Author: Warren Rachele

Four Knows for Talkin’ Theology

Writing blog entries about theology seems so easy on the surface. Identify a particular point or doctrine that you want to share, defend, or critique and lay out your thoughts. The thesis can be drawn from Scripture, a systematic, or the writings of another theologian followed by an explanation of the position that the writer wishes to stake. The words that underscore that position can be the author’s own or quotes/texts pulled from other sources and cited. All of this is well and good, but theology is not the same as discussing baseball, it has life altering implications.

image Because theology concerns God, we who choose to write on the topic have a responsibility that goes far beyond the ethic of the normal social contract. Theology impacts lives even when it is unstated and has become a cultural norm. Before we defend, critique, or even propose a specific theological construct or an entire framework, we must consider the impact of our position in light of its impact on God’s people. We are not operating in a vacuum where these beliefs and behaviors affect no one, a fact that we need to carefully consider before pushing the first words out into the cybersphere.

While I’m certain that I have exhibited a disregard for each of these at some point in my time as a theologian (and we’re all theologians), here are four rules that I try to apply to anything I do in this sphere, whether it is writing here or for publication, in preaching, and in the way I live out the theology. You might find them helpful as well or may have some additions that we can all utilize.

Know Your Theology Beyond Proof Texts

God did not limit his revelation to specific texts in the Scriptures. The first rule in theology is to consider every doctrine or position in light of the entirety of God’s revelation. Though you may disagree with his theology, Wesley utilized what has been labeled his Quadrilateral as a way of studying and organizing his understanding. This included the use of the complete Scripture (OT & NT), Tradition in the form of church history and the Spirit’s movement, Reason in the form of rational thinking and sensible interpretation, and Experience in examining a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ. Proof texting often fails to consider the ever widening circles of context and more often than not, another text can be found to show the point in a different light.

Know Any Theology That You Are Going to Label as Incorrect

I am less and less surprised at the number of critiques that I encounter in which the author rails against a certain theology or doctrine by using caricatures or incorrect representations of the belief (this happens with political discussion as well.) Before taking a critical position, we must have a relatively thorough and accurate knowledge of the development, the scriptures, and the persons involved in the doctrine we critique. If we rely on the opinions of others or a surface deep understanding of the doctrine, knowing only that it differs from our own, we do not serve God well in simply creating dissent among the body. Worse yet, we promulgate a shallow belief system that risks getting adopted by others. As an example, survey the number of times that Mormonism is declared heretical by an author who does not know the history of belief system or how many times Arminian belief is associated with Pelagius.

Know the Practical Application of Your Theology

All theology is practical. Every aspect of God has some effect on His relationship with His people. We are incorrect to treat theology as separate from life. The doctrines and beliefs that we hold are meant to affect our lives in practical ways, shaping the way in which we interact with the world, other people, and God himself. Arguing the different views of Atonement is one thing but how often do we think about the practical impact of believing the Penal substitution view against the Ransom, Moral Influence, Example, or Governmental positions? Each of these beliefs has a different impact on the worldview of the believer and how he or she interacts with God and the world.

Know God

This would seem to go without saying but it is so easy to find ourselves devoting enormous energy to knowing about God and less and less time knowing God. I can express my thoughts about my wife and child very well because I know them intimately. I have a deep relationship with each of them and have lived in close proximity for many, many years. Writing about your family would be much different because I can know only what you let me know or I can observe for myself. The same applies to those who choose to write about God; we must know Him intimately. We must be in tight relationship with Him and His Spirit. Not only will the Spirit guide our work but will also help us in withdrawing from battles that our worldly reactive side would choose to engage.

God bless each and every one of you who furthers the work of the kingdom in your writing and thinking. If I’ve missed or misstated something, I’ll look forward to reading your suggestions.

Gideon’s Call From Weakness III

Judges 6:19 reads “Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.” Using his distorted memory of proper sacrifice, Gideon had prepared a sacrifice suitable for many times the number of angels that he faced. It would be up the Lord to help him through it which he does by pointing to a rock that would become an altar. God was willing to find the positive in Gideon’s heart and accept the worship offering.

image

The acceptance of the offering and the offering itself were both first steps toward a renewal of the covenant. The second step was Gideon’s realization before whom he had just made this covenant offering. Such was the reason behind Gideon’s naming the altar Yahweh-Shalom “The Lord is Peace”, the reconciled condition of Shalom that would ensue from the restoration.

So Gideon is called as a Judge, to be the agent of restoration between God and His people. He is hesitant to initially take the responsibility but he does upon receiving the sign from God. Is this a pattern he will repeat? Is it a pattern that we continue to repeat?

