If you would like to continue to follow my blog, please log on to http://davidwpendergrass.blogspot.com/

Thank you much!

David

There's a Reba McEntire song called, "What Do You Say?" that has a line that is repeated several times:  "Just close your eyes and let your heart lead the way." She's talking about knowing what to say in difficult situations, but that line really stood out to me. It reminded of nearly every Christian I've met in my life.

Part of the major attractions of Post-modernism is that fact that deconstructionalism (i.e., the attempt to dismantle any sense of "absolutes" in reality, truth, etc.) attempts to make everything relative.  Therefore, if truth is not the standard, but a preference, then I get to decide what I consider truth to be. Isn't this great? We no longer have to say things like, "we all know that's wrong or right," or "that's not fair." We can only say, "that does not keep the societal preferences." Now, this blog is not about how silly and inadequate this notion of ethics is; this blog is only about how this fundamentally-flawed philosophical position has been bought -- wholesale -- by the Church. And it's devastating.

This is not a novel observation. There have been plenty of pundits before me who have noticed it; even predicted it. Nearly every Christian I meet today (and in the last decade of my ministry) really do believe, or are highly tempted to believe, that Christianity is right for him or her. It's what "floats my boat," "makes me feel better," "helps me know that granny is waiting on me," and so forth. Rarely do I meet modern Christians who believe Christianity to be valid because it's True; they believe in Christianity because it's good for them.

If there is one thing that Christianity cannot be, it cannot be merely a preference. People did not suffer crucifixion, get burned alive, get shunned by all family members, lose social and political positions, and live in fear lest authorities come drag them away during prayer meetings for centuries because they believed that Christianity simply "made them feel good."

Believing in Santa Claus made me feel good when I was a child. It really did. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I would never -- never in a million years -- offer myself to be tortured because of Santa.

The early Christians and early Church Fathers were so convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead that their entire lives were radically changed. They gave up everything that got in the way of living out that belief. Even when they did not feel like God was present (e.g., if they were killed, like Jesus felt while on the cross), they knew He was present because the gospel was True. Nothing could change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead; nothing could change the fact that the New Age had begun as manifested in the several, small communities spread throughout the Empire.

What they felt about God while in despair had nothing to do with facts, with history. They were not ashamed of the gospel because they believed it to be true, not because they always felt God's presence.

Sometimes I'm tempted, like those Reba McEntire lyrics, to "close my eyes" and simply let "my heart lead the way." And sometimes, when I do that, I feel very happy and "close to Jesus." But for most of the time, in the "real world," those moments cannot be sustained. My feelings come and go. And they are supposed to do that; God designed my feelings that way.

Christianity is either true or false. Jesus and the Apostles never claimed to be spreading some new preference, but a fact. And they were either right or wrong, true or false.

If we Christians think that God has to feel close in order for Him to actually be close, then we are trying to manufacture a feeling. And this reduces Christianity and the promises of God's presence and love to mere feelings. Moreover, like the perfect relativist, it makes Christianity all about me. It says, "For Christianity to be true, I must feel God at this moment."

My wife is not always in the same room with me. I cannot always "feel" her presence. But, I never doubt her existence. She exists. This is a fact. It is either true or false, regardless of how I feel.

So it is with God. Praise God it is this way. I want a God who is not controlled by how I feel.

 

One of the days in the Lenten and Easter season with which I can relate has to be Saturday. It’s the day of waiting; of confusion; of mixed emotions. If I were one of the disciples, I think I know what I would have felt.

Thursday is too confusing. We’ve had the Passover meal 25 times before this one. What in the world does, “This is my body” mean? We’re supposed to eat him? Your “blood of a new covenant”? You want me to drink THAT? This is disgusting! I’ve seen him turn water to wine; you mean he’s turned this wine into blood? I’m not drinking that mess! What new covenant? How does any of this mean that—wait, you mean that WE are the first ones to make the new covenant? With God? That’s what God did with Moses, Abraham, Noah—the heroes, the real men. I must have misheard him. This wine is getting to me.

Friday is just too much. To see the guy you thought was God’s anointed rescuer and restorer bleeding and crucified for all the world to see is too much for me to grasp. What about all those healings? What about all that walking on water, raising the dead, exorcising the demons? Now this? Everyone can see that we simply “backed the wrong horse.” If anyone would have the power to stop this process, wouldn’t it be Jesus? This is what God wants for His beloved Son: abandonment?

So, like every single other Saturday before this one, I would wake up and go to the synagogue. Maybe I stayed in Jerusalem for a while. I would have gone back to the Temple for “church.” I could see the tables that Jesus had overturned. I would see the people whispering at me, wondering why in the world I was back here. Maybe I was a terrorist too, they might think.

Maybe I started the journey back to Galilee. What a depressing, confusing trip. How in the world could this whole situation take place? I know Jesus had said something about being “raised again,” but so what. Everyone will be raised at the last day. And after all this—seeing my best friend get arrested or even be killed—I have to go back to church on Sabbath. I was at the cross; where were the other guys? What do we talk about? I don’t even want to talk to them. This is just too confusing. It’s too painful.

I don’t want to go to church today. It’s too soon; it’s too fresh. How can anything I thought I knew about God be real after all this? This changes everything. It’s back to where I started. It was fun, and odd, while it lasted. But it’s over. I’ve got bills to pay. I can’t listen to the teacher in church this morning; I just don’t care.

“Dear God . . . help me. I used to know exactly what to say. I used to have all the answers. I feel like an idiot. I thought Jesus was who he said he was.”

Saturday. It’s the day of waiting; of confusion; of mixed emotions. It’s the day where we assess what we think we know about God. It’s the day where we reflect on what He is “up to” in the world. It’s the day when we’re convinced we’ve made a mistake in trusting in Jesus. This is the case not so much because Jesus was not trustworthy, but because what we expected Jesus to do, or what we expected God to do for Jesus, did not happen.

