Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 11

First, Happy New Years. You can see that my wife and I have no life, because I am blogging on New Year's Eve. But, it could be worse. I could be reading my blog on the evening of New Year's Eve ;-).

Chapter 11 is titled "Confession." It is an interesting chapter, to say the least. In it, Miller defines "Christian spirituality" for us. In my opinion, Miller hijacked the term Christianity to mean something that it does not mean. He tells us, "Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity, and they will give you ten different answers." I'm sorry, but in all likelihood, the ten people you stop on the street probably are not going to be Christians either. Should we use the ignorance of a lost world to dismiss using a term rich with both diversity and history?

Sure, many people in the past have had horrible experiences with those who claim to be ambassadors of "Christianity", but that doesn't mean we should abandon the term Christianity. In fact, when we define the term correctly, we must face and address the sinful parts of our faith's history.

For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained. Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. And I could not in good conscious tell a friend about a faith that didn't excite me. I couldn't share something I wasn't experiencing. And I wasn't experiencing Christianity...It felt like math, a system of rights and wrongs and political beliefs, but it wasn't mysterious; it wasn't God reaching out of heaven to do wonderful things in my life... [Page 115-116]

If Christian spirituality "can...not be explained", then why write a 240 page book about it? I couldn't, in good conscious, tell a friend about a faith I couldn't explain, either. There are aspects of the Christian life that are subjective to one's own experience. If there is no experience of conversion, it makes no sense to say that conversion took place. Every good and honest theologian has experienced the Christian life, the difficulties and the blessings. There is no feeling in the world like that of knowing that you have been redeemed from your sin and that you stand approved and love in the sight of God. Before that feeling, there must be a inward experience of conviction, remorse, and dread due to sin, "Turn your wrath from me, a sinner." (Luke 18:13)

But, a good theology is not rooted in experience, rather it is meant to explain the experiences of the Christian life--to define what experiences are of God and which are not. To Miller, experience defines truth. Biblically, truth should define and qualify experience. To me, Miller is an intellectual and attempts to portray himself as an intellectual, but he embraces contradiction at many turns. We wants to tell his friends about an unexplainable faith. Belief is something that chooses us and something we choose. He tries to make fashionable a belief that is, by nature and his own admission, unfashionable. This is either anti-intellectualism or doublespeak to please all of his readers.

For the rest of the chapter, Don tells us of the time when he and his friends built a confession booth on Reed's campus during Ren Fayre, a festival in which the campus is shut down and the students party to their hearts' content. Anything goes, too. Sex, drugs, binge drinking, all sorts of stuff. The confession booth is not what you may think, though. The booth is for Miller and his friends to confess the sins of the church to the students at Reed. An interesting idea, but it bothers me that he feels obligated to apologize on behalf of the Christian faith in order to share his faith. I understand the need to break the ice, but this is not the way. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see preachers and evangelists apologizing on behalf of those Jews who got things wrong about the Messiah. This approach to win converts is to make the unbeliever feel good about the Christian faith, not to make unbeliever aware of his sin and understand his need for God's provision.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 9 and 10

Chapter 9 is titled "Change." In this chapter, Miller discusses his transformation from a fundamentalist variety of Christianity to one that is more "personal" and "authentic"--the time in which he made his true commitment to Jesus Christ. Miller paints a nice picture with his words concerning his experience in the Grand Canyon, under the vast amounts of stars, making his peace with God.

However, the interesting part for me came at the end of the chapter.

As I lay there, it occurred to me that God is up there [beyond the stars in the sky] somewhere...this time I felt it, I realized it, the way a person realizes that they are hungry or thirsty. The knowledge of God seeped out of my brain and into my heart. I imagined Him looking down to this earth, half angry because his beloved mankind had cheated on Him, had committed adultery, and yet hopelessly in love with her, drunk with love for her...

...I am wanted by God. He is wanting to preserve me...

To describe God as "drunk with love" more than bothers me. To me, this sentiment makes God seem emotionally out of control. God's actions are not driven by emotion. If this is Miller's "knowledge of God", then He doesn't know the God of the Bible very well. God is not "in love" with creation. Matter a fact, God is more than "half-angry"; He is wrathful. To say that God is "in love" transforms God's love from something that is expressed in selfless action to that which is expressed in mere romantic feelings. Such romanticism may make the reader have warm fuzzies, but it does not express God's hostility, wrath, and judgment towards sin. A depraved sinner has little problem believing in a God who overlooks sin, but only those sinners convicted by God's grace accept a God whose holy (a word yet to be discussed by Miller) love still demands a propitiation for sin...

Miller opens chapter 10 like this:

My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I really don't do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care.

This is one of the most arrogant and judgmental statements in the entirety of the book (besides the consistent stabs at Republicans). The now all-wise Miller dismisses--in a mere half-paragraph--the need of a field of study that generations of brilliant Christians have devoted their entire lives to: apologetics. Augustine, Anselm, Pascal, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Van Til, Clark, Ravi Zacharias (a name mentioned favorably by Miller later in the book), and a host of others all have wasted their mental capacities in demonstrating that they are smarter than the atheists. Of course they had no genuine devotion of Christ--as least not a strong as Miller's.

Honestly, I wanted to stop the book review at this point. This run-on sentence is completely irresponsible and hypocritical--the smugness of the tone implied that he was smarter than those whom he was critiquing.

...I realized that believing in God is much like falling in love as it is like making a decision. Love is both something that happens to you and something you decide upon.

This is the definition of synergism without using theological terms. There are many astute theologians (Norman Geisler, for example) that are synergists; they believe that conversion is the result of a cooperation of the human will with the divine. If the human will does not cooperate, there is no conversion. I am a monergist; I hold that the human will cannot cooperate with the divine influence, unless the divine manifests a change within the obstinate heart of the human being. Ultimately, conversion is the result of God's providential influence over the heart of the sinner--not the sinner's cooperation.

According to Miller, belief is something that "happens to you" [the divine will] and something "you decide upon" [the human will]. To justify this theology, Miller cites no Scripture, no astute theologian; only anecdotal evidence based solely in his experience as a Christian.

Can you imagine if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue them from the pit of their own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half of the world was living in poverty? Do you think it would change they way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? [Page 106-107]

God is not trying to rescue us from "the pit our own self-addiction." God does not try to do anything--He does all He intends to do (Isaiah 46:10). He does not need us to cooperate in order to rescue us, and when He does rescue us, He saves us from the pits of a fiery and eternal hell!

Don, I forgive you for the shameless liberal plug in the second half of this excerpt--even though it is a non-sequitur.

