Theology – Page 5 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Gideon Sounds the Horns

Gideon does the only appropriate thing upon receiving the revelation and assurance of his victory over the Midianites from the mouth of a frightened Midian soldier,

When Gideon heard the dream and its interpretation, he worshipped God. (Judges 7:15)

This easily overlooked vignette reminds us of our proper priorities. How often we put off the worship of the Father in response to his revelation or leading. Instead, we are only too eager to jump to action now that we are confident of His assurance of our success but there is a good reason for pausing to worship. You see, if we act immediately we are susceptible to taking the credit for any coming success rather than placing it in the proper perspective. Worship first humbles us, helping us to recognize that the assurance comes from God.

The small force that surrounds Gideon serves a similar purpose. He is humbled as his army is reduced and reduced through the methods that Yahweh pronounces until Gideon must be totally reliant on God’s power for any victory. Yahweh’s power is displayed through the small army; the strategy that Gideon employs makes his force look much, much larger than it really is. In a panic, the Midianites turn upon themselves and flee in fear.

We look to the Bible for life lessons and sometimes, they are more subtle than we would like. Its easy here to lose the truths in the action but there are profound ideals that we can apply. First, as we diminish our own power in trust to God’s power we can count on His strength making itself known in ways we cannot imagine. The second truth that the Midianites learned the hard way is that battling or opposing this power is self-destructive, a guaranteed loser. Are we cautious enough not to step into the shoes of the Midianites?

Gideon and the Tumbling Bread

In the weakened state of an army of 300, Gideon is prepared to move on the Midianites. Israel will be redeemed and freed from the oppression allowed by God to draw them back to Him. We are prepared for a horn to blow, walls to fall, and the Lord to lead Gideon in a route of the opposing forces but He (and we) knows Gideon well, and offers him a moment of assurance.

Now the camp of Midian lay below him in the valley. During that night the Lord said to Gideon, “Get up, go down against the camp, because I am going to give it into your hands. If you are afraid to attack, go down to the camp with your servant Purah and listen to what they are saying.” (Judges 7:8b-11a)

Gideon afraid? Banish the thought! Of course Gideon is frightened; it seems to be his default state. Frightened, hesitant, willing to seek out every chance to avoid the responsibility of his calling. This is the Gideon we know, but God knows differently. He wants him to know the assurance of His presence and the power that this brings to purpose that he calls him to accomplish.

Sending Gideon to the camp is a reinforcement that stands opposite the diminishment of forces that God has visited on Israel. Gideon and his servant approach the camp under the cover of night to find the true measure of the enemy arrayed against him. They peer over the camp and find the Midianites, the Amalekites, and all the Eastern peoples preparing for battle, camels more numerous than the sands on the seashore. Gideon approaches a little closer in order to overhear a lowly soldier sharing his own fears with his tent mate. His dream showed them a load of barley bread tumbling down the hill above the camp and crushing the Midianites. He rightly comprehends that this is a sign that Gideon and his army are the arm of God himself and that their days are numbered.

We see the assurance of God in this vignette but there is another joy that we can derive from this experience. It is easy to be convinced that all heroes of God are mighty men and women of confidence and strength, leaders of their people that are unafraid of anything and always, always supremely assured of their mission as coming from God. Here Yahweh utilized not only the hesitant Gideon but the lowly private in the Midianite army, another man filled with fear. Do we question whether or not we are suitable for God’s use? Probably, but take heart. God will utilize any vessel available to him so long as our trust is put in the right place. Where is your trust?

Jesus, Community Organizer – New Extra Large Size!

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Ex 20:7)

(Originally posted 11 September 2007)

The American political arena has been treated to yet one more attempt to lift one candidate to Messiah status while associating the other with an incompetent, indecisive, murderer. Donna Brazile, repeating a meme initiated by a Washington Post blogger, gave voice to the line “Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

To correct the record, Jesus Christ was God. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all humankind, as they will believe in Him. Jesus was in no way a community organizer in the model of Saul Alinsky, the mentor emeritus of community organizing. The Chicago stre

et agitator following Alinsky’s methods seeks to embed in the minds of the troubled that their condition is not their responsibility, it is the work of some oppressor above them. The organizer will invest as much effort as necessary to make the poor victims so angry with their perceived oppression that they rise up in direct action against those who hold them down. “Militant mass action…fueled by righteous anger.” as described by Dennis Jacobsen.

The Jesus of the Bible, on the other hand, commands a different loyalty. He speaks first of aligning oneself with the Father and His kingdom and then, in a reflection of the love of that kingdom, working to serve others in love. No mass violence; instead turning the other cheek also. Christ’s notion of social justice is to overcome by love and trust in the work of God, not radical mass action. Given the warning of the commandments above, perhaps we should be a bit more temperate in our allusions of a political figure to the Savior of humankind.

Update: It appears that Susan Sarandon received her lines a little bit late! She was parroting this decidedly unbiblical scripted dialogue yesterday AFTER Rep. Cohen delivered the line. Somebody’s head is going to roll for not delivering her script on time. Review here what biblical scholar Sarandon has to teach about Jesus.