Life isn’t normal anymore. I’ve hoped. I’ve dreamed. I’ve witnessed a world that doesn’t exist here. I only wish it were real. I only wish that I weren’t confused. I wish something would happen that would prove me wrong; that something would happen to break me out of this. I need a sign. I desperately need God to show me something that proves He’s still here; that He still cares; that this CANNOT be the end of it all.

I hope He will. I hope God has something in store that proves Jesus' death was not the end.

Saturday is hard.

I hope Sunday is better . . .

A Barna study showed this: "Among all adults 18 and older, three out of four (73%) have been married and half (51%) are currently married. (That does not include the 3% who are presently separated from their marriage partner.) Among those who have been married, more than one out of every three (35%) have also been divorced. One out of every five adults (18%) who has ever been divorced has been divorced multiple times. That represents 7% of all Americans who have been married. "

"Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%." (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170)

My parents are divorced. Most of my friend's parents are divorced. I have several friends going through divorce. Most of my friends have friends and parents that are divorced. If you're reading this, you're probably divorced or your parents are. It's as if I'm talking about people who drink milk for breakfast: the probability is staggering.

I'm not going to talk about all that Jesus said about it in this post. (For an excellent review of the material, see Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament.) Rather, I just want to call our attention to the obvious: this is pathetic.

I've counseled couples and individuals over the years and I've seen an overwhelming constant: communication. It's not the chief factor in every relationship break-down, but it's the chief in most of them.

It is simply amazing how easy it is to talk about anything -- at all -- that is not related to what matters most. Nearly every single woman I know who is married really has no idea what her husband actually does for a living. They couldn't give you a typical day of what her husband does (assuming he works). That means for 40+ hours each week, her husband's entire life is about something of which she is ignorant. And for the average man, what we DO in life is primarily how we undertand our value, and this means that our wives don't really know us or care to really know us. Then, when she asks the husband about his day, he just quibs back, "it was fine."

Nearly every single man I know who is married has no idea what her wife does or feels, in general, throughout the day. He doesn't know what she worries about. He doesn't know what her dreams are, what her passions are, or what her regrets are. He just wants to know if she can cook or be intimate whenever he wants. He "listens" in between commercials.

Communication. It breaks down all the time for one chief reason: we are scared to death that what we are feeling will not be validated. "David, if I stop yelling or playing the silent game with him/her, then s/he won't stop to listen to me. I have to act like this to get them to listen." We do need someone to listen to us and validate us; it is God's reminder in all of us of the value of His love. But, surely this is the most unproductive way to get what we want.

Can we not just agree with our partner that we will "lay down our guns" and listen if the other person promises to do the same? Can this be a contract that actually works?

Of course it can; of course it does.

If you talk about problems all the time, then you have a relationship founded upon problems. Then neither person wants to really fix the problems because if they get fixed, then they wouldn't know how to relate to one another. This happens all the time with kids. Once the kids move off, for those who only talked about them, couples often get divorced.

It doesn't have to be this way. Communication is what we make it. The topics are up to us. We can talk about the emotional contract that says, "I'll stop and listen and validate. Will you do the same?" Turn off the computer (after you read this, of course . . .); turn off the TV; put down the worthless magazine or paper.

35% divorce rate and climbing. I know there are legitimate reasons to get divorced. I teach about it all the time. Yet, it is embarrassing to the Church and to the Kingdom of God that so many divorces occur chiefly because our pride influences us to refuse to listen. Stop and listen and validate. It's not that hard once we do it. And it's never hard when it's reciprocated.

Show me any healthy couple and I'll show you how that couple knows how to communicate.

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (almost 300,000,000 meters/second). It only changes when it goes through a medium, especially glass and water. If it did not slow down in glass and water, then our eyeballs would be utterly useless. It’s almost as if this was designed. . .

Whenever we look at the stars, we are looking at the past. Though the speed of light seems instantaneous on Earth, it is stinkin’ slow in the universe’s expanse. It takes light eight minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth. It took sound almost five seconds to travel from the moon to Earth and back in 1969 when Armstrong and his buds were moon-walking. It would take almost 45 minutes for that to happen once we get to Mars, and that’s just one way.

As light travels very far, it actually “stretches.” The longest wave in light is red, which is why the really distant stars and galaxies appear red (this is why the sky is blue: blue is the shortest wave length and disperses the most when light hits the atmosphere). Scientists study the light from galaxies and stars to see how old they are.

The oldest star in our galaxy, HE0107-5240, is nearly 14 billion years old. The Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago. This means that this star was there at the very, very, very beginning.



Since it takes so long for the light from that sun to reach us, we have no idea what that sun looks like now. Surely it’s different. But for now, we only can see what it LOOKED like almost 14 billion years ago. Does that not amaze you? When you look at that picture, you just time-travelled back 14 billion years ago when the universe first began.

So it is with everything in space: to look at anything in the darkness is to look at the past. We have no idea what the universe looks like now. We can only see what it used to look like.

Why isn’t light faster? It’s as if God wanted us to see the past. It’s as if we are supposed to see from where we came.

I know some people who choose to live in the past. They choose to act as if there is no present. They only live as if their entire lives are that distant star. Life is not meant to live; it is meant to reflect on what happened.

Others ignore the past all together. “Live life in the moment and ignore what happened," they proclaim. Bringing it up only bogs us down or causes pain. They never look at the “stars.”

The Apostle Paul never ignored his past. He never once vitiated the wrong he had done. He didn’t ignore it, nor did he live in what he had done. Imagine what would have happened if Paul did not accept his new identity in Christ, but instead, chose to live a life of regret, shame, and remorse.