The problem with Christian belief--I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God and a devil and a heaven and a hell--is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe. [Page 107]

Miller then goes on to criticize the attempts of the church to make Christian belief to seem cool--which to me completely undermines a purpose of this book. The whole book is an attempt to make Christianity seem more appealing to his audience--to make it seem exciting, cool, and something that agrees with the political left. Yet again, Miller comes off as a hypocritical to me, and if I were an unbeliever, I would not only think this repackaged Christianity as uncool, but dishonest as well. Kudos on finally mentioning hell, though. It's about time.

All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew [an activist friend of his who is known for protesting conservative politics] doesn't cloak his altruism in a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says to feed the poor, He means that you should do this directly.

More conservative caricatures. Most evangelical Christians who are politically conservative, that loathsome Religious Right, are so because of moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and gay-marriage--not for economical issues. Most of them don't even know what trickle-down economic theory is. Some do. However, contrary to Miller's stereotype, when compared to any demographic in the nation, this group gives more in direct charitable contributions to churches and organizations that give to the poor--both in numbers and percentages of annual income. They are extremely generous on the whole--save the prosperity theologians. Honestly, these subtle condemnations of Republican Christians are too numerous--and I needed to get this off my chest. I promise to stick to theology from now on.

From here Miller makes some great points: Miller criticizes postmodernity (although he seems a bit post-modern in his theology). It's "another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing." Agreed. On the last page of Chapter 10, Miller tells us, "Jesus is the most important figure in history, and the gospel is the most powerful force in the universe." Again, agreed. However, what is the gospel? What gives the gospel it's power? These questions Miller has not clearly answered.

James White Answered One of my Questions...

I am honored to have James White, a well known Christian apologist and Reformed theologian, answer a question I submitted to him on his radio broadcast. Here is a link to the recording, and he answers my question starting at 18:43. (18 min and 33 seconds).

As I was reading Matthew, I came across this in 11:20-23:

20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."

Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I am Reformed in my theology, and have been so since 2002. I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture supports the Calvinist position, and I have heard few credible arguments against it--and no "unanswerable" ones.

However, there are times that I come across verses that seem to support the opposing position. The first "point" of Calvinism is Total Depravity, which describes humankind as completely fallen and depraved in nature. His inclination is always toward sin and rebellion, and because of this nature, man has not the ability to choose God on his own. Left to his own devices and given a choice between himself, an idol, or God, God would never be his choice.

I noticed that an implication could be drawn from the passage above that undermine the doctrine of Total Depravity. So I sent James White this email:

As a Calvinist, I have a question about Matthew 11:23..[Citation of the Verse]...and its implication on Reformed Theology, particularly Total Depravity. I've heard Reformed preachers say that it shows that God does not intend for all to be saved, which I agree with, I see that it demonstrates that God chose not to show them such mighty works and not give them the opportunity to repent.

However, if an opponent of Reformed theology were to use this verse in connection to Total Depravity--not necessarily God's election--and argue the verse in this manner:

"This verse implies that man is not totally depraved, for Jesus even said that if the people of Sodom would have seen his works, they would have believed--implying that they have the ability to believe."

How would you respond?

I haven't personally recieved this objection, but I as I was reading this verse, I noticed that it could be taken in such a way.

Thanks.

Brent Railey, Baton Rouge, LA

Dr. White's response was quite lengthy, about 7 minutes, and it was quite good. It was the approach I would have taken with my deficient ability to analyze the Greek, and the approach is called the Analogy of Faith--let Scripture interpret Scripture. No Scripture should ever be interpreted in isolation to a point that it is contrary to the general teaching of the Bible. Essentially, the opponent has tried to unpack the assumptions behind Jesus' words, and has not done a good job of it.

I know that there aren't cookie cutter answers for every Arminian verse in the Bible, and I wasn't looking for one. I only wanted to see if I was overlooking something obvoius in the text. The overall concern of the text is the proclamation of judgment. Christ makes a comparison of the Jewish cities to those of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and Christ deemed it important to tell them that those cities would have repented had they seen Christ's works. Hence, because the Jews were more hardened, they face harsher judgment.

The works of Christ are not the works of a mere man--they are the work of God. Christ said that it would have taken a work of God to penetrate the hearts of those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and cause them to repent. Without them, they obviously didn't repent. Hence, there is no implied ability in this text, or else Christ would have said "some did believe all on their own." In fact, there is an equal, if not a heavier, implication that it would have required a work on God's part to cause those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent.

Even if the above implication [that man has the ability to repent] were true, the opposing postion has not gained any ground on this passage. If God intends and desires all to be saved, why didn't God show Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom his mighty works?

Why "Seeker Sensitive" Does Not Work...

...If by work one means eternal accomplishment. Yeah, it might draw in fantastic crowds and fill the heart with warm fuzzy wuzzies, but "seeker sensitive" pragmatism fails on one of its primary assumptions: the seeker knows his true needs.

Modern day seeker sensitive practices can trace some roots back the pragmatic revivalist movement that began in the 1800s, pioneered by a heretic named Charles Finney.

On this post at www.oldtruth.com, Jim cites Ichabod Spencer's (a contemporary to the mid 1800s) comments on the revivalist movement. My favorite part:

It is better to trouble his conscience, than to please his heart. A convicted sinner is the last person in the world to judge justly, in regard to the kind of instruction he needs. He will seize error more readily than truth, and if his tastes are consulted, his soul will be endangered. In consulting such tastes lies the cunning art deceivers, who lead crowds to admire them, and run after them, and talk of them, while they care not for the truth, "deceiving and being deceived."

Decisions Always Have Consequences

A couple of years ago, I was listening to a radio program on a New Orleans radio station (it could have been a syndicated show) featuring a guest "relationship expert." On this show, a young lady called in seeking advice in her current relationship. She was cohabitating with a man and she wanted to marry him, but he kept refusing. This "relationship expert's" advice was to "get pregnant."

I was completely shocked at the selfishness of this advice. My first thought was, what if that doesn't work, then she is stuck pregnant and alone--and now there are three people involved in the dilemma, not just two. What is she supposed to do, abort? To use a pregnancy to manipulate another person to commit to a relationship is beyond selfish--it foolish depravity without the slightest foresight of the consequences to all those who would be involved.

Last year, my step-brother, who is truly a compassionate liberal seeking to better society through noble causes, asked my advice in an unusual circumstance. He and his wife wanted to adopt an African-American baby, and our shared family was not to excited about that. When he called, he seemed intent on doing it despite the prejudices of our family, simply because he and his wife wanted a child and they wanted to make a statement to both family and society. While I agreed that the cause is noble and such prejudices shouldn't exist, I appealed to the child's perspective. The prejudices do exist and will bring unusual difficulties to parenting that wouldn't otherwise exist. I asked my step-brother if he was prepared to handle the difficulties in raising a black child being white parents, to answer the questions, to comfort the child when he will be teased for having "white parents." I asked if they were prepared to help this child in his or her impending identity crisis, being a black raised by white parents of a wholly different culture with the likelihood of isolation by those of his own race. I noted that the child does not have a choice in participating in my step-brother's cause. I also said that despite our family's prejudices, this child will become a part of it, and he would be choosing for that child a life of great familial tensions that would also not exist if the child were not black.

