are deeply felt, sung, or dreamed within the human breast bursting with life and deliriously committed to seeking, searching, and communicating this spiritual life with other similarly thriving human beings.

R.E. Slater

September 26, 2015
edited September 28, 2015

Definitions - from Wikipedia

Post-structuralism

Post-Structuralism is a label formulated by American academics to denote the heterogeneous works of a series of mid-20th-century French and continental philosophers and critical theorists who came to international prominence in the 1960s and '70s.[1][2][3] A major theme of post-structuralism is instability in the human sciences, due to the complexity of humans themselves and the impossibility of fully escaping structures in order that we might study them.

Post-structuralism is a response to structuralism. Structuralism is an intellectual movement developed in Europe from the early to mid-20th century. It argued that human culture may be understood by means of a structure—modeled on language (i.e., structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a "third order" that mediates between the two.[4] Post-structuralist authors all present different critiques of structuralism, but common themes include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of the structures that structuralism posits and an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute those structures.[5] Writers whose work is often characterised as post-structuralist include Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard, and Julia Kristeva, although many theorists who have been called "post-structuralist" have rejected the label.[6]

The movement is closely related to postmodernism. As with structuralism, antihumanism is often a central tenet. Existential phenomenology is a significant influence; Colin Davis has argued that post-structuralists might just as accurately be called "post-phenomenologists".[7] Some commentators have criticized post-structuralism for being radically relativistic ornihilistic. Others have objected to its extremity and linguistic complexity: philosopher John Searle writes "deconstructive prose tends to be systematically evasive."[8] Others see it as a threat to traditional values or professional scholarly standards.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a late-20th-century movement in the arts, architecture, and criticism that was a departure from modernism.[1][2] Postmodernism includes skeptical interpretations ofculture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. It is often associated with deconstruction and post-structuralism because its usage as a term gained significant popularity at the same time as twentieth-century post-structural thought.

The term postmodernism has been applied to a host of movements, mainly in art, music, and literature, that reacted against tendencies in modernism, and are typically marked by revival of historical elements and techniques.[3]

Phenomenology

Phenomenology from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl's early work.[1] Phenomenology should not be considered as a unitary movement; rather, different authors share a common family resemblance but also with many significant differences. Accordingly, “A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus. In fact, it is not a doctrine, nor a philosophical school, but rather a style of thought, a method, an open and ever-renewed experience having different results, and this may disorient anyone wishing to define the meaning of phenomenology”.[2]

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This ontology (study of reality) can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.

Husserl's conception of phenomenology has been criticized and developed not only by himself but also by students, such as Edith Stein, by hermeneutic philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger, by existentialists, such as Nicolai Hartmann, Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and by other philosophers, such as Max Scheler, Paul Ricoeur, Jean-Luc Marion, Emmanuel Lévinas, and sociologists Alfred Schütz and Eric Voegelin.

* * * * * * * * * *

Jacques Lacan

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan

Jacques Marie Émile Lacan (/ləˈkɑːn/;[1] French: [ʒak lakɑ̃]; 13 April 1901 – 9 September 1981), known simply as Jacques Lacan, was a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who has been called "the most controversial psycho-analyst since Freud".[2] Giving yearly seminars in Paris from 1953 to 1981, Lacan influenced many leading French intellectuals in the 1960s and the 1970s, especially those associated with poststructuralism. His ideas had a significant impact on critical theory, literary theory, linguistics, 20th-century French philosophy, sociology, feminist theory, film theory and clinical psychoanalysis.[3]

Desire [Excerpt]

Lacan's concept of desire is related to Hegel's Begierde, a term that implies a continuous force, and therefore somehow differs from Freud's concept of Wunsch.[55] Lacan's desire refers always to unconscious desire because it is unconscious desire that forms the central concern of psychoanalysis.

The aim of psychoanalysis is to lead the analysand to recognize his/her desire and by doing so to uncover the truth about his/her desire. However this is possible only if desire is articulated in speech:[56] "It is only once it is formulated, named in the presence of the other, that desire appears in the full sense of the term."[57] And again in The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis: "...what is important is to teach the subject to name, to articulate, to bring desire into existence. The subject should come to recognize and to name his/his desire. But it isn't a question of recognizing something that could be entirely given. In naming it, the subject creates, brings forth, a new presence in the world."[58] The truth about desire is somehow present in discourse, although discourse is never able to articulate the entire truth about desire, whenever discourse attempts to articulate desire, there is always a leftover or surplus.[59]

Lacan distinguishes desire from need and from demand. Need is a biological instinct where the subject depends on the Other to satisfy its own needs: in order to get the Other's help "need" must be articulated in "demand." But the presence of the Other not only ensures the satisfaction of the "need", it also represents the Other's love. Consequently, "demand" acquires a double function: on the one hand, it articulates "need", and on the other, acts as a "demand for love." Even after the "need" articulated in demand is satisfied, the "demand for love" remains unsatisfied since the Other cannot provide the unconditional love that the subject seeks.

"Desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction, nor the demand for love, but the

difference that results from the subtraction of the first from the second."[60]

Desire is the a surplus, a leftover, produced by the articulation of need in demand:

"desire begins to take shape in the margin in which

demand becomes separated from need."[60]

Unlike need, which can be satisfied, desire can never be satisfied: it is constant in its pressure and eternal. The attainment of desire does not consist in being fulfilled but in its reproduction as such. As Slavoj Žižek puts it,

"desire's raison d'être is not to realize its goal, to find full satisfaction,

but to reproduce itself as desire."[61]

Lacan also distinguishes between desire and the drives: desire is one and drives are many. The drives are the partial manifestations of a single force called desire.[62] Lacan's concept of "objet petit a" is the object of desire, although this object is not that towards which desire tends, but rather the cause of desire. Desire is not a relation to an object but a relation to a lack (manque).

In The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Lacan argues that "man's desire is the desire of the Other." This entails the following:

1. Desire is the desire of the Other's desire, meaning that desire is the object of another's desire and that desire is also desire for recognition. Here Lacan follows Alexandre Kojève who follows Hegel: for Kojève the subject must risk his own life if he wants to achieve the desired prestige."[63] This desire to be the object of another's desire is best exemplified in the Oedipus complex, when the subject desires to be the phallus of the mother.
2. In "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious".[64] Lacan contends that the subject desires from the point of view of another whereby the object of someone's desire is an object desired by another one: what makes the object desirable is that it is precisely desired by someone else. Again Lacan follows Kojève who follows Hegel. This aspect of desire is present in hysteria for the hysteric is someone who converts another's desire into his/her own (see Sigmund Freud's "Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria" in SE VII, where Dora desires Frau K because she identifies with Herr K). What matters then in the analysis of a hysteric is not to find out the object of her desire but to discover the subject with whom she identifies.
3. Désir de l'Autre, which is translated as "desire for the Other" (though could be also "desire of the Other"). The fundamental desire is the incestuous desire for the mother, the primordial Other.[65]
4. Desire is "the desire for something else" since it is impossible to desire what one already has, The object of desire is continually deferred, which is why desire is a metonymy.[66]
5. Desire appears in the field of the Other, that is in the unconscious.

Last but not least for Lacan the first person who occupies the place of the Other is the mother and at first the child is at her mercy. Only when the father articulates desire with the law by castrating the mother, the subject is liberated from the mother's desire.[67]