Calvinists and the Political Left

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:3)

It’s taken me awhile to understand the uneasy feeling I get when I get the urge to post a comment to a Calvinist blog. Will my words be considered as a Brother in Christ or will I be vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks that avoid the content of the post? Anymore these days, I am finding more and more that some of those theobloggers who claim the name Calvinist or Reformed default to the latter. What has brought this to a head is the current hyper-focus on politics due to the back to back conventions and specifically, the fevered attempts to defile the name and reputation of Governor Palin over the past few days. Sadly, what I have discovered is that there is a body of these Calvinist bloggers who are indiscernible from the left-wing chattering classes. This clique will brook no wavering from the TULIP line, refusing to engage any idea that challenges it and, because the challenger is considered to be somehow heretical, he or she must must be burned in the electronic town center.

Contrary to the repeated calls to unity within the body that can be found in the Scriptures, there is an increasing body within the Body that have chosen to attack rather than respond. I’ll give you a recent example (and yes I know, I should have known better) which occurred when I foolishly chose to leave a comment on the Pyromaniacs blog. In an attempt to stir further dissension within the body, a question was posted inviting response from Arminian readers. The trouble with the question was that it was a false dilemma; Arminian theology offered no different view on the topic than that of the Calvinist framework and I wrote just that in my response. Expecting a biblical challenge or theological counterpoint, imagine how disheartening it was to check back later to find that the entire response was an attempt to make a mockery of my screen name.

It’s a bit troubling to find this in any context but to get this response by the Pyros main man Phil Johnson certainly diminishes any positive reputation that he might have gained outside of his close knit little community. Attempting to misstate the intention of my Greek to English transliteration meant (ironically in their eyes) Slave Christ, a perfect definition of Arminian theology. Mistakenly responding back that this obviously not the intent, referring to Rom 1:1 in the Greek, and restating the original answer to the provocative question, my gift was a further lambasting that remained off topic.

I don’t share this to gain sympathy. I’m a big boy and mature enough to handle people like this. The reason that I post this is because the level of conversation about God should not be descending into the the same kind of rancor, vitriol, and immature attack mentality that we see from the left wing of the political establishment and their media sycophants aimed toward those of the opposing party. Personal attacks and hyperbolic caricatures replace substantive discussion of an issue. The assumption is that if you do not agree with the liberal mindset, well you simply are too stupid to even engage and you must be the recipient of character destruction and mockery.

Christ didn’t die for a Church divided by this kind of worldly dissension. There are topics to which forceful comment and righteous anger are appropriate (Todd Bentley for example) in a Christian context but theological differences on non-essentials are not among them. To mirror the world’s approach to discussing differences runs counter to being in the world but not of it. Shall we all just go to our corners and talk only amongst ourselves?

Update: Check out the comments at the end of this posting. While not as mocking, you can witness how the discussion that disintegrates in not on how the post writer constructed his argument or the content of his statements. The Calvinist cries martyrdom (no doubt scrawling Ichabod on the doorframe) as he leaves the conversation. Talk scripture in context, don’t send me to Pink or Piper. We’ve got learn to think for ourselves rather than relying on other theologians all the time.

Gideon’s Call from Weakness II

Even the most devout among Christian believers will have moments of struggle and doubt. While our minds may fully grasp the promise that God does indeed hear our prayers, we are challenged by the silences that we encounter from time to time. There may be longer periods – ‘seasons’ is the popular way to refer to them – where we perceive God to be silent on all things. We feel overwhelmed by life and its inherent  challenges and wonder why God doesn’t step in and alleviate some or all of them. In extreme moments of despair, we may look around and consider the possibility that God has abandoned us. Such was the fuel for Gideon’s doubt and his question to the Lord, “…why has all this happened to us?”

Israel had devolved into an apostasy of previously unheard of depths explaining God’s distance from His people. The cycles in Judges of apostasy and repentance are demonstrated by the repeated chastening that God allows to be visited upon the land. True to human nature, the Israelites fail to consider their personal contributions to the times of silence and simply point out that maybe, perhaps, God has just given up on them despite the Covenant. Being able to consider the scriptures from our distance of time, the source of their troubles is obvious but to the Israelites living in the middle of it, not so much.

The problem with apostasy is one of degree, as we see with the Gideon cycle. Where brief periods of separation bring us to repentance, longer periods bring on bigger problems. Israel’s apostasy in the Gideon cycle is so deep and prolonged that even the proper method of worship has been forgotten. Gideon demands a sign as proof of the legitimacy of his calling and he will prepare an offering to see if it is accepted in a divine fashion. Gideon’s struggle with proportion makes its first appearance as he goes about preparing his test offering.