Unlike the foolish "relationship expert" above, out of compassion, my step-brother decided not to go through with the adoption and place a child in a preventable and difficult circumstance.

Today, I read a great article on the Washington Post (found through this post at Slice of Laodicea). It shows the incredible lack of foresight on the part of the feminist movement in intentional single motherhood. It is quite touching and a great find, and it show how selfish people can be when they consider having children, forgetting to consider the cost of their decision to conceive or adopt on the child. We are called to procreate, if able to do so--but we are also called to sacrifice our own selfishness in considering the prospect of children.

Good Article on Emergent Movement

Dr. John MacArthur has begun a series called "Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture". In this article, Dr. MacArthur discusses McLaren's hesitancy to make any theological assertion with any certainty--which implies that he does not believe the Scripture to be clear in revealing God's nature and purposes.

For those of you who have heard of the emergent movement and have questions about it, this is a good starting point.

To deny the clarity of Scripture (by criticizing those who are certain in their beliefs about God), is to undo one of the principal arguments of the Protestant Reformation. If it were not for the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, we would not have translations of the Bible in our own language to read for ourselves. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church held that biblical interpretation could only be done by the clergy, it did not belong in the hands of the laity. They never translated the Scriptures out of Latin to the languages of their consituency--and never let them read it for themselves.

Luther and many, many other Reformers held that the Scriptures, by the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit, are clear to all believers, and it was the believer's responsibility--if he could read--to search the Scriptures for themselves. Hence their drive the translate the Scriptures into the language of the people...all of it driven by a dogmatic conviction of the perspecuity of God's Word.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 6 - 8

The title of chapter 6 is "Redemption." I was hoping for some discussion of the theology of Redemption (I know this is not a theology book, but even in devotional and inspirational reads, theological concepts are dealt with on a consistent basis). One would think a chapter titled "Redemption" would include a discussion of the purchase that took place at Calvary, but Miller doesn't discuss it at all. It wasn't his intention: The chapter began with the experience of redemption, but never discussed its mechanics, and ended with the struggle with sin for the believer.

Some of the content was good. I loved the honesty about the struggle of sin after conversion, and I appreciated his candid discussion of the particular vices with which he struggled. Conversion does not make the believer sinless. In fact, it amplifies the struggle to level unknown before. Before conversion, the new believer was unaware as to how sinful he truly was. After conversion, God's holy love reveals to us the innermost depths of our sin for the rest of our life. It can be most despairing, to say the least, in the midst of such struggle with sin.

On page 60, Don tells us, "Joy is a temporal thing. Its brief capacity, as reference, gives it its pleasure." Biblical joy is never meant to be a temporal thing, for it rests in the grace and everlasting promises of God to his creatures. Moreover, Miller seems define every Christian experience in merely subjective and emotional terms. Faith is "something we feel." Joy is compared to a new couple "feeling" in love.

The closing paragraph of chapter 6 is one that I empathized with:

My answer to this dilemma [of loving to do sinful things] was self-discipline. I figured that I could just make myself do good things, think good thought about other people, but that was no easier than walking up to a complete stranger and falling in love with them. I could go through the motions for a while, but sooner or later my heart would testify to its true love: darkness. Then I would get up and try again. The cycle was dehumanizing.

This was a nice a segue into the next chapter [7], titled "Grace." At the beginning of this chapter, Don discusses his experience as a "fundamentalist." Then he discusses the experience of his pastor's similar experience. This is the first time that Miller mentions the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. [Page 82] It was mentioned during Miller's telling of his pastor's conversion experience--but it was mentioned as a part of the story with no explanation as to its necessity. From this point on, I get a confusing message as to what the grace of God is. Miller does not describe God's grace as necessary for conversion, and he never describes grace in terms of our complete unworthiness of it. Although he does asks himself, "Who am I to think myself above God's charity?" [Page 85], not once does he say that he is completely undeserving of God's charity. He does imply that it can't be earned, but that is something entirely different than saying that man deserves the opposite of charity and love: condemnation.

On the final page of the chapter, we get an interesting message from Miller as to what enables us to love God.

...Rick loves God because he accepts God's unconditional love first.

Rick says that I will love God because he first loved me. I will obey God because I love God. But if I cannot accept God's love, I cannot love Him in return, and I cannot obey him...The ability to accept God's unconditional grace and ferocious love is all the fuel we need to obey Him in return...God woos us with kindness, He changes our character with the passion of His love.

From whence does this ability to accept God' grace and love come? Is it something within the capacity of fallen humanity to do? In reference to Ephesians 2:1-10, Can the dead in sin raise themselves to life? From this, I must assume that Miller thinks that man must enable himself to love God by accepting the free gift of grace. However, biblically speaking, the acceptance of grace by faith is a part to the grace itself. Apart from God's calling, we could neither experience nor desire his grace.

Let me clarify: Is my ability to truly love and obey God contingent upon my ability to accept God's grace? Or, is my ability to accept, love, and obey wholly dependent on the grace of God in which He tames my rebellious heart even when I would not come. In Miller's theology, God apparently cannot change our character unless we let Him. Biblically, God must change our character for us to even trust Him.

Miller is correct in saying that our ability to obey God is wholly dependent on the grace of God--Miller is wrong in saying that accepting God's love is what grants this grace. In fact, accepting God's love is an act of obedience itself, so how can we do it apart from God's grace?

In chapter 8, Miller makes some of the strongest points of the book insofar--and he makes one of his strongest theological assertions yet. He discuss the Christian tendency to use God for their own ends and egos--instead of serving Him for his purposes. In a story in which he dialogues with Moses, Miller says this:

"Don," Moses responds, "...I want you to understand that God has never been nor ever will be invented. He is not a product of any sort of imagination. He does not obey trends. And God let us out of Egypt because you people cried out to Him. He was answering your prayers because He is a God of compassion. He could have left you to Satan. Don't complain about the way God answers your prayers....Your problem is no that God is not fulfilling, your problem is that you are spoiled." [Page 92]

Amen. Then we come to this:

...God is not here to worship me, to mold Himself into something that will help me fulfill my level of comfort.

Not much to more I could say. I only hope this is what Miller actually practices throughout the rest of the book, for the god he has presented so far is a god more of human imagination than revelation.

Update on Recent Events...

I will continue the Blue Like Jazz discussion this week. As for now, I am guest blogging with Jim B. of www.oldtruth.com discussing Michael Bronson's work on "Selective Salvation" at www.biblehelp.org. Here is the blog: http://nobiblehelp-org.blogspot.com/.

Also, my birthday is on Friday...I will be twe--well I'll be a year older ;-).

