What’s Wrong with Kyle?

My guess is; not much. He’s a bright young man, married to “the most beautiful and talented girl in the world”, studying philosophy while being “trained up for ministry” in the Presbyterian church. He’s intelligent, educated and, I’m certain, extremely well-read in all matters which mean anything to him whatsoever, particularly Reformed Theology. You really ought to visit his blog. When you do, I think it’ll be obvious that between us, his opinion is better researched and informed than my own.  For his opinion about what I think is wrong with Calvinism, read this.

For my considered response to his comment, read on:

Kyle,

I took some time to read your comment slowly and check your biblical references. I seriously considered what you said and I also took some time to look at your blog to get an idea of who you present yourself to be. Honestly, I’ve come away from your comment feeling a bit like a fly being swatted with a Buick. I’m okay with that though. I can take it.

I’m also okay with much of what I said. There are some things that I would alter but mostly I don’t feel the need to recant my core beliefs (even if they are badly expressed). My point is/was that it is better to try to understand Scripture from the perspectives of the author and the audience than it is to try and understand Scripture from the perspective of another interpreter. When reading Paul (the Jew and the Pharisee), it is better to try to understand his writings from an Eastern/Jewish/Pharisee perspective as opposed to a Western/Gentile/Christian perspective of early church fathers (Origen, Augustine) and previous theologians (Calvin, Luther, et al.). This still makes sense to me.

My miserably expressed belief is that Calvin (but actually, I confess that in my mind I was thinking “present day Calvinists”) came to certain theological conclusions because he (they weren’t) wasn’t attempting to view Scripture in light of Paul’s Jewish worldview and Pharisaical education. Granted, if I presented myself as anything more than an “armchair theologian”, I would be remiss not to support this accusation through scholarship.  However, as I do not present myself to be anything greater than a blogger who likes to read think and write about theology, I don’t feel compelled to commit myself to the serious work of research and referencing at the same level of a student and future pastor like yourself. Again, you need to consider the author of this blog (“armchair theologian”) and his audience (realistically speaking, mostly himself…oh, and that nice guy Wonders for Oyarsa).

Of course, I realize that sounds like I’m advocating poor reasoning/scholarship but I’m not. I’m advocating that you and other readers of this blog use some discernment and adjust your expectations according to who I represent myself to be.

Nothing that you referenced in your comment indicates beyond question that Paul’s Jewishness and Pharisaical education was vaporized that day he met Jesus on his way to Damascus, nevermore to influence his writings. So, for now I’m content to believe that Paul, the Jew and former Pharisee, would not necessarily recognize his own beliefs regarding predestination in the theology of Calvin’s current disciples (and possibly even Calvin himself).

You were right to point out that I invite criticism by posting my (ill-conceived) opinions for all to read.  Additionally, you’re right to suggest some serious scholars for me to read and learn from. You have given me precisely those things which I had hoped would come from writing this blog. However Kyle, what you have not given me is “grace”. There is nothing gracious in the tone of your comment or the style of your prose. You did not attempt a gentle correction and so your invocation of “Grace” at the close of your comment rings hollow and leaves me cold.

I chose “What’s Wrong with Kyle?” as the title of this post because it neatly refers back to my previous post “What’s Wrong with Calvinism?” I didn’t choose it to be vindictive, although I certainly understand why someone might choose to read it that way. Yet, I’m sure that Kyle would tell you that there are plenty of things wrong about him which the blood of Jesus covers by the grace of God…and, like his observation that my post is “flawed in multiple ways”, he’d be absolutely right.

The End

He’s right.

I quit.

You should too.

Exodus 2009

The decision has been made. At the end of academic year 2008-2009, my family and I are going to leave the host country and return to the US. It’s time.

Truthfully, it’s kind of a scary time. If you’ve ever moved house before, you know that change is not easy. Moving internationally is especially difficult. Particularly when it involves four small children and a large degree of uncertainty. We own no home in the states. We have no car. At this point, there is no job waiting for me to take on. At times, the whole situation looks more like immigration rather than repatriation.

Now is not a good time for well-meaning Christians to pelt us with talk about God’s will, but they do. A sister from church that I really like said to me recently something about “If it’s God’s will…” and I just winced. Sure, God is Supreme and His will is ultimately done. I’ve no argument with that. The problem is that much of the time, my evangelical brothers and sisters pronounce “God’s will” over events and circumstances when, to be blunt, they haven’t the slightest clue what God’s will is. Later, when circumstances change, (usually from positive to negative) they retract their comments and revise their pronouncements, as if it is never God’s will that anyone ever go through some sort of negative experience. The fact is that sometimes it is God’s will that folks go through hard times. Jesus showed us that and yet so many Christians divine God’s will based on degrees of adversity or outward signs of “success”. When it’s easy, when it’s successful, God has paved the way. When it’s hard, we’re outside of God’s will. That sort of thinking is just plain wrong.