Forgetting the proper forms of worship offering spelled out in the Law, Gideon’s preparations are based solely on his own evaluation of what is appropriate. He prepares bread, for example, from nearly a bushel of wheat. He brings this and a goat to the Lord as his offering to which God shows patience. This could have gone two ways as we look at it now. God could have refused the flawed, human oriented offering or He could do as He did and sanctify the offering but creating an altar for it’s proper presentation. The consuming fire convinces Gideon of exactly who stands before him.

We talk much about proper worship today, perhaps banking on the fact that God will accept just about anything as a form of worship. I wonder if our own apostasy leads us to believe this and stretch the boundaries of worship further and further from God and closer to ourselves. We trust in God to know what’s in our hearts and ignore the outer trappings that we bring Him as worship. Gideon certainly did and God demonstrated patience with him. Is there a point where we take it too far?

Challenging God’s Sovereignty II

The fact that God is sovereign need not be established, as I previously wrote here. The sovereignty of God is an essential aspect of who He is and it is not contingent on any other thing. We shall leave that as an established fact.

To proceed in light of the already established fact of non-contingency, we can state that God’s sovereignty in no way depends on either the fact or mode of election. Shank states this best when he says “God is sovereign, regardless of whether He elects, or does not elect…whether he elects some, or all…whether election is conditional, or unconditional.” Does the establishment of this sovereignty then demand, as Calvin and his framework do, the corollary doctrine of unconditional election?

Calvin says “God’s grace is illustrated by the fact that he does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what he denies to others. Ignorance of this great truth detracts from God’s glory and prevents true humility.” (Institutes 3:21:1) He continues, pointing to Romans 11:5-6 for his evidence, “Paul maintains that the principle can be understood only if works are set on one side and God is seen to elect those whom he has predestined.” (ibid) [Romans 11:5-6: So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.] Calvin’s contingent will also take us to Romans 9 as proof of (the already established) sovereignty, most often to 9:6-29.

As we search the scriptures for further word on God’s sovereign love and choices, we also find it in evidence here:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom 11:32)

and here

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)

and here

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

There are numerous other texts that propose a different election, one that is corporate and universal and conditional. Does this election challenge the sovereign God? In no way! The method or basis of election has no bearing on the truth of His sovereignty. Given the scriptural voices that emphasize the universal nature of grace, should the doctrine that establishes a conditional election rooted in an assumed decree continue to stand? Is God who clearly biblically offers an election in Christ universally to all men, challenged in His sovereign choices by this very offer?

Wesley on Wednesday ~ Purity of Heart

John Wesley comments on what it means to be pure of heart from one of his sermons on the Sermon on the Mount.

image

“The pure in heart” are they whose hearts God hath “purified even as he is pure;” who are purified, through faith in the blood of Jesus, from every unholy affection; who, being “cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfect holiness in the” loving “fear of God.” They are, through the power of his grace, purified from pride, by the deepest poverty of spirit; from anger, from every unkind or turbulent passion, by meekness and gentleness; from every desire but to please and enjoy God, to know and love him more and more, by that hunger and thirst after righteousness which now engrosses their whole soul: So that now they love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and mind, and strength.

Gideon’s Call from Weakness

Many people, maybe most people, have had the experience of crying out to God for an answer. Why has all this happened to me? Perhaps our eyes and voice have been pointed skyward where we exclaim, I thought you loved me! Often, we sense a silent response, our own voice echoing and fading away. When Gideon rehearsed the lamentations of Israel to the Angel who had appeared to him (Judges 6:13), the response he received was anything but.

He was commissioned to save Israel.

Similar to the calling of Moses, God again selects the weak and unsure to serve his purposes. The call does not invite a decline — “Go in the strength you have…Am I not sending you?” – yet Gideon like Moses before him demurs, citing his weakness. Don’t read past this. Note that God has anticipated the negative response that Gideon will attempt and defers it before he even voices the words. The Lord sends him in his own strength.

How many times have we failed to move on a divine initiative and failed to fulfill our purpose because we refused to move in our own strength? When the Lord calls he supplies. When He calls us to service in any capacity he supplies all the strength we need, often before we even sense the call. Did Moses and Gideon simply want to avoid getting involved or did they genuinely feel inadequate? The text suggests the former but we shouldn’t discount the latter. Certainly God may call us to a serve a purpose that we find distasteful and would like to avoid. Thinking once again that God doesn’t know our hearts, we attempt to evade the call by proclaiming our weakness. God knows and simply says “god in the strength you have.”

He doesn’t leave it there however. The Lord promises that He “will be with you.”

Have we not received the same promise in the form of the Holy Ghost? Does not God’s Spirit indwell us morning, noon, and night imbuing us with strength, wisdom, and assurance as take the first steps in fulfilling our calling? We know the answer to be true and yet we continue discover the depths of our own Gideon-like doubt when we demand signs that God is truly calling us to the vocation ahead of us. Will a sign fortify us or is there another reason that seek to avoid the mission?