No. What Paul did was instructive for us. He embraced his past—it happened. It is what he did, it was who he was. But, it was not who he was after Jesus. Life was different now; his mission was different now; his purpose in life was different now. No doubt he reflected on the pain he caused. Paul seemed to reflect on his past in a phenomenal way: embrace it, learn from it, and declare to the world that “had it not been for grace, I would still be like that. But praise be to God, I’m not who I was.”

Which one are you? What do you with your past? What do you do with others’ past?

When I look at the stars, I’m immediately reminded of the past. I gaze upon the stars and travel back in time. I have been given a Polaroid picture by God of what the universe used to look like. It’s phenomenal. We are so small and precious.

So is my past. So is yours.

When you look at the “stars,” i.e., at your own past, what do you see?

This was an interesting experiment. Scientists have been working on manipulating how a person perceives of her/his own body. By forcing you to have a point of view, your brain adapts to the new environment, and new "body." The person would actually FEEL things that were not actually happening.

"In one experiment, the team fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of volunteers' eyes, so that they had the same view as the mannequin. When the mannequin's camera eyes and a participant's head were directed downwards, the participant saw the mannequin's body where the person would normally have seen their own body. "

"The researchers created the illusion of body-swapping by touching the stomach of both the mannequin and the volunteer with sticks. The person saw the mannequin's stomach being touched while feeling (but not seeing) a similar sensation on their own stomach. As a result, the person developed a strong belief that the mannequin's body was actually their own. "

"This shows how easy it is to change the brain's perception of the physical self. By manipulating sensory impressions, it's possible to fool the self not only out of its body but into other bodies, too," project leader Henrik Ehrsson, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said in a news release."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120202527.html)

Even though no one touched the person's stomach, because s/he SAW it happen on the screen (to the mannequin), the person FELT something happen to them. No one actually touched them, but still they felt it.

Still, they felt it.

Paul says in Romans 12:2 = "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (ESV). And later, "so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another" (12:5).

The New Testament is full of such sentiments: what we do to each other actually affects OURSELVES; what we do in the Body of Christ affects OURSELVES; what we do for and to Christ affects OURSELVES.

We don't have fancy mannequins of Jesus. We have no mirrors or sophisticated cameras. We have no experiments.

What we do have is a Church--a living organism-- that is healed and destroyed by how we treat each other. And some of us know firsthand how damaging this organism can be. It affects us; it is not neutral.

Paul knew all-too-well that transforming our thoughts is imperative. He knew that if we decide to keep living as we always have been, thinking the same things all the time, as if the new age hasn't begun, then we will BEHAVE like that.

But, when we "put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 13:14), we are given a new "body." We are freed to live outside of ourselves. For ephemeral moments, we have the capacity to see what life would be like in a brand new body. We are able to feel things for others even though we were not directly touched. We are able to perceive of things with such sagacity that it is only explained as "from above" (James 3:17).

We gain a glimpse of a brave new world where status and ranking are a bad memory of times gone by. Pride and vain-glory become vestiges of former things. We can see the new age dawning (Rom. 13:12-13); yet, the sun's brightness is no longer blinding--it enables us to see things more clearly.

My mind doesn't always believe it's true. Sometimes when I really see myself for who I am as a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), it's too hard to believe. Horns are honking; my kids are crying; my assignments are due; the phone is ringing; my wife needs me; my bills need to get paid; people are watching; and "reality" sets in and reminds me: "don't think for one second that other world is real. You've been fooled. It's an illusion. This is as good as it gets."

Which "body" or vision is the one for which I am made?

We simply have to decide.

I hear so often Christians claiming that it is the duty of the Christian “to do what the government tells us.” I must admit: I’ve always been a bit perturbed by this. Not so much because it’s bad theology (which it is), but because it’s usually said by Christians who have real problems doing simple things Jesus said to do. It seems so simple to say that Christians should be patriotic and even political; it seems so hard to say that Christians should uphold basic tenets of Jesus like not lusting, loving our neighbor as ourselves, loving God with everything we have, condemning unethical behavior and calling it what it is—sin, etc.

What does the Bible actually say about the Christian’s role or attitude toward government? This blog cannot be exhaustive, but we can see some representative texts that demonstrate the attitude of first-century Christians.

Jesus was approached by some Pharisees and was asked a question that got most people in much trouble. A pressing question of first-century Judaism for many, especially in Jerusalem with its garrison of Roman guards, was whether or not Jews should have to pay taxes. No one wanted to do it. Not to pay taxes would get one into much trouble (imprisonment, beating, or worse) by Rome. However, to support paying taxes would cause your fellow Jews in Palestine not to support you. In a land and time when the crowds often determined someone’s wealth, success, and general health, you had to walk the tight-rope of saying the right things (you thought today’s political tongue gymnastics were new?).

Jesus is asked the invidious question bluntly—in Jerusalem with Roman soldiers watching—whether or not someone should pay taxes. His answer was simple and poignant: “Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21). There are things that should be done simply because we live in a society. They are neither moral and immoral; they are neutral. Not paying your taxes as a way of protesting the State is not appropriate.

This is quite striking considering this is the same State that would kill Jesus in a few weeks from this question. Jesus could have screamed and told them all about the evils of government. He doesn’t need to; its power to “lord it over them” would be apparent soon (Matt 20:25). The way the government works by reigning over the people into submission is NOT the way Christians should treat one another (Matt 20:25). The Roman government did/does NOT set the standard for Christians.

Peter and Paul talk positively about the government in one specific sense: when the government acts justly by punishing evildoers and praising those who do right. Christians should NOT join the bandwagon by actively opposing the government. Armed rebellion against Rome by Jews, especially in Palestine, had happened for centuries. Peter and Paul both oppose armed revolt. Armed revolt and not paying taxes only demonstrates to non-believers that you are a trouble-maker.

