Not Enthused Part 2b

My personal viewpoint (and I could be totally wrong) is that predestination and free will, although they might be contradictory, are both taught in the New Testament.  I say that because the New Testament is a collection of diverse documents written by many different authors in different situations, authors that very often seem to have believed slightly different things.  In fact, Martin Luther wanted the letter of James deleted from the Bible because it seemed to contradict much of the rest of the New Testament (as well as disagreeing with Luther himself, which I’d imagine was his main motive).  James certainly seems to have had some issues with some things Paul was teaching.  Paul certainly had issues with what Peter was doing and with the leadership of the Jerusalem church.  Paul was even willing to contradict the decision of the “Jerusalem Council” in regard to eating meat sacrificed to the Roman gods.  The community that produced John’s Gospel seems to have had a markedly different picture of who Jesus was and is from the communities that produced the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.  There is certainly a discernible core of faith and practice in the New Testament, but there is also a great deal of diversity.

Let me ask a controversial question (to some people).  What if some New Testament authors believed in predestination, while some believed in free will, while some believed in universalism?  Also, I think some of them believed in the previously unnamed fourth option: salvation by works.  Even Paul himself seems to vacillate between free will (Romans 10:9 and others), predestination (Ephesians 1:11 and others), universalism (Colossians 1:19-20 and others), and even the dreaded salvation by works (Romans 2:6-8 and others), which even includes the strange idea that women are saved through bearing children (1 Timothy 2:15).  Is it too strange to think that the early church, spread out over the Roman Empire and quite isolated from one another, held a variety of views on this topic just as many views are held on it today?  Could it be that there is no agreement on these matters in the 21^st Century because there was no agreement on these matters in the 1^st Century?  It’s worth considering.

I believe that those who are calling for a return to the reformers see the Scriptures as a clear plate glass window that you can look through and see everything crystal clear; I simply cannot share that point of view.  Maybe the Bible is less like a clear plate glass window that we can look straight through to see the will of God and maybe it is more like a stained glass window with all different shapes and colors.  There are tiny bubbles in some of the pieces of glass.  Some are rough, while others are smooth.  Some of them don’t really seem like they should be a part of the same stained glass window, but somehow in the middle of this crazy stained glass window there is still a figure that has been formed by all the different shapes, colors, and textures; that figure is Jesus.  The light shines through the stained glass window in a beautiful, inspired, and yet not so clear way.  It is light enough to lead us to Jesus, though, and isn’t that really the point?  If this is true, it would cramp the style of those who believe in inerrancy, but it wouldn’t negate the New Testament’s shared witness to Jesus Christ.  After all, within the diversity of the New Testament there is a central message that salvation (however it is divvied out) is made possible by the actions of God through Jesus Christ and that in gratitude for this we are to love God, love neighbor, and share this good news.  God can handle the details.   

Again, I am not in disagreement with the Reformers or their modern devotees because I think predestination is unbiblical.  I just don’t think it’s the only biblical option.  Ultimately I can’t align myself with them on this topic because there isn’t even agreement within my own mind on these matters.  I preach like a free-will advocate because I believe everyone should have the chance to respond to the gospel.  Sometimes when I think about the people I know who just seem to have zero reaction or interest in the gospel I wonder about predestination.  A lot of times I hope and pray that universalism is true because I can’t stand the thought of so many people being damned or the thought of a God who is so willing to damn them for rejecting God or even worse the thought of a God that predestined them to be damned even before God created them. I don't have all the answers, and I'm finally okay with that.  I’ve simply come to trust in God without trying to have all the answers.  I’ll never stop asking the question, though.  That's how we grow and mature.  Since I gave myself over to this trust, I’ve had a peace in my heart that I didn’t have before, and I’ll take a real peace over a false certainty any day.  

Not Enthused Part 2a

Both the Reformers and their Modern Devotees Emphasize the Doctrine of Predestination:

The traditional Reformed doctrine of predestination, especially in the traditions that subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, is what is called “double predestination.”  This doctrine states that before the creation of the world God decided who would be saved and who would not be saved.  From within the Reformed worldview this is seen as a good thing.  First, it means that, although God could have just let all of us be damned, God is gracious enough to save some of us; this shows God’s concern and love (unless you’re one of the damned).  Second, it means that we don’t have to stay up at night fretting about whether or not we’re saved.  We don’t have to worry because we’re either saved or not.  It keeps us from trying to earn it because it either is or it isn’t; we can’t change that.  John Calvin said that if you are seriously asking the question of whether or not you are saved then that’s a pretty good sign that the Holy Spirit is working in your life, so in all likelihood you’re good to go.  Third, it answers that vexing question: “Why do some people respond to the gospel and some don’t?”  It answers this by saying that this happens because some are predestined by God to respond to the gospel and some aren’t.  You have to admit that predestination gives good answers (as long as you’re not one of the damned).  However, it raises just as many questions.