STOP THE PRESSES!! The fourth estate senior spokespersons are just now getting their talking points about the similarity between the Savior of All Humankind and the community agitator. Tom Brokaw, the erudite theologian of record, demonstrated physical proof yesterday in the form of this recently unearthed coin of the future realm:

Aren’t there any grown ups in this group of people?

Gideon’s First Step of Obedience II

The smoke was probably still rising when, as the Bible records,

In the morning when the men of the town got up, there Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! (Judges 6:26)

In the fog of their dual allegiances, the men of the town were angered and fearful of this affront to Baal. Who would do such a thing they cried, the author answering emphatically, Gideon. This made the act even more heinous in their eyes; the citizens shocked that someone in the caretaker’s family would commit this desecration. Reading from our distance, we’re left to wonder why Israel couldn’t see how their worship of Baal had broken the covenant with Yahweh. Is it possible that, despite all of our sophisticated understanding of our faith, we could find ourselves similarly spiritually blind?

The answer is yes, of course we could. Modern Christianity often allows us to live other than fully committed in a life that spreads our allegiance and worship between multiple ‘gods.’ We find ourselves becoming more ‘of’ the world, thinking that our covenant with God enables Him to look the other way. We should learn from history.

Joash, Gideon’s father, ends the scene with a theological lesson. If Baal were a real god, he suggests, why must we take action on his part? A real god can certainly take care of himself and Gideon will be properly punished. But, if Baal is not the god that we think he is…

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.

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.

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.

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 for Wednesday

Wesley’s sermon ‘Salvation by Faith’ opens like this:

All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man, are of his mere grace, bounty, or favor; his free, undeserved favor, favor altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies. It was free grace that “formed man of dust of the ground, and breathed into him a living soul”, and stamped on that soul the image of God, and “put all things under his feet”. The same free grace continues to us, at this day, life and breath, and all things. For there is nothing we are, or have, or do, which can deserve the least thing at God’s hand. “All our works, thou, oh God, has wrought in us.” These, therefore, are so many more instances of free mercy; and, whatever righteousness may be found in man, this is also the gift of God….

If then sinful men find favor with God, it is “grace upon grace”…Grace is the source, faith is the condition, of salvation.

It’s tough to argue with the Bible, or Wesley’s exegesis.

The Glib Calvinist Needs to be Reformed

As I prepared to educate myself in the areas in which Calvinist believers are victimized as portrayed by Craig Brown in The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism, I thumbed through the chapters to get a feel for what was coming in the little book. The casually vituperative author appears unsophisticated with regard to the important distinctions between Calvinist and Arminian theology as suggested by the first passage my eyes landed upon;

We will look at each of the five points of Calvinism, which are summarized by the acronym TULIP, and the Arminian response. (Arminians also have a flower, the daisy, because their doctrinal system says, in effect, “He loves me, He loves me not.”)

Perhaps I should just go ahead and offer this up on eBay for a quarter right now…

Challenging God’s Sovereignty

God is sovereign, period. Challenges to the contrary are often interesting and fiery, like an argued third strike in a close contest. Voices will be raised, faces brought into close proximity and colorful words and phrases will pepper the debate but, in the end, the conclusion is the same. God is sovereign, the plate is vigorously swept and it’s ‘batter up!’

God is the supreme, superior being accountable and subordinate to no other. If any of these were not true, He would not be God. It is primary among His attributes as we consider the nature of God. “He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.” (Col 1:17) In the course of theological discourse, particularly with respect to election, Calvinists aver that Arminian theology strips God of his sovereignty and the Arminians in turn, accuse Calvinists of viewing sovereignty as God’s exclusive attribute, dismissing other aspects of His character. Neither extreme is true, of course, but it is the various forms of this argument that comprise one of the major components of the superheated rhetoric that serves as theological discussion in the world of the Theobloggers.

God’s sovereignty means that he is completely free to act in any way He wishes in accord with His own nature. He can create, order, and ordain anything in any fashion that he wants to. At the same time, he cannot do what is not possible (according to the way he has ordered the universe) such as making a circle a square nor will he act in any way contrary to His character. We can agree with the plain reading of the following section of the Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass”

Given the truths that God rules over all things (1 Chron 29:11-12, Ps 29:10) and He is in control of all things (Job 42:2, Dan 4:35) why then is the issue of human free choice often portrayed as a despicable attempt to wrest His sovereignty away? The answer, which sounds odd, is that it cannot be, because the sovereignty of God need not be established and therefore cannot be contested. It simply is. As I stated earlier, it is an essential attribute of who and what He is. Because it [sovereignty] is not contingent upon any action that He takes, God’s sovereignty is not challenged by whether he elects or not, whether he elects some or all, and whether that election is conditional or unconditional. It is not contested by the free will of men nor is it opposed by the belief in limited atonement.

Now, we can begin the discussion without the threat of that canard.