Peter says it like this:
“Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:12-15).

Paul says it like this:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:1-8).

Where Peter admonishes his audience not to act immoral among Gentiles (including a Gentile government), Paul admonishes the Roman Christians not to withhold their taxes. Paul emphasizes this by saying in 13:4 that the “servant of God” used by the State carries “the sword.” Tax collectors carried swords with them to make certain that people paid up (and for protection). In both cases, the issue for Peter and Paul is NOT blind obedience, but a CHRISTIAN’S WITNESS before an unbelieving world. Armed revolt and passive resistance by not paying taxes should not happen by Christians.

This same Roman government that is praised for having “servants of God” collecting taxes is the Roman government that is the “beast” of Revelation 13 and 18. In Revelation the Roman government is symbolically called a “beast” who is driven by, fueled by, given power by, “the dragon,” which is Satan.

Peter and the apostles told their Jewish government that they had “to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
We see a similar picture in Acts 17: 6-7, where Jason and his fellow Christians before the government at Thessalonica are labeled a danger to the government. "These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:6-7).

After the New Testament, we see much of the similar emphases: no armed revolt; no passive revolt. As the centuries went on, Christians were told explicitly not to serve in the military and have little to do with the government.

What we see in the New Testament is typical of Jewish mindsets concerning government. When governments act justly and serve God’s purposes, they work and are “ordained.” When they oppose the Kingdom of God, their authority is not only abolished, but then they are serving the kingdom of evil.

Government should be kept accountable, but we should never make the fatal mistake of assuming that we should follow blindly the ways of the government; nor should we follow blindly the promise of “hope” offered by every single candidate in a political race.

Israel was only able to establish and maintain a theocracy for a very short time. It failed. Governments simply cannot enact or establish God’s plans for His people. Government should be used by Christians as a means to an end; it is NEVER the end itself.

“David, should we obey the government? Isn’t it established by God?” Yes, obey the government when its laws are neutral or good, never when they are immoral. God most certainly establishes governments to prevent chaos. However, governments, according to the Bible, can be used by God or the devil. When you support the government, make certain you’re “backing the right horse.” And if you are placing your hope in the government, then you haven’t been introduced to the gospel yet.

Matthew 6:10 “Your Kingdom/reign come; Your will be accomplished; as much as it is Heaven, [let it be done] on Earth.”

The “kingdom of God” is typically best translated as “reign of God” since what is being spoken of is more than a spatial or physical “thing.” This is also true in the Greco-Roman stories concerning the emperor’s “kingdom/reign.” It is the reign of God that occurs within His kingdom that is the emphasis. Surprisingly, Jesus’ prayer is full of commands (which is really obvious in the Greek): “be holy!”; “come!”; “be accomplished”; “give us!”; etc. And the coming or appearing of God’s reign is no different.

We should best interpret these two commands as synonymous:

Your reign come;
Your will be accomplished;

In other words, Jesus does not mean something different from God’s reign and God’s will. Where there is God’s reign, His will is being accomplished, and vice versa. And what is God’s will? Ahh . . . one of the favorite questions of Christian life. I hear this topic spoken of more than any other among youth. Surprisingly, that discussion dissipates the older you get. Either adults begin understanding God’s will (or think they do), or they stop caring. Who needs to know God’s will if I have a mortgage and a decent job? Isn’t finding happiness God’s will?

The Bible never tells us exactly what God’s will is; or does it? It sure assumes it at several places. Here are some examples of what it does say about God’s will: Jesus believes that doing “the will of God” places us in a relationship with him more intimate than his own blood relatives (Mark 3:35). Paul believes that the Holy Spirit is communicating with God and moving around in people’s hearts according to the “will of God” (Rom. 8: 27). Paul begs his fellow Christians not to be conformed to this present [evil] age, but to be transformed so that “God’s will” can be discovered (Rom. 12:1-2). Paul assumes that he can visit the Romans if it is in “God’s will” (Rom. 1:10; 15: 32). Paul was called to be an apostle because of “the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col. 1:1). Paul believes that the “will of God” can be/is done from the heart (Eph. 6:6). Paul believes that it is the “will of God” to control our sexual desires (1 Thess. 4:3). Peter assumes that first-century Christians should follow “God’s will” by not fighting against the Roman government with violence because it is a terrible witness to the Gentiles (1 Pet. 12-15). Peter also believes it is “God’s will” to suffer in this life whenever we are doing the right thing (1 Pet. 3:17; 4:19). The author of Hebrews says that we need to have endurance in our faith so that we can do “the will of God” (Heb. 10:36). John believes that doing “the will of God” will allow us to live forever (1 Jn. 2:17).

What can we say then? (1) Just like in the Model Prayer, other Christian authors assume that God is actually doing things in the world. This prayer tells God that we are ready for His will to be accomplished among us. (2) God’s will is never spoken of in abstract ideas. “God’s will” has to do with what God wants accomplished in humanity. We don’t hear talk about God’s will being done to the plants in the forest (even if it is being done there). Creation has to wait to be redeemed by the will of God (Rom. 8: 19-23). Rather, humans are the primary location for the reign of God on Earth. Our redemption process has already begun. God’s reign is in making proper decisions for the Kingdom. It is in proper behavior concerning our witness. It is in every decision we make from our hearts and minds. (3) The will of God is done in conjunction with God, but God is always the one initiating. In the broadest sense, God’s will is “whatever God wants.” This, then, means that our job is to discover what God is already doing. We pray for it; we ask for it; we expect it; we do it within a community which is doing the same. (4) Jesus, and the other authors mentioned, assumed that doing God’s will is possible. Moreover, it is actually knowable. I am a bit confused when I hear talk about God’s will within Christian circles as some nebulous, abstract notion beyond our comprehension. Of course, we can never know what God is up to in the world at all times. But, this is never the issue. Jesus and the other writers are not asking or demanding that we understand all of God’s ways. Rather, it is what God wants right now, this very moment, in me and you.