I'm Famous Again...

Well...not really.

This time I was linked by Melissa McNarma (that's what she gets for calling me "Brent Raily") at www.cbsnews.com.

I've gotten a little traffic from this link ;-).

UPDATE: She corrected my name, so I'll give you the correct spelling of her name: McNarama.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 5

Previous Reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4.

In chapter five, titled "Faith", Miller expresses his understanding of faith. This was a difficult chapter for me to understand--and I think that was Miller's intention. He apparently does not want every theological issue in this book to make sense. In remembering further conversation with a friend, Laura, Miller tells us:

I had no explanation [as to why Miller believes] for Laura. I don't think there is an explanation. My belief in Jesus did not seem rational or scientific, and yet there was nothing I could do to separate myself from this belief. I think Laura was look for something rational, because she believed that all things that were true were rational. But that isn't the case. Love, for example, is a true emotion, but it is not rational. What I mean is, people actually feel it. I have been in love, plenty of people have been in love, yet love cannot be proved scientifically. Neither can beauty. Light cannot be proved scientifically, and yet we all believe in light and by light see all things. There are plenty of things that are true that don't make any sense. I think one of the problems Laura was having was that she wanted God to make sense. He doesn't. He will make no more sense to me than I will make sense to an ant. [Page 54, emphases mine]

Miller then goes on to explain faith using the illustration of penguin mating rituals. They have an innate sense as to what to do in order to procreate. To Miller, is faith is an innate sense to believe Jesus:

...They have this radar inside them that told them when and where to go and none of it made any sense, but they show up on the very day their babies are being born, and the radar always turns out to be right. I have a radar inside me that says to believe in Jesus. Somehow, penguin radar leads them perfectly well. Maybe it isn't so foolish that I follow the radar that is inside of me. [Page 57]

Miller does not believe that the workings of faith can be explained. It is a mystery--inexplicable, yet "beautiful and true." Faith is "something you feel, and it comes from the soul." [Page 57]

I don't know where to start in the analysis of this chapter. I assume from this chapter that an analysis of faith would be ridiculous to Miller. So much of Miller's perspective on love and faith and the groundings of them have been exposed in this chapter, but it's so amorphous it's difficult to determine a starting point. I'll start with a comparison of Miller's presentation of faith with that of biblical terms.

To me, Miller seems to have contradicted himself at this point. In chapter 3, the climax of a person's story is his "decision" to follow Christ. In chapter 5, Miller was compelled internally to believe. "There are things that you choose to believe, and there are beliefs that choose you. [Belief in Jesus] is one that chose me." [Page 55] Which is it? Also, I am quite uncomfortable with the emotional orientation of his explanation of faith. That is not a biblical explanation of it. Faith is neither an emotion nor a feeling (neither is biblical love for that matter), but something that is lived. Feelings come and go; that is why I can't stand the "in love" analogy above. Everyday, people abandon marriages because they are no longer "in love." Faith and love are both lived commitments, lived even when it is not felt. It is a trust and reliance upon Christ--and in Him alone. Faith is both objective [as in definable] and subjective [as in experienced], and the experience of faith is mysterious.

However, the reason faith is mysterious is not due to it being inexplicable, but due to the amazing fact that people believe at all. If God were not to move in the hearts of men and draw them, no one would believe. Not one person. Not me, not you. That is the mystery--our faith is of God and He has given it to us (Eph 2:8-9) when we could not believe of ourselves--and he didn't give it do us because we wanted it or searched for it, because we didn't. We may have been wanting or searching, but it was not for a belief in the true and living God. We were looking for an idol to worship. Had God not come to us, we would be worshipping ourselves or an image of God that is creaturely rather than a sovereign Creator. Our innate instinct as fallen creatures is to disbelieve God.

The Bibles does explain why people believe, and it does so quite clearly. This "cause" of faith is not some mysterious, innate instinct; it's God's working in our hearts and drawing us to Himself by an inward calling. (John 6:37-40, 44, 65; John 10:1ff [Christ calls His sheep by name, people do not believe because they are not of His sheep]; Ephesians 2:5ff; 1 Corinthians 12:3; among others) Faith is a trust, assurance, and hope in something not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Miller tells us that God doesn't make any sense. However, if Miller believes the Bible to be true, and if he believes that God is its source, then why does God go through such great lengths to explain Himself? Why even speak to us if we can't understand it? Bible study would be a fruitless endeavor if God makes no sense at all. What could we possibly learn of God if that were the case? Don't misunderstand me, The fullness of God thoughts and nature are unsearchable and beyond our comprehension--but that doesn't mean that God makes no sense at all. I hope this is what Miller is trying to say.

Blue Like Jazz - Chapter 3 and 4

Review of chapter 2.

I enjoy Miller's style of writing, and I can see why many people can relate to this book. His tone is personal and seemingly honest. His metaphors illustrate his points quite well. I can identify with the disconnect people feel when trying to understand Christianity from a contemporary perspective, especially when so much of Christianity's traditions are so antiquated--and no one knows why they are taught or done.

In chapter 3, we get a glimpse into why Donald Miller felt so disconnected with typical evangelical Christianity. In fact, I felt a whole hearted "amen" when he discussed some church practices and attitudes:

I associated much of Christian doctrine with children's stories because I grew up in church. My Sunday School teachers had turned Bible narrative into children's fables. They talked about Noah and the ark because the story had animals in it. They failed to mention that this was when God massacred all of humanity.

It also confused me that some people would look at parts of the Bible but not the whole thing. They ignored a lot of obvious questions. I felt as if Christianity, as a religious system, was a product that kept falling apart, and whoever was selling it would hold the broken part behind his back trying to divert everyone's attention... [Page 30]

I couldn't give myself to Christianity because it was a religion for the intellectually naive... [Page 31]

Miller is more than just right here.

Evangelicals, pretty much on the whole, have abandoned an intellectual engagement of Scripture. I understand that not everyone is an intellectual (that is not to say that they aren't smart), but when the church fails to engage her mind with the Scripture, she cannot possibly derive answers to the most pertinent questions facing humanity today. In fact, the much of "Christianity" is rightly mocked by the world because it is truly incoherent silliness. The church has failed in her responsibility to teach her members how to think, because she is to busy trying to spoon-feed her members what to think. I can agree with Miller wholeheartedly here.

Miller then uses the elements of a story--using his life story--to explain what his understanding of the gospel: setting, conflict, climax, and resolution. Setting: America, on earth, in a room of a house with roommates. Conflict: "The rebellion against God explained why humans experienced conflict in their lives..." Climax and Resolution:

Climax is where a point of decision determines the end of the story...If the human heart uses the tools of reality to create the elements of story...this means that climax, the point of decision, could very well be something that exists in the universe. What I mean is that there is a decision the human heart needs to make...Christianity offered a decision, a climax. It also offered a good and bad resolution. In part, our decisions were instrumental to the way our story turned out.