So where is my comfort in these anxious times? If I can’t confidently say that this move and all of its accompanying changes are God’s will for my life, where will my wife and I find peace? I trust in God. Good, bad or indifferent, I trust in God. I pray for opportunities for work. I tell Him what I’m afraid of. I ask for His comfort, strength and wisdom. I wrestle with the verse that says “Seek the kingdom of God first and all of the other stuff will be added as well”, and try to understand how that applies to my circumstances. There are times when I feel peaceful and there are times when I don’t, and that’s an acceptable way of life. It certainly seems to be the way it was for so many of the people we read about in the Bible. Moses had his good days and bad days. Joseph experienced triumph and tragedy. Pretty much any major character you choose to focus on in the Scripture can be seen going through both good and bad, certainty and uncertainty and God is always there. Sure, some of those people were blessed to have God say in clear terms precisely what He wanted from them, but not everyone experienced that. God never told Joseph that he was made a slave in Egypt to save his family from starvation. God never told Esther that she’d been made queen to protect the Jews from annihilation in Persia. Yet, in their anxious days filled with questions about their future, they trusted in God. I should follow their examples and do the same.

What about “God’s will for my life”? His will is clear enough. Seek the kingdom first. Love my neighbor as myself. Love my wife as Christ loved the church. Raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Do all for the glory of God, without complaining. I could go on, but I think you understand what I’m getting at: God’s will for my life is clear. The context for living out His will for my life is what’s hidden, or perhaps it is not hidden. Perhaps, God gives me the right and responsibility to choose the context for living out His will that I know. This is what I believe and honestly, it’s really difficult. Taking responsibility, at least for me, is always a challenge. Sure God could speak to me from flaming shrubbery, but I’m much more likely to grow and mature in my faith if I’m allowed to struggle with taking responsibility for my life and choosing the career, the relationships, the culture in which I am to obey the will of God that He has already made clear in Scripture.

What’s Wrong with Calvinism?

I’ve never been a fan of Jean Calvin’s theology.

Even before I learned who Calvin was or what his five points were all about, I was in disagreement with him by way of his theological descendants on such things as “once saved, always saved”. As a young adult, I took an interest in Reformed Theology when a friend of mine became active in a Presbyterian church. I made a point of understanding the debate between Arminism and Calvinism and what I found was that Calvinism is a biblical doctrine. No, seriously. I had not realized that Reformed folks held a high-view of Scripture and that the “Doctrines of Grace” where thoroughly rooted in the Biblical text. That being said, I believe that a doctrine can be biblical and still be wrong. How? Flawed hermeneutics.

Calvin and company viewed Scripture through a flawed hermeneutical lens which resulted in seeing such things as ‘predestination’ and ‘perseverance of the saints’ when a different lens would have revealed something else. Thanks to a sermon by Mark Driscoll, I realized one evening not long ago that my problem with Calvinism is this metaphorical lens through which it views and interprets the Bible.

Mark was teaching about the doctrine of Predestination in his series “Religion Saves + 9 Other Misconceptions” when I had my epiphany. After a reference that he made in his lesson to two ancient church fathers; Origen and Augustine, I found myself thinking, “What about Jewish theologians?”. I realized that Mark was citing two people from Gentile backgrounds who read the Scriptures with Greco-Roman eyes. (See this and this.) As I thought about it some more, I understood that this is my problem with the doctrine of Predestination as well as Calvinism as a whole: it is the product of a Western/Gentile worldview and not an Eastern/Jewish worldview. Consequently, I went in search of Judaism’s take on predestination aka “determinism”(For an interesting discussion on God’s sovereignty and philosophical determinism, see this. For one rabbi’s attempt to answer questions on determinism, see this.) . Here’s what I found.

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived comfortably in the lap of the Roman Empire wrote for his Roman patron(s) that there were three main sects of Judaism in his day and that one of the ways to distinguish them was by their deterministic views. According to Josephus, the Sadducees were the least deterministic, believing that God had given man free will and left him to get on with life. The Essenes were the most deterministic, holding that all is mapped out. No choices. No freedom. All is decided. Between these two poles were the Pharisees who held that while God sovereignly rules his creation, he permits humans the moral freedom and responsibility to choose between right and wrong.1

The Bible is clear: Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee. In fact he was a rather “successful” Pharisee, meaning that he was very good at doing and being whatever it was that made one a Pharisee. Why not then assume that Saul held typical Pharisaical views of theology? Furthermore, when Saul of Tarsus became the Apostle Paul, why believe that his Pharisaical education evaporated and was replaced with Calvin’s systematic theology? It seems to me that when we read Paul’s statements about God’s “foreknowledge”, “predestination” and “election”, we should strive to understand them from the perspective of a first century Pharisee and not St. Augustine via Calvin and other Reformers.