This is the task at hand. This is where the reign of God matters most.

Matthew 6:9 Therefore, you all should pray like this: “Our Father, who is in the heavens, your name be holy.”

This prayer is typically called “The Lord’s Prayer.” This is a bit of a misnomer since Jesus never says that this is the prayer that He prays. It is the Lord’s prayer in that He gave it. This is why you will also hear this prayer called “The Model Prayer,” since it is the model for his disciples to use when praying.

In any case, it is important to note what this prayer is not. It is not intended for only individual use. The “you” in this verse is plural in the Greek, as I brought out in the translation (“you all”). Jesus assumed that the disciples would be praying this together as a believing community of disciples. It is primarily a communal prayer. It links them together.

Furthermore, it is not a formula or prescription of words. Jesus never said these exact words are to be said at every prayer. Rather, he said we should pray “like this,” or “in this manner.” We have no indication that Jesus believed prayer to be an incantation or magic formula by which a human could manipulate God. Jesus, here, is not committing the very crime he just spoke concerning the pagans (= non-Jews) (6:7). He is not saying, “don’t do like those pagans and throw a bunch of nonsense phrases together so that the gods will respond, but rather, use these phrases to get God’s attention.” No. Jesus is giving the disciples a model they can use. Their prayers must fit into the motivation and intentions of this prayer. And the first thing they must recognize is that their God relates to them in a particular way.

There are many things that the feminist movement has done that has strengthened the Christian faith. We should not assume that “any ole” vocabulary will do when speaking of God. We should not ever assume that females are inferior to males in value. We must be aware that equality is a God-given trait since before God, all are equally in need. However, there are those within this movement, and outside it, that want to do away with masculine talk about God altogether. They typically have four major reasons for this: (1) Modern views on human rights cannot tolerate a male-dominated society since it robs people of equality; (2) masculine vocabulary for God alienates females; (3) most people do not have a good picture of what a male – particularly a good biblical view of one – would look like; (4) male vocabulary only manifests the patriarchal societies of which the Hebrews were a part, and since we no longer live in those societies, that vocabulary should be jettisoned.

However, though I share the seriousness and sensitivity to these issues, I must disagree: (1) There are countless societies that exist peacefully in the world with a male-dominated model. Western cultures may not share this much anymore, but we are not the entire world. Moreover, it is the motivation for such vocabulary, not the vocabulary itself, which is under scrutiny. Using “She” for God all the time would run the same risk of being sexist: it works both ways. (2) There are images of God in motherly roles (e.g., Matt 23:37; 4 Esdras 1:30) . Yet, in a culture where the male had the responsibility of provision, care, love, and protection of the family, it was natural for people to speak of God as male. Even so, we must never forget that no one actually believed God to be male. It is a metaphor; God has no chromosomes. (3) Millions have been hurt by earthly fathers. They can, and do, fail us. But, this is exactly why we need to see our Heavenly Father according to the biblical narrative, not according to our earthly examples. We judge our earthly fathers (and mothers) by the measure of our Heavenly Father, not the other way around. (4) Every ancient society was "patriarchal," yet every other ancient culture that surrounded the Hebrews had MOTHER goddesses. Ah ha--and this is the point. This is the major reason why they simply could not, and did not, use female language for YHWH. YHWH was unlike any of the other seasonal, fertility gods of the Cannanites, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Akkadians, Sumerians, etc. YHWH was completly "holy" -- set apart from creation and not the mother of it. YHWH's relationship with the universe was like an inventor and his masterpiece, not like a mother and her child.

What have learned already? (1) Jesus of Nazareth, who lived 2000 years ago, the actual Son of God, gave us all a prayer that will allow us to “pray God’s heart.” We are connected together—regardless of your particular church—because we can pray this one prayer. (2) Prayer is not magic. We do not need to be prayer specialists for God to hear. If you’re scared to pray because you’re not praying “right,” then you have no more excuses. Jesus told us exactly how and for what we ought to pray. (3) We pray to a particular God who came FROM THE OUTSIDE to intervene in history. The God of Judaism and Christianity is NOT “the universe” or “Brahmin” or “qi/chi.” We are NOT praying to an impersonal force who is “out there” or “everywhere” because, God is part of nature like we are. Do NOT MISS THIS: We are praying to God as Father because God is personal and because of the particular roles the father played in that society. “Personal” means He has a will and personality, not that He has a body. God is up to something. And if we really need to know what this kind of Father is like, then find out in the biblical narrative; don’t just make it up. We will find that this Father loves you so much that He will stop at nothing in making you the perfect creation He made you to be.

Before I begin, let me point out something. I do not use CAPS LOCK because I’m screaming at the computer (though that sometimes happens). I use CAPS LOCK because Xanga’s word processor with which I write my blog gives me no option to use italics or bold (though it does in the “comment” section down below). So, I must use CAPS LOCK to emphasize a particular phrase or word in an attempt to make certain that you are reading my arguments with the correct emphasizes that I intend. UNDERSTAND ME? :) I couldn’t help it. . .

The point of this particular blog is to make some simple comments and reflections on both my experience with Calvinists (i.e., in person, online discussions, etc.) and my research in John Calvin’s writings (something most Calvinists have not done). I will use the term "Calvinist" because these beliefs come from a particular person in history, not from an abstract movement called "Reformation" (and because many reformers were not Calvinists). For the uninitiated, I apologize. Since I’m not writing a disquisition in this blog, I will assume you have some working knowledge of the debate. If not, you will still be able to understand the basic arguments/comments I will make. Again, this is not a comprehensive examination of Calvinism. I’m just making some comments on some things I’ve noticed and arguments/analogies I’ve heard.