...I would always hate hearing about [big-haired preachers demanding a decision to follow or reject Christ] because it seemed so entirely unfashionable a thing to believe, but it did explain things. Maybe these unfashionable ideas were pointing to something mystical and true. And, perhaps, I was judging the idea, not by its merits, but by the fashionable or unfashionable delivery of the message. [Pages 32-33]

Before I come across as over-critical (which I very much can be), I credit Miller with the attempt to make the gospel relevant here. What troubles me is that he loses the essential parts of the gospel message in the attempt to be relevant. I'm nearly fifty pages into this book, and all I've learned of Christ is that He was the Son of God, became a man, an he loved people. I've yet to hear of His cross or His suffering for our sake.

Our sin nature brings more than just conflict--it also brings condemnationbefore God. Moreover, the rejection of Christ brings more than a "bad resolution." It means that one remains guilty of the sin he has committed and faces the penalty for it. Moreover, does the Bible say that fallen man has it within himself to choose to follow Christ? John 6:44 and 6:65 tell us that in order for a man to come to Christ, it must be granted by the Father, and the Father must draw him. John 10 says that only the sheep hear the voice of Christ and follow him. Acts 11:18 and 2 Timothy 2:24-26 say that repentance must be granted.

What also troubles me is that the analogy (and message) is man-centered. (I say this knowing that many are won by such presentations, but this book is used by many as a means for "Bible study.") My story a teeny-tiny part of a larger history that God is bringing to fruition. It should be this: Setting: the entire scope time and creation. Conflict: the Fall of man and his resulting inability to seek God. Climax: the cross and resurrection of Christ. Resolution: the salvation of his people by means of the atonement of Christ--and the judgment of the lost. The gospel, pure and biblical.

In chapter 4, Miller explains his decision to audit a Greek lit class at Reed College, one the most hostile, anti-Christian campuses on the North American continent. Again we get a glimpse into Miller's understanding of a typical evangelical church:

At the time I was attending this large church in the suburbs. It was like going to church at the Gap. I don't know why I went there. I didn't fit. I had a few friends, though, very nice people, and when I told that I wanted to audit classes at Reed they looked at me as if I wanted to date Satan. One friend sat me down and told me all about the place, how they have a three-day festival at the end of the year in which the run around naked. She said some of the students probably use drugs. She told me God did not want me to attend Reed College. [Page 38]

If this is Miller's experience with church, I understand why he thinks the way he does. Those of us who attend Southern Baptist churches can relate to this...but it is typically done by little old ladies with the best of intentions. However, I too get frustrated when people tell me what God wants me to do with my life--as if they are more spiritual than I and can receive special revelations from God. Specific to Miller's experience here: Didn't God want Jonah to go into Nineveh, the most pagan place on earth at that time?

Miller then discusses a friendship with girl name Laura. He met her on Reed's campus, and she was an atheist. He saw her heart and her passion for people. Then Miller goes on to say:

I could sense very deeply that God wanted a relationship with Laura. Ultimately, I believe that God loves and wants a relationship with every human being, but with Laura I could feel God's urgency. [Page 41]

First, This seems a bit hypocritical for Miller to say this, when he had just made a girl at a suburban church look like an idiot for speaking on God's behalf just three pages earlier. She might have felt "God's urgency" to tell Miller not go to Reed. Second, and most importantly, we have the issue of a weak god I discussed when I announced that I'd review the book. In Miller's theology, God desires to have relationship with everyone, but refuses to do anything about it other than wait on us. He hopes that we might come, but doesn't necessarily cause to happen. It's totally up to us to be saved--and the wiser, less depraved, and more worthy ones of us are the ones who accept. It is ultimately human attribute and ability that brings about salvation.

To paraphrase Spurgeon, it if were God's intention to save everyone, how sorely disappointed He must be. In Miller's theology, God provided the means to be saved, but He cannot possibly take credit for anyone's conversion-- for it is man's decision that causes it.

Throughout the rest of chapter 4, Miller chronicles his time at Reed, meeting the Christians at Reed (a secretive bunch), and discussed the conversion of a girl named Penny. What I liked about this narrative is that it demonstrated that God's grace extends to people of all sorts--even hippie drug-addicted smokers like Penny. God saves the most outrageous of sinners--Paul was one of them. My disappointment is that by the end of chapter 4, the cross of Christ is still MIA (Missing in Action).

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 2

Last night, I read the first few chapters of Blue Like Jazz--chapters 1-4. I must say that it has been an interesting read insofar.

On the positive, it enlightens the reasons that many Christians feel disenfranchised from rank-n-file evangelicalism. He discusses the tendency of evangelicals to avoid intellectual engagement of theology and the reading of Scripture, and the tendency of us evangelicals to ignore serious social problems that face both our nation and world. Politically, Donald Miller is obviously liberal, with an apparent disdain for the Republican party (see pages 18-19, 43, 46), and that perspective must be taken into account since most evangelicals tend to be politically conservative (which seems to bother Miller). It certainly correlates to the disconnect Don felt with church and his tainted concept of a typical evangelical Christian.

The image of the typical Christian that Don has portrayed so far (as of the end of chapter 4) is not very positive. In fact, it is rather stereotypical--along the lines of the world's portrayal of Christians. Much of it is deserved (the hypocrisy), much of it is not (the pigeonholing).

Chapter 2

In this chapter, Miller discusses his realization of mankind being "flawed." He recounts the way he felt when he heard of the mass genocides taking place in Africa, and he also recounts a few conversations he had with friends--conversations about the necessity of cops and having to teach children to be good (but not to be bad). He then remembers the realization of his own "self-addiction." Miller is on to the truth here. However, his formulation of "flawed" humanity is completely from personal observation. His explanation is only in terms of observed evil, not from the revelation of Scripture. Because of this, Miller stops short of the complete, biblical truth of human depravity.

The most common form used to describe the human condition is flawed. Twice in chapter 2 he uses the term depravity, and once perverse. He doesn't use the word rebellion until chapter 3. However, Millers usage of the stronger terms--and even the term sin--is weakened by the context of their usage. He recalls a conversation with "Tony the deat poet":

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."

Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."

"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe." [Page 17, emphasis mine]

In this book, Donald Miller is documenting a spiritual journey, and in the context of this excerpt, he is at the beginning of his realization of the "flaw" in humankind. The bolded sentence does not reflect the biblical teaching of the sin nature in Scripture--and I hope that Miller moves from this position on the sin nature of man later in this documented journey. Here, humankind is presented as a little broken, flawed, perhaps a little perverse and depraved--but there is still good in him. A theology of man that is grounded in a view as this can only lead to a salvation based on human attribute, effort, or merit.