I believe that Calvin’s systematic theology goes wrong because it interprets the Scripture from a Western/Greek perspective. Fate is a Greek concept; not a Jewish one. (Note: fatalism is not a feature of Calvinist theology, however it seems to me that it is a common error among Calvinists.) That isn’t to say that there weren’t Jews who held ideas which were similar to “fate”. However, there is not much reason to believe that the Apostle Paul was one of them. In fact, there is reason to believe that as a Pharisee, Paul held a sort of middle position which acknowledged the sovereignty of God without relinquishing the ability of men to make genuine moral choices (as opposed to predetermined moral choices). Consequently, any interpretation of Paul which sounds more like hard-determinism is, in my opinion, suspect. That would include Calvin’s doctrine of predestination.

NB: In the interest of transparency and honesty, readers should know that everything in green was added following comments by Kyle. They were not present in the original post which his comments address.

Catholic-Islamic Dialogue

“VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Muslim representatives and Vatican officials begin talks this week that they hope will lead to an unprecedented Catholic-Islamic meeting. “

So, once they get the logistics worked out and everyone is in the same room together, I imagine the dialogue to go something like this:

Muslim: We agree that there is one God, right?

Catholic: Right, one God in three Persons.

Muslim: Um, no. Just one God who is not a “person” like we are people. Agreed?

Catholic: Agreed: one God, the Father who is not a person like we are, one God, the Son who is a person like we are and one God, the Holy Spirit who is also not a person like we are. Exactly right.

Muslim:Ok, let’s come back to that one later on.  Mohammed is the final prophet sent from God.

Catholic:Mohammed claimed to be a prophet of God, yes.

Muslim: Sorry, not just “claimed to be” but “truthfully claimed to be” and not just “a prophet”. He’s the final prophet. God did not send any others after him. Only the revelation Mohammed received matters now. Any others have been ditched. Agreed?

Catholic: (silence….blink, blink.)

Muslim: Um…okay. Jesus! He was a prophet, right?

Catholic: Right! Jesus was a prophet….and a priest…and King.

Muslim: No, not a priest. We don’t have priests. And not a King. He had no caliphate, er I mean kingdom.

Catholic: Yes he did. It’s called “the Church”. The Church is his kingdom. We are his subjects. God made him King because Jesus is His son. His mother Mary was a virgin you know.

Muslim: Yes, we know. Mariam was indeed a virgin, but just because God made her pregnant does not mean that Jesus is God’s son. God doesn’t have any sons, so Jesus can’t be one…or “THE ONE”. God doesn’t have anyone ruling the universe on his behalf either. He takes care of everything himself.

Catholic: Right, God takes care of everything, including taking away sins through the blood of Jesus. Did you know he died on a cross to take away sin? The best part though is that God raised him back to life three days later. The Bible says so.

Muslim: Ah, right. The Bible. The Book of the Christians. You do know that it’s been corrupted, right?

Catholic: How’s that?

Muslim: It’s been corrupted. The devil has added lies to the Bible to trick you. The Qu’ran says so.

Catholic:That’s your “Holy Book” is it, the Qu’ran?

Muslim: Yes. God has kept it from being corrupted like your book. Your book has been corrupted by the devil. You really can’t trust anything it says.

Catholic:Really? None of it?

Muslim: Well, I suppose you could trust those bits which are also in the Qu’ran, but the rest of it is rubbish.

Catholic:Right…anything in the Qu’ran about the resurrection of Jesus?

Muslim:Not really. You see, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified. It was Judas, made to look like Jesus. So since Jesus didn’t die, he couldn’t have been resurrected now could he?

Catholic:That’s in your Qu’ran?

Muslim: Yep.

(long silence…)

Muslim:So, let’s sum up then. God is numerically one; not three.

Catholic: There is only one Triune God.

Muslim: Mohammed is the final prophet from God.

Catholic: Mohammed said that he was a prophet from God.

Muslim: Jesus was a prophet, born of a virgin but not a priest and certainly not a king and he most definitely was not God’s son.

Catholic: Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, is the only begotten Son of the Father who has made him the Head of the Church and appointed him to mediate between God and man.

Muslim: The Christian Bible is corrupt while the Qu’ran revealed to Mohammed is the perfectly preserved final revelation to all men from God.

Catholic: The Bible is the Word of God. The Qu’ran is…your “holy book”.

Muslim: Isn’t it time we took a break for lunch?

Catholic:Absolutely! Since you’re our guests here in the Vatican, The Pope thought it would be a good idea to serve a traditional German meal of bratwurst, saurkraut and beer.  Dig in!

Apart from the patently offensive offering of pork and alcohol to the Muslims, this is precisely the kind of conversation that ought to take place, provided that all parties remain loyal to their beliefs. The essence of Islam is belief in the (cardinal number) one God and the prophethood of Mohammed. It is impossible for there to be a trinitarian Muslim who believes that Jesus wields greater spiritual authority than Mohammed. Conversely, the essence of Christianity is the belief in the (ordinal number) one God and the sovereignty of His Only Begotten Son Jesus. It is impossible for there to be a Christian who does not believe in the primacy of Jesus, which is His by virtue of being the uniquely divine Son of God.

As long as the two parties hold on to these core beliefs, any conversations between them ought to be similarly brief, and perhaps equally productive.