I am not a Calvinist. Non-Calvinists are usually judged/blamed for NOT being Calvinists because, so it is said, we just don’t like the way God has decided to do things. That is, my objections to Calvinism must come from my emotional response, not from arguments. So let me be as clear as I can: My non-allegiance to Calvinism is not based upon some subjective, childish response that says, “It doesn’t make me feel good that God is this kind of God.” Rather, I am not a Calvinist based on what I perceive to be strong arguments against it. It’s not because “I simply just don’t like it.” I am not a Calvinist because, on the whole, Calvinism is an inaccurate portrayal of who God is and what God does. Whether they are right or wrong, it doesn’t matter HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. So, the issue is whether or not Calvinists’ convictions are true or false.

What’s at stake in this discussion? Our entire view of who God is, what God does, and how humans relate to God. It’s a pretty big deal, as I’m sure you can see. In other words, this discussion is at the heart of what God is doing with humanity and what the purpose of existence is for humanity. The stakes could not be any higher.

If you’re a Calvinist, I’m sure you’ve already assumed that I’m here to espouse and buttress Arminius’ views. But no: there are NOT two types of people: Calvinists and Arminians. Yes, both can believe things similar to one or the other, but all of humanity does not fall into two categories. I can most certainly disagree with BOTH Calvin and Arminius. Some of my views will resemble Arminius, not because I’m an “Arminian,” but because my particular views that agree with him are right. In other words, I have absolutely no interest in joining camps, as if the whole world must choose sides. If you see the world that way, then this particular blog will be of no interest to you. I mean that as much as I can mean something: if you are only interested in ad hominem arguments (i.e., dismissing an argument only on the basis of someone’s affiliation with someone), then you will certainly not care about this blog, since you will only care about labeling me something. You can do that if you wish (see how I believe you have the FREE WILL to do that?). I don’t care if Bubba Jones agrees with me or not; I care if the reasons he has for believing something are true or false. In other words, my allegiance is not to a personality, but to the pursuit of Truth. There are many Calvinists who care about Truth too, and it is with those that I wish to dialogue.

(1) For most Calvinists, there are two watersheds in world history: the death and resurrection of Jesus, and 1500 years after Jesus lived, when Calvin wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion to let us know for whom Jesus died and how God really acts in creation. It is simply phenomenal to me how the church actually survived and had any theology about God before Calvin wrote his Institutes. My point is this: I’ve never met (though I’m sure they are out there) a Calvinist who did not speak of Calvin as if he were the fourth member of the godhead. This is not an ad hominem comment. This observation is crucial to the whole discussion. If John Calvin (Jean Cauvin) is not the French lawyer from Noyon, France, but someone who has received absolute, divine revelation of how to read God’s Word, then I’m worshipping the wrong guy. If, however, Calvin is a real, flesh-and-blood human who was trained to be a secular lawyer with only some training in theology (I’m not misprizing him; I’m only recounting some of his biography), then we’re on equal footing because we’re both human (even though I’ve had 13 more years of theological training than he did). It means that John Calvin was human and could have easily been wrong—just as wrong as Arminius could have been and I could be.

The point I’m trying to make clear is this: John Calvin’s theology was based upon HIS interpretation of Scripture and HIS understanding of the nature of God and he could have been wrong. This point seems overtly elementary, but it is still necessary. When we put this discussion in its proper framework, we see that it all comes down to seeing if John Calvin was, indeed, correct in his interpretation of the Bible. If he was not, then “Calvinism” as a system collapses. What is so shocking to me is how little Calvinists have actually read Calvin! Yet, this particular blog can’t be about refuting everything John Calvin said in his writings (which I wouldn’t want to do, either, since there are times we agree). So let me perorate: Calvin’s views come from his presuppositions and his arguments, both of which must be held to scrutiny, just as any person’s beliefs about the Bible must be held accountable. Calvin is no exception. The argument, “Calvin said” has no bearing in the discussion; WHAT Calvin said and WHY he said what he did is what is debated.

(2) It is also an extremely common tool of the Calvinist with whom I have encountered to speak of Calvinism as simply “biblical.” In other words, Calvinism=Bible. This is wonderful rhetoric. You see what it implies? It means that if you disagree with Calvin’s particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible, then you do NOT BELIEVE IN THE AUTHORITY OR MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE AT ALL. This is phenomenal rhetoric, and it works against most people. It’s the same reason why John McCain has on a 100’ banner behind his head that reads, “Country First.” The implication is powerful: vote for McCain, you vote for the country; do not vote for McCain and you are not American, or patriotic, or support our country. Simply brilliant.

My response to the Calvinist claim that Calvinism=Bible is simple: if Calvinism=Bible, then why call it “Calvinism”? Why not just call it, “Bible”? Because they can’t and they know they can’t. It’s the same reason why Methodists can’t say (though they try) that John Wesley’s theology=Bible or Lutherans claim Luther’s theology=Bible. The VERY FACT THAT I CALL IT BY A PERSON’S NAME MEANS THAT I AM BUYING INTO THAT PERSON’S INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. And “interpretation of the Bible” does NOT mean the same thing as “Bible.”

[This is why fundamentalists irk me so much when I speak with them. “It’s God’s Word! It’s the Bible!” they cry. My response is, “So what?!” What does CALLING something have anything to do with HOW I SHOULD READ IT? It’s simply incredible to me how so many people assume that THEY are not interpreting the Bible when they read it, but everyone with whom they DISAGREE is interpreting it (and incorrectly). We all interpret. A side story: I was once talking with a fundamentalist and he told me that THEY believed in the Bible, as opposed to the assumption that those who attended my school did not believe in the Bible. My response was, “Good. We believe in the Bible too. I’ve never met a Baptist, or Christian for that matter, who didn’t believe in the Bible.” He just stared at me nonplused. The point is simple: all Christians believe "in the Bible," the issue is how to interpret correctly.]