Biblically, we aren't just broken and flawed, but we are in outright rebellion against God, self-seeking, dead in our trespasses and sins, enemies of God, and deserving of the dreaded word (*gasp*) judgment. We have no desire to please or know God--he is our enemy and we are his. Understanding any spiritual truth (including the gospel) is outside of our spiritual capacity, for we are slaves to sin. This is the scriptural presentation of the human condition--we aren't broken, we are dead. (Isaiah 53:6a; Psalm 14, 53; John 8:34, 12:37-40; Romans 1:18-3:23, 5:10 (enemies of God), 6:20-23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-18; Colossian 1:21; many others)

...It is hard for us to admit that we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished...It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.

People all over the world, regardless of who governs them, innately cannot admit to their true sinful state, not because of checks and balances, but because of their own self-deceit. That the point in Romans 1:18ff: mankind willfully suppresses the knowledge of God and his statutes and makes for himself gods that are more like him. This is what we do by nature. The founders of the U.S., both Christians and theists--many of whom were Reformed--did understand that man's soul is depraved. They documented it: "There is no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," said John Adams. Moreover, this depravity exists in all men, even when being watched. Depravity is not based on action and works--it is the condition of the human heart, watched or unwatched.

At the end of chapter 2, this little sentence intrigued me: "I think every well-adjusted human being has dealt squarely with his or her own depravity." I have no idea of what Miller means by this. What defines a "well-adjusted human being"? What does he mean in saying that they have dealt squarely with their own depravity? The Scripture tells us that the unbelievers have not dealt squarely (which I assume to mean addressed) with the depravity within, but have swept it under the rug and ignored it. The have filed it into the darkest area of their mind so that it no longer bothers them.

The average unbeliever has no problem admitting to not being perfect, or perhaps being a little flawed. The offence of the unbeliever comes when the gospel of Christ tells him that he is totally unworthy of God's love and that he will face judgment apart from Christ. Moreover, this offence is compounded when the unbeliever is told that Jesus is the only way. Insofar, this has been absent in Miller's explanation of the "PROBLEMS" of humanity. Miller seems to want to bring discomfort, but not offence. I hope my further reading persuades me otherwise.

Science and Religion

Cody Willhite, a good friend of both me and my wife, asked me to facilitate discussions for the SCMA at LSU (A pre-medical students' Christian organization). The topic was Medical Ethics ( a nice and narrow subject matter, of which I am the most knowledgeable person in Baton Rouge ;-) ). I've had a wonderful time interacting with brilliant college students on some heavy issues. In our first couple of meetings, we discussed the ability of the scientific method to arrive at any truth, much less metaphysical or moral truth.

Today, Albert Mohler posted some commentary on a New York Times article (reader comments to article) he read that covered a recent conference at a California University known as, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival." These rabid scientists have more than a little hostility toward us minions that have faith--which of course is something they apparently do not have. Below are some of the brilliant moments of this intellectual feast:

"The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief." [Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics]

I'd like to know how Weinberg can call religious belief a nightmare. That term is a pejorative, a term intended to belittle his opponent and it's hardly scientific in its usage. It's also loaded with moral value, for nightmares are bad things that scare us--and they aren't real. I'd like to know what empirical evidence Weinberg has that justifies using nightmare as a metaphor.

"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization." [Weinberg]

Anything? This isn't science--it's ethics. In fact, it is a utilitarian ethic (the ends justify the means, provided that it is for the greater good). The problem is: what is good? Does science have the means to determine the moral or ethical value or worth of any claim or assertion? What is assumed here is that religion is bad and science is good--but the scientific method cannot test this assumption, so it's something Weinberg accepts without "reason" to accept--he "believes" this, but he cannot "know" this by means of the scientific method.

"We should let the success of the religious formula guide us. Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- and even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." [Carolyn Porco, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO]

How can Porco know that the universe is "rich" or "beautiful" or that the story of the universe is "glorious" or "awesome"? These are subjective, aesthetic claims, not "objective", scientific ones. The terms rich, beautiful, glorious, and awesome are placing value and worth on the universe, but she has no means of deriving this value other than her subjective feelings. How does one scientifically determine that the universe is beautiful? One ought to be able to do this in order to mandate telling our children of her beauty in a secular worldview.

"I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion . . . . Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence." [Richard Dawkins, Oxford University]

Question, Dr. Dawkins. What knowledge, other than her methods, has science actually brought us? Each and every conclusion about any scientific subject is tentative at best--likely to be replaced within a few years with better explanation that fits the later evidence we may obtain. Science claims to be on a quest for truth, but what truths have science brought us? What we know now by means of the scientific method is an estimate at best, and when this current "knowledge" is replaced by a better one, is it still truth or knowledge? Knowledge by means of "real evidence" will change when the evidence becomes better. I offer that that the conclusions of science are not a knowledge of truth.

Update on BLJ Review...

I've finally recieved my copy of Millers' Blue Like Jazz. I will be making periodic reviews in the coming weeks.

Nothing Says...

..."I want my inheritance" any better than getting your parents a McDonald's gift card for Christmas.

That was my first thought after seeing a TV ad for them a couple of days ago.

How Times Have Changed...

It's only been five years since I've graduated college, but how times have changed in these short years...

Sunday, after church, Laura and I ran into a friend of hers who is still in college. She was speaking on her cell phone, and what I heard speaks for itself...

"Tell Casey to leave me a message on FaceBook."

[Pause...]

"What? What do you mean she doesn't have FaceBook? Everyone has FaceBook!"

I laughed for at least a literal two minutes...

Blue Like Jazz

Note: Click links to view more recent reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5.

Over the last year, I've heard the mention of a book Blue Like Jazz on several occasions. I was invited via email once to a study on it, and several other times, I've heard the mention or recommendation of it. It's author is Donald Miller, from Portland OR, and he is associated with a growing (actually, it's now a rather large) movement called "emergent." In fact, when you look up the book onBarnes and Noble, the other books associated to the purchase of this book are all by emergent/emerging church authors of the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell (who is a favorite among emergents, but to my knowledge has not publicly associated himself with the emergent movement).

It's not hard to find criticism of these emergent authors. Slice of Laodicea and Apprising Ministries are two Internet blogs that are often critical of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. What is frustrating about these sites is that it is difficult for me to know how honest the criticism is. It some cases the information is obviously third-hand. The writer at Apprising Ministries cites excepts of the authors, or random quotes, and critiques them, but it's hard for me to see that the citations are truly heresy or a poorly formed explanation--which all ministers have been guilty of doing at some point. I know I've poorly worded explanations in my writings and sermons, and they were understood to mean something that I did not mean.

I now intend on getting the book Blue Like Jazz, to both analyze it and critique it--simply because this book is the most read of the emergent books among the evangelical churches here in Baton Rouge.