Before I get too deep in this I need to say that predestination is unarguably biblical.  It is all over the place in both the Old Testament and New Testament, coming from the mouth of Jesus and the pen of Paul.  Well then it’s settled!  Right?  Well, not so much.  The reason for this is that there are a good number of Scripture passages that seem to contradict double predestination by claiming that salvation is offered to all people and any person is free to accept salvation or reject it.  So what I’m saying is that predestination is unarguably biblical and the opposite of predestination seems to be unarguably biblical as well.  I haven’t even mentioned the fact that there are even a few passages of Scripture that seem to say that Christ’s death on the cross will bring salvation to everyone.  This is a minority viewpoint called Christian universalism, and this view was held by several of the “Church Fathers” of the early centuries of the church. 

So there are three (actually there is a fourth one we don’t have time to discuss) different views in the New Testament regarding who can be or will be saved?  The scandal!  The statement I just made is unacceptable to many Christians.  To those who hold the view that the Bible is completely inerrant and always presents a consistent theology, this is a big problem.  In my fallible personal opinion this way of thinking (what Dr. Christian Smith calls Biblicism) paints its adherents into a corner.  You see, when faced with two contradictory views, what they have to do is choose predestination or free will (we won’t deal with universalism here) and then go about interpreting all the passages of Scripture that contradict their viewpoint as not really contradicting their viewpoint at all.  “If you weren’t so ignorant, you’d understand that this passage doesn’t mean what you think it means; it obviously means what I think it means.” 

For instance, 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting you to perish, but all to come to repentance.”  This quite clearly seems to support the free will argument.  However, in John Calvin’s commentary on this verse he says, of course God wants everyone to be saved.  God reaches out the hand of salvation to all… but he only grabs the hand of those “whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.”  Wait a second here!  If God is unwilling to grab the hands of all who reach out to God then God doesn’t really want all to be saved after all does He? 

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and a big-time “free will” guy looks at a passage of Scripture like Ephesians 4:4-6 and does the same from his perspective.  The passage says this: “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.  He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ.”  To this, Wesley makes the point that of course God predestined… that everyone who would come to faith through free will would be saved.  Hey, wait a second here!  God knowing beforehand who will someday put his or her faith in Jesus Christ by their own free will isn’t the same as God choosing who will.  This passage says God chose and predestined, not pre-knew.  I’m sorry Rev. Wesley but you didn’t answer the question that was asked; you answered the question you wanted to answer.

So who am I to disagree with John Calvin and John Wesley?  Come on, it’s not like either one of them is Jesus.  And anyway, I’m just a guy with a blog.  Really I only say all this to communicate to you that I disagree on the subject of predestination with those who want to return to the ways of the Reformers not because I think predestination is wrong, but because I think their emphasis on predestination is wrong.  You see, I think the water on this topic is muddier than they’re letting on.  They present predestination as being the absolute truth, but I don’t think the complete biblical picture bears that out.  Personally, I think the jury is hung on the subject so it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as they are about double predestination, just as it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as their free will opponents are about their perspective, just as it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as the universalists are about everyone being saved.  Personally, I can’t determine which one is correct so I refuse to carry the banner for any of them.  This bothers a good many of them, but it doesn’t bother me.  

I’m not exactly sure how salvation works.  I’m okay with that.  I can still, however, enjoy the benefits of salvation.  After all, I don’t understand how wireless Internet really works but I still enjoy it.  Whether salvation is by predestination, free will, or universalism, I don’t really care.  My faith is in God in Jesus Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit I’m doing my best to follow the Lord Jesus.  God will have to work the rest out however God does that.    

to be continued next week...

In Christ,
Everett

Not Enthused Part 1

As I have started writing this I have found I have enough material for several weeks.  I recognize that I might lose some of my more casual readers over the next few weeks but those who are interested in theology and in the Church will probably find this of interest.  