So let me be as clear as I can: the issue here is not that Calvinism or Arminism or Methodism or Lutheranism = Bible. The issue is whether or not each leader’s particular view of the Bible is right or wrong. I don’t care if you can find certain Bible verses to prove your point; I care if you present the ENTIRE BIBLE in a way that demonstrates a holistic view of the Bible and if that view is right. The entire reason why we have Lutheranism or Methodism or Calvinism (and all the other “isms”) is BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN CERTAIN BIBLE VERSES TO BE MOST IMPORTANT. They have emphasized certain theological concepts OVER other concepts (e.g., Calvin and sovereignty; Wesley and spiritual perfection; Luther and sola fide/scriptura). This practice might not be all bad, as long as the reasons they have for doing this is right and upholds orthodox Christian faith. So this is the issue: do their particular theological systems do that? Are some more right than others? Are any of them right? These are the questions we should be asking; not making stupid comments like, “Calvinism is just the Bible” or “Arminism is just the Bible.” If they were “just the Bible,” there would be no reason to say so.

(3) There is another similarity between Calvinists and fundamentalists: for fundamentalists, if you do not say the Bible is “God’s Word” and verbally, plenary inspired and inerrant, the Bible cannot be trusted and it should not be studied or read at all. For the Calvinists, if you do not say that God is utterly, completely sovereign, then God is not the Supreme God and Christianity worships a weak demiurge. In both cases—and don’t miss this—what you say ABOUT something is the crucial issue. No one seems to challenge these presuppositions (i.e., inerrant or nothing at all; sovereign or nothing at all). So, the rhetoric used is very effective: if you do NOT say the Bible is inerrant, you are an unfaithful/non-believing heretic or pagan. If you do NOT say God is sovereign in all things, then you are probably going to hell since you clearly don’t see the truth that God is sovereign. (Notice how I’ve said nothing about whether or not these views are right or wrong; I’m only highlighting the rhetorical moves in both.) For those of you who have actually read Calvin’s commentary (especially on Romans), you can see how caustic and dogmatic he is. He constantly calls people who disagree with his view “foolish” or “weak exegetes.” Then, like with Romans 10:11-13, which speaks of God’s acceptance and love for ANYONE who calls upon His name, Calvin SKIPS OVER THE VERSES!! Can you believe it? He comments meticulously with every verse that fits his predetermined view, then skips the ones that don’t fit his schema. You decide: is that handling “God’s Word” appropriately? Calvin makes the same rhetorical move: disagree with me, you are foolish; agree with me (as he thinks Paul does), and you’re intelligent and on God's side.

Calvinists believe that God, in His “sovereignty” overrides free will and chooses who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, simply put. The decision is completely God’s. Now, I've read many Calvinist's attempt at finessing this issue by doing logical acrobatics to REDEFINE or nuance the meaning of "free will." So far, they all leave me completely unconvinced that this is what "free will" means: a will which is totally, absolutely, unadulterated by any outside force or personality.

So it’s crucial to reflect on a critical aspect of Calvin’s theology: the notion of God’s sovereignty. The issue is not whether or not God is sovereign—no one debates that. This is why crying, “God is sovereign . . . God is sovereign. . . God is sovereign” is a red herring—a diversion. The issue is HOW God chooses to USE His sovereignty. Here are our options: (1) Calvinism: if God overrides my free will to choose Him or not to choose Him, then He is sovereign over EVERYTHING in Creation, including my will. My decision to love Him is really just my acting out something He causes. I move in this “glove” because the Maker’s “hand” is making me move this way. Here’s what this theology implies: my love of God is not free love, and therefore, not worth anything. Is this in the Bible? Is it the gospel message that what God really wants is “to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths and neighbor as ourselves” because God is MAKING ME LOVE HIM, PEOPLE, AND MYSELF? Why would God command us in the Old and New Testaments to love Him when WE CANNOT HELP BUT DO SO? And if you are a Calvinist, you also believe that God causes most people NOT to love Him. Then why not say it? Is this not the center of Jesus’ commandments, that the command to love God, self, and neighbor imply that I actually CAN choose to love God, self, and my neighbor? You decide. This is sheer nonsense to me. Forced “love” is not love at all. When my son tells me he loves me, it’s precious because he did it on his own accord, not because I made him say it. (2) This is why God does not, and will not, make us love Him or choose Him. He wants FREE love. To do that, however, it means that God chooses NOT TO OVERRIDE OUR WILL. This means, then, that God’s sovereignty is deliberately limited by God. God is not limited by something outside of Himself. God deliberately chooses—on His own—that He will not override a person’s free will to choose Him or not to choose Him so that the person’s love and devotion will be genuine. Therefore, God’s “sovereignty” is deliberately limited because this is at the heart of what God wants in all humanity: a love relationship based upon complete freedom to love Him and to deny His love.

(4) Calvinists believe that God rigs the game. God determines who seeks Him and who does not seek Him. Calvinists often use this type of analogy to demonstrate this belief: “I have certain palates for certain foods. I simply do not like spinach. It might be in my genes or because of my culture or something else. However I got this preference, it cannot be changed unless something changes it for me. So, when someone offers me spinach, I will choose something else because my distaste for spinach. So it is with God. He MAKES PEOPLE have certain preferences, like for the gospel. And He makes others not have a preference for the gospel.”