I did find an article by asecular [Warning: there are a couple of cuss word in this link] writer local to the Portland area who interviewed Donald Miller. There were two sections of the article that interested me:

Some of Miller's critics go after him for theological reasons. Vince Bissey, the Missouri Presbyterian who vehemently criticized Blue Like Jazz, believes Miller gets the Bible dead wrong when he writes, for example, that "something inside me…caused Him to love me." Bissey, who's entering seminary training next year, believes God loves humanity despite humanity's total lack of worthiness. "I really believe there can only be one correct view," he says.

And later:

As different as Miller is from the stereotypical evangelical, make no mistake: Miller's no poseur.

At Starbucks, after I close my notebook, Miller looks at me. "So you've been talking to people, working on your stories," he says. "Has anyone explained to you what the Gospel is?"

I say, no, not in so many words.

"I could give you the sales pitch," he says. "Because maybe, who knows, 10 years down the road…"

Then Miller proceeds, in the most low-key and friendly way, to explain that God loves me, wants to have a relationship with me-and, for that matter, everyone. The relationship was damaged in the Garden, but Christ came to earth to fix it. The invitation, Miller says, is always open.

If Miller does say in Blue Like Jazz, "Something inside of me...caused [God] to love me," then He is treading dangerous waters. From a biblical standpoint, there is no basis to say such a thing in any context, save the context of arguing against it. To say that God loves me because of something about/inside me is to say that God's love is based on human merit or attribute. Biblically, God's love is rooted in God's character, not my attributes. God loves his people because God is love, not because man is worth loving.

Miller's gospel presentation to Zach Dundas [the Portland journalist] is indicative of a watered down, human-centered, theology that is rampant in evangelical Christianity. Read that second excerpt again. I've made gospel presentations almost identical to this before I really began to study the Scriptures. Now, my convictions do not permit me to tell an unbeliever that "God loves you." Moreover, it is clear in Miller's presentation that the center of God's affections in his theology is man. The Fall was not in God's purposes, so He sent Christ to "fix" the mess that man made. In essence, Christ is no more than a bandaid to help heal creation's wounds--to mitigate the damage of the Fall. He was not God's primary and eternal purpose in creation. The atonement was a God's reaction to the Fall, not God's predetermined purpose in revealing the glory of His nature to His people.

Be careful, because such a theology distorts true nature of God's sovereignty and devalues to Work of Christ to one of mere damage control. The distortion of God's sovereignty is not explicit in Miller's gospel presentation, but it is accessible. Think about these theological expression: "God wants a relationship with everyone, and the gospel invitation is always open." Who is ultimate control in this picture? If God has the power to do anything that pleases him, and if it pleases God to have a relationship with all men, then why isn't every man in a relationship with God? The god of this theology is a passive and waiting god, hoping that man will come around to realize the truth. The God of the Bible is a God who pursues and conquers the hearts of the men and women he desires to possess. This may seem distasteful to the likes of many evangelicals, but it is the portrait painted by the words of Scripture.

More on Blue Like Jazz to come when I get a chance to start reading it.

Roll out the Red Carpet--I'm Now Famous

Almost, but not really. It seems I've been blogspotted on TeamPyro for my last post.

(Confession: I tried to get blogspotted. My plan for world domination is working perfectly...)

On a Relative Note

The day after I put up my post titled "Conquering Doubt", Dan Phillips over at PyroManiacs posted an article titled "My night at the preachapalooza." In it, DJP tackled the same issue that I did from a different perspective.

Confidence is not something that rests in itself. No one is confident in something without reason, however rational or irrational that reason may be. No one is confident simply because they are confident; they are confident because they may have extensive knowledge on a subject matter, or because they are physically strong, or simply because they "have a good feeling about this."

Confidence is derived from a foundation, and this is especially so in spiritual matters. The imagery in Dan Phillip's revamped sermon introduction pictures this so perfectly:

I love to hike in the Sierra. One time recently I was on a hike, by myself. I had gone four or five miles back to a beautiful lake. Circling around to the back side of the lake, I took some pictures. Up the rocky shore, I saw a spot that looked like it would be a perfect vantage point for a great picture. So I started to make my way across the rocks to this spot -- when suddenly the bank gave away under my feet! The rocks tumbled and rolled, and so did I. In a flash, I found myself dunked in the lake.

I was fine, but what a terrible feeling it was. It's a terrible feeling to trust yourself to something, to put all your weight on it, confidently, and then find that it can't hold you. It's a terrible feeling when your support collapses from under you. It's a terrible feeling when the very ground gives way beneath you, and you fall.

To what shall we trust our souls? To whom? Who or what can bear our weight, the weight of our sin and guilt, of our immortal selves? If we trust our souls to any mere mortal, no matter how holy or saintly, no matter how godly -- they are sinners, too, and they cannot hold us. They will collapse. Joseph cannot hold us. He would collapse. Mary cannot save us. She would give way. No mere child of Adam can hold the weight of our sin and need. All would dissolve into rubble beneath us.

Only Jesus can support us. He shows us this in His cry from the Cross: It is finished!

Know well: this is no cry of despair. Jesus does not say, "I am finished." No, it is a cry of victory. The Greek tetelestai means that it has been brought to consummation, to perfect completion. The word was used of bills that had been "paid in full."

When our Lord cries thus on the Cross, He is signifying that He, He Himself, He alone in His own person, had fully paid every last farthing, every penny, of His people's debt to God. He had left nothing undone of what the Father's plan of salvation required. Alone, unaided, hanging on the cross, under the holy wrath of God for sinners, Jesus Christ made full atonement for all the sins of His people.

And now we believe Jesus, or we do not. If we look to "Jesus-and" -- to Jesus and our pastor, to Jesus and Mary, to Jesus and any other mortal or any other sect or any other practice or any other thing -- then we do not believe Jesus. We do not accept His word, "It is finished."

We must look to Jesus, to Jesus alone, for salvation. We must trust ourselves to the One who cried "It is finished!"

Again, confidence is derived from something--It must rest on something. It has to put its full weight upon something. I would offer this: To rest your confidence in anything other than Christ and his Work is to essentially tell Jesus, "No, it is not finished."

Conquering Doubt

Most true Christians have struggled at some point in their walk—especially in the times in which they constantly stumble and succumb to temptation—with doubt as to the reality of their salvation. I know I’ve been there, and I know my wife has been there as well. There is a reason for this: we are constantly, albeit unconsciously, inserting our merits and qualities into the work of salvation. You can see this is true in the questions we ask ourselves and the thoughts of our minds in our times of overwhelming doubt.

“Did I really commit my life to Christ?”
“Did I walk the aisle for the right reason?”
“I simply sin too much to be saved.”
“I do not do enough good things.”
“I certainly don’t have the Christian life that John or Sally has.”

Look at these typical thoughts of doubt. Analyze them. Think of the other contemplations you’ve had in times of doubt and analyze them.