Last week I concluded by saying that I am not as enthused as some Christians are for a return to the ways of the Reformers.  This week I’m going to get into what I meant when I said that.  Before I begin, let me remind you that I greatly admire the Reformers, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin.  I give thanks to God for the sacrifices that were made by Protestants during those many years of strife.  Many Protestants gave their lives for the cause of reforming a terribly corrupt Church.  However, just because I am indebted to them, am often guided by their writings, and because I greatly admire what they did in the 16^th Century, does not mean that I think it is a good idea to impose the faith as they taught it and lived it onto the 21^st Century Church without some major amendments being made.  Here is reason number one for me:

There are not enough people being invited to the table:

The Reformers were geniuses.  However, they were all 16^th century highly-educated, white, male geniuses from Northern Europe.  To claim that the Reformers got it right for all times, or that their theological descendents that authored the Westminster Confession and Catechisms completely “nailed it,” is to claim that a 16^th or 17^th century Northern European highly educated white male perspective is the right perspective.  If we are going to claim that, then we also need to remember that this particular 16^th or 17^th Century Northern European highly educated white male perspective was, in fact, only one of many 16^th or 17^th century Northern European highly educated white male perspectives in Europe at the time.  Those who are calling for a return to the Reformers are okay with claiming that their particular favorite Northern European highly educated white male perspective is the right perspective for obvious reasons.  If you were to go to one of the national conferences held by those who are calling for a return to the ways of the Reformers you would find that nearly all the speakers and writers represent one group: white men of Northern European descent (like me).  At the two largest and most popular conferences in this genre for 2013-2014 there either was or will be a combined twenty-one speakers.  21 out of 21 of the speakers are men.  20 of the 21 are white men.  This doesn't mean they are wrong; it simply means that not enough people are being invited to the table.  

What about that 50% of the population that includes my wife and daughter?  I am continually surprised by the very different insights that never would have come to my mind that come from my sisters in faith and ministry.  The Reformers and their current disciples do not allow for women to serve in roles of leadership within the Church.  What about people of color?  What about people from other parts of the world?  What about other kinds of Christians such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, etc.? What about the contributions of those who lived before the 16^th Century and those who lived after it?  What about the work of those who disagreed with Luther and Calvin (who disagreed with each other on some pretty major issues)?  If we return to the ways of the Reformers the way that many conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Baptists are calling for, the table shrinks and we end up with a Northern European Jesus flanked by Luther and Calvin with a bunch of modern white men in suits sitting at their feet. 

I truly believe that we need the voices of unique indigenous forms of Christianity, even when (or especially when) they have not been heavily influenced by those like Luther and Calvin.  I even think we need the input of those from other religious traditions and I am even open to hearing from (instead of arguing with) those who call themselves agnostics or atheists.  For me, with both the Reformers and with those who idolize them now, the table is too small.  If what you want is for conservative white men of Northern European descent to be the dominant voice, then returning to the Reformers is for you.  It is not, however, for me.  It seems to me that this has more to do with white guys like me gripping more and more tightly to the privilege that we are slowly losing than it does with working toward the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, enacted, and inaugurated.  I recognize that this is a stereotypical "liberal" response, but it is the response that makes the most sense to me. 

We are at a point in history during which the Christian faith can take on new diversity, complexity, color, and texture.  The faith can hold onto the core of Christian discipleship while looking very different at the same time.  The faith is not diminished by hearing the voices of different perspectives; it is enriched.  For instance, I know the work of the Reformers, but I also appreciate the work of many Roman Catholic theologians.  The Reformers (because of their context) and their modern devotees (because they want to be like the Reformers even though they live in a different context) are not big fans of the Catholics and resist or outright refuse to listen to the input of Catholics.  A prime example of this is R.C. Sproul, who is a theologian and author who has helped me to understand the historical Reformed Tradition but who has not convinced me to continue to adhere to the historical Reformed Tradition in the way he would like.  Here is what he says about Catholics and those of us who are in the “liberal” churches as he calls them such as the PC(USA), Episcopal Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and United Church of Christ: 

“Yes there are believers, true believers here and there in the Roman Catholic Church, in liberal churches and so on. They're mavericks to their community and I personally believe that those people who truly accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior in the biblical sense who live in the Roman Catholic Church have a moral and spiritual duty to leave that communion immediately, that they are living in sin by continuing to be a visible member of an institution that anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ.”  

I respect Dr. Sproul for stating what he believes and I recognize that he would wipe the floor with me in a theological debate (because that is his specialty) but although I have read a great deal of what he believes (and I think it should be a part of Reformed theology courses in our PC(USA) seminaries) after a great deal of reflection I simply do not share his beliefs, and the first major reason for that is that his system of beliefs is formulated at a very small, very homogeneous table of discussion.  That is why I refuse to follow his advice to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) as he did several decades ago when the PC(USA) started to ordain women to the offices of deacon, ruling elder, and teaching elder.  I value the diversity of voices that we invite to the table in the PC(USA).

This will be continued next week...

May the Christ in others stir up the Christ in you so that in all your interactions with others this week there will be peace.

In Christ,

Everett