This analogy for the activity of God is simply fallacious. The issue is not whether or not a person has a “taste for the gospel,” but whether or not a person COULD CHOOSE OTHERWISE. I personally don’t like spinach. But I could eat it ALL DAY LONG if I chose to. My DESIRE to eat it has NOTHING TO DO with my ability to choose it. Calvinists believe that my DESIRE is inextricably linked with my CAPACITY. This is a non sequiter; it does not follow logically at all. Worse than that, it is awful theology. Where is it in the Bible that my DESIRE to receive the gospel makes my faith any more real? Did Jesus go to hell because He did not DESIRE to die on the cross (e.g., in the prayer at Gethsemane)? Where was His God-given desire then? My DECISION to act like a Christian, especially when I don’t emotionally desire to do so, is much more virtuous and courageous, and I would add, evidence of being faithful.

In this schema, it makes no difference if the person is a sinner or not, since it is not his/her sin that condemns them, but God’s predetermined judgment of them. It will do no good to say, “No, David. The person’s sin condemns them. God just judges them accordingly.” But this is not representative of a fair, just God. He is judging them for something THEY COULD NOT HELP BUT DO. According to Calvinists’ views, a person sins because they are in a position to do nothing else. They have no real freedom to do otherwise. IT ALSO MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT WANT TO REPENT OF THEIR SINS AND BELIEVE IN THE GOSPEL, THEY CANNOT, BECAUSE GOD HAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED THAT S/HE WOULD BE CONDEMNED. To use their analogy, it means that EVEN IF a person decided to eat spinach all day long, it doesn’t matter. God would still say at the end of the day, “You go to hell because you didn’t have a desire to eat the spinach. And you didn’t have a desire because I did not give it to you.”

Calvinists then tell me, “I know this seems unfair, but God is just. He is sovereign.” Yes, I KNOW that God is sovereign. The issue is whether or not God ACTUALLY WORKS THIS WAY in His sovereignty (as we saw above, he does not because He requires actual, free love). Furthermore, what does this have to do with the absolute “unfairness” of this whole thing. If millions of people’s innate sense that this is simply unfair (to rig the game for failure and then condemn the person anyway when they lose) is not based on God’s sense of “right and wrong,” then from where do millions of people get it? The devil? Do we get our morality from evil? Sin? Of course not! We get our deep sense of morality from God. So, not only does this fail in terms of ANY sense of fair or just, it grossly misrepresents the message and assumptions of Jesus and of God’s sovereignty.

Here are some of the key statements of Jesus (or about him) as Calvin would have liked it: “Come to me, all of you ELECT WHOM GOD HAS PREDETERMINED TO LOVE are weary and heaven laden, and I will give you rest . . .” (Matt. 11:28); “And every one OF THE ELECT who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29); “For God so loved THE ELECT that He gave His only Son, that whomever God HAS GIVEN THE DESIRE TO BELIEVE IN HIM, will not perish . . .” (John 3:16); “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the ELECT WHO ARE IN THE world!” (John 1:29); “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever AMONG YOU ARE THE ELECT THAT follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12); “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, and to give his life as a ransom FOR THE ELECT” (Mark 10:45); “And whoever AMONG YOU ARE ELECT that call upon the name of the Lord, will be saved” (Acts 2:21); “The scripture says, ‘No one, AS LONG AS THEY ARE ELECT, who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, BESIDES ELECTION; the same Lord is Lord of all ELECT and bestows his riches upon all THE ELECT who call upon him. For, "everyone THAT IS ELECT who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:11-13); and on and on and on.

I could go through every single verse that speaks of “election” or “predetermination” just as well. However, the key is this: every single theological belief in the Bible must be examined according to the theology of Jesus. When in doubt: judge it by Jesus. Secondly, the historical and literary contexts must be examined. When in doubt: do not read something out of context. Thirdly, judge particular points with the overall theology of the entire Bible. When in doubt: judge the exceptions by the whole, never the whole by exceptions. Fourthly, hold your final theological/exegetical views in the light of the history of the Church. When in doubt: keep your exegetical conclusions accountable to orthodox Christianity.

All passages that seem to suggest God’s USUAL WAY of dealing with humanity is by choosing some to Heaven and some to Hell MUST BE INTERPRETED by the message of Jesus and the OVERWHELMING amount of verses that speak of the opposite. When these steps are taken, it is easy to see that Jesus Himself was not a Calvinist.

If you’re a Calvinist, and this blog makes you frustrated or mad, I only have one response: Why get so mad? I must be a reprobate (i.e., “not one of the elect”), or not far from it. Pray that God gives me a desire to see Calvin’s truth. I'm not in the least bit being sarcastic. I really mean it: I pray that God will bring me to the same truth Calvin received in interpreting the Bible if it is, in fact, the truth.

Here’s a final analogy for the theology the Calvinists are espousing. My son is about to begin a race on his bike. My son greased up his wheels ahead of time in the hope that it would help him finish the race in first place. My son falls off his bike because he was messing with the wheels, so the accident was his fault. But he decides to get back up; he learns from his mistake; makes the right decision, and no longer messes with the wheels. The bike rides along fine. My son finishes the race. When he gets to the finish line, I say, “You lose! You’re going to hell.” My son says, “Why? I know acted immorally, but once I repented, I changed my behavior as to act right.” Then I say to him, “it doesn’t matter what choices you made while in the race. I predetermined before the race began that you would lose this race and go to hell.” My son would certainly respond, “But Dad, that’s completely unfair! Why did you get me dressed up to ride in a race for which you already determined I’d lose? Why did you make me come here in the first place? Why make a race in the first place when you don’t care how we ride or if we finish at all?” Then I respond, “I’m sovereign. I can do whatever I want. You’re going to hell.”

If this is the Christian God, then I want out. Now.