In such thoughts, who is indicated as the object of our trust? I would offer that it is not Christ, but ourselves. When we have such thought of doubts, we are actually trusting in a commitment we have made, or perhaps a prayer we once prayed, or in the works of our hands to bear evidence to ourselves of our own salvation. We are not trusting on the unchanging, immutable promise of God manifested in his Word (and I mean both the Person of Christ and the Scripture).

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:19-30

This is one of my most favorite passages in all of the Bible, and it is one among many that helped me put away my struggle with doubt forever. Most of us who partake in an evangelical church, particularly Baptist, can quote Romans 3:23 by heart. However, that is the concluding remark and summarizing statement of a point that has taken Paul nearly three chapters to make: The purpose of the Law was to bring the knowledge of sin, and the all the world (and in this case world refers to all of its inhabitants) is guilty before God by the judgment of the Law. Romans 3:24 starts Paul's next point—redemption in Christ.

Look a the terms used in verses 24-26: justified, grace, redemption, propitiation, blood, faith, and righteousness. These words paint a picture of substitution—especially the word propitiation, which refers to an offering that becomes the object of God's wrath in the place of the offender. At Calvary, God made Jesus Christ, "who knew no sin to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) In the Greek, "for us" uses the term huper, which indicates that God made Christ to be sin on our behalf. As Spurgeon would put it: Christ became sin in our stead. God took the guilt of sin and placed it upon perfect and blameless Christ, and then He released his wrath toward sin upon Christ. Christ bore within Himself the penalty that was due us. He paid the price on our behalf.

His Work accomplished that which we ourselves could never accomplish.

How does this connect to the doubt of our salvation? To doubt our salvation is to essentially say this: The accomplishment of Christ is not enough. We must do something to add to it—something to perfect it.

In fact, our faith and commitment to Him are part of the redeeming effects of Christ's work—particularly of His resurrection. In order for grace to be grace, there can be no work or effort on our part to perfect that which Christ, the everlasting Son of God, has accomplished. By the power of His resurrection, we were by grace brought to life from spiritual death so that we may come to Christ through faith. By the power of Atonement on the cross, our sin has been forever removed from our account. Every aspect of our conversion to and salvation in Christ is a miracle powered by completed work of Christ Jesus, in His life, in His death, and in the resurrection.

To doubt our salvation is to say that we had some work in it; that some choice or action of ours can perhaps revoke it or make it void; that our conversion was not a miracle of resurrection accomplished by the living God, but something we accomplished on our own. It is to say that Christ Himself did not do enough to effect our salvation.

Therefore, doubt is an offence to the cross of Christ. Once I understood this, I've never struggled with doubt since. In fact, the placement of my trust has further centered toward the Living Christ and his completed, imperishable Work and further away from any merit, work, or quality of my own. If salvation were dependent upon me in any way, doubt is what should reign in the vacuum on my sinful heart.

Christian Existentialism - Part 3

Click for part 2.1, part 2, part 1.

Materialist Conception of God

Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:

If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.

It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.

The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):

12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22

1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13

1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17

1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2

4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11

1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4

5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15

24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27

5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11

24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25

Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11

Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.

The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?

They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?

Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.

The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.

How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.

However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.

Christian Existentialism - Part 2.1

Epistemology Continued...

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 1.

In my last post I said this:

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is.

I know I said that I'd take on the "Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" charge, but there are a few more things I need to note on the epistemological differences that fueled the debate a couple of weeks ago. I am now sure, as I noted in a comment in my last post, what his authority is, and I want to mention it, openly and clearly, and then pull some implications from it.

At one point in the correspondence, exist noted this as his "authority."

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent...

...the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.

Note the words I emphasized above. I completely overlooked the implications of his notion of "authority" when I addressed them in the last post. If the authority of the Scripture, councils, and creed is derived from our "deliberate choosing" individually and corporately, then I must ask: who is really the authority? Logically, we are. Moreover, it follows from his comments that the Scriptures, councils, and creed are authoritative only if we give that position to them. I have two objections for exist in light of this.

First, exist~dissolve alluded that if we call the Scriptures the "self-revelation" of God, then the Scriptures must logically be consubstantial with God, and that would be idolatry. His position of authority permits him to decide for himself what idolatry is, but it annihilates any right for him to tell us what idolatry is. For him to do so, especially since he defines authoritative as a entirely subjective ideal, would imply that there is an objective authority by which he may judge us against. However, if he were to follow his premises to their logical outcomes, then it should not matter to him what I believe. Since he so ardently tells us how wrong we are, the Reformed creeds do seem to matter quite a bit.

Second, as noted in my comment on my previous post, Christ on several occasions mentioned that "His words shall never pass." Also, in John 12, Jesus tells us this:

44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

Before I begin, the word "authority" in verse 49 was added for clarity by the translators of the NKJV; it does not appear in the Greek. However, when you read this text, you cannot escape the conclusion that, according to the words of Christ, men who do not receive the words will be judged those very words. If follows then that the words of Christ have intrinsic authority due to the fact that the Father is the Source of them. Two aspects of exist~dissolve's epistemology would not permit Christ to say this: (1) If the authority of Christ's words is a status granted by man, what right does Christ have to judge those who do not receive, and hence do not grant them such authority? (2) If language cannot convey literal truth, then (a) I shouldn't take them literally and (b) Christ again has no right to say that his words will judge me, because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.

Reformed Cosmology is the Real Reformed Epistemology

Exist~Dissolve asserted this:

I would disagree with [Sola Scripture being the base presupposition of Reformed Theology]. The ultimate foundation of a Reformed worldview is its cosmology, one marked by materlialist conception of God’s sovereignty.

Deviant Monk tells us:

While I believe reformed cosmology is indeed the underlying theological presupposition, the ability of the individual to be the ultimate arbiter of truth would be the underlying epistemoloigcal presupposition.

In other words, they are accusing the Reformed of imposing a presupposed cosmology (concept of the universe's relationship to God) onto the Scripture. The authors of the Bible never intended their words to birth a "materialist conception of God" that we Calvinist--and most evangelicals at that--possess.

Both experience and a basic read of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and especially Revelation tell me otherwise.

First, I rarely meet a Calvinist who became one without struggling for months to years with the issue. It took me about a year before I understood the significance of it--and Calvinism offended me greatly beforehand. Dr. R Stanton Norman, the professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary began with a quest to obliterate the claims of Calvinism and eventually became convinced of its truth. I can name countless names of established Calvinists--all of whom struggled with accepting it. In other words, none of them started with a "cosmology" they pressed on to the Bible. In fact, they all will tell you that it was Scripture that uprooted their previous "cosmology" at its foundation.

Second, I would like for them to demonstrate how Calvinists impose its beliefs on to the Scripture.

Next, I will address "a materialist conception of God and His sovereignty."