Making sense of God's providence

I'm a devoted listener to Greg Koukl's radio show and podcast "Stand to Reason". Stand to Reason is a very valuable ministry for those who like to think reasonably about the Christian worldview and realize that believing in God and Christ is not a "leap of faith".

This week's podcast was a bit odd to me because Koukl spent a large portion of the show talking about why he is a Calvinist, specifically regarding the topic of God's providence and human free will. There were two things that bothered me here. First, Koukl didn't explain why he doesn't agree other views of God's providence. He briefly mentioned Arminianism, but didn't, as far as I remember, even mention Molinism (or Middle Knowledge). Second, Koukl's view assumes certain foundational truths, but he didn't argue for these foundational truths. What I mean is, he takes a Calvinist stance based on some assumptions which may or may not actually be true.

My point is not to argue against Calvinism here, so I won't go into detail on the issue, but for a brief example, Koukl explains that humans have compatiblist free will, but doesn't really argue for why he thinks this. He assumes it using a common sense approach. He asked if it would be possible for humans to live sinlessly and assumed the answer to be "No." But what if someone thinks the answer is "Yes"? Regardless of what the answer is, I don't like that he simply appealed to common sense on this issue.

Since Koukl left out mention of Molinism, I am assuming that there are many teachers out there who are doing the same. For this reason, I am writing today. I want to make sure that you have had the opportunity to research this view. Perhaps you haven't even heard of it. A more common term for this view is "Middle Knowledge". The modern father (if you will) of this view is Dr. William Lane Craig. With his wonderfully logical thinking, Craig has been very effective at explaining and teaching about this view of God's providence and human free will.

I will not try to explain the view here because it has been thoroughly explained elsewhere. My goal is to bring the view to your attention and to encourage you to read some resources on the topic. My goal here on Reverentium is always to encourage you to think. This is an issue worth thinking about. A few years ago, I had never had solid convictions on the topic. Then, a friend introduced me to Craig's arguments for the Middle Knowledge view. This view, I think, makes the most sense of Bible passages on the topic. It solves the issues present in Calvinism and Arminianism, and it takes a totally different perspective on some foundational ideas assumed by Calvinists.

You might find the Middle Knowledge view to be refreshing.

Some good resources are:

The Only Wise God, by William Lane Craig
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
LeadershipU

Re-visioning God

My current reading includes Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy. I shouldn't be surprised, but this book, as with any other book by Willard, is absolutely masterful. Willard has, again, skillfully clarified a series of important features of the Christian life. In this book, he does so by taking a nice long look at the sermon on the mount - the most in-depth and helpful teaching I've ever heard on Jesus' "discourse on the hill" as Willard calls it. From there, he develops the topic of discipleship, which is one of Willard's passions, as you may know from his other writings. If you are interested in studying discipleship, start here. Other authors will tell you the same thing: "Here's what I want to teach you. But I must recommend you read Dallas Willard's book, because he wrote about the topic best, and I'm not going to try to rewrite it here." (Not an actual quote, just my summary of what I've seen in other books).

Writer Janet Batchler has commented on The Divine Conspiracy before, in better words than I ever could. Make sure to check out her posts:

Book Thoughts: The Divine Conspiracy
Notes from The Divine Conspiracy

As I've been swimming through the richness of this book, I've found numerous quotes and passage which I would love to share with you. There are so many that I would be breaking copyright laws to post them all here for you. So, all I can say is: if you want to grow and train as an apprentice of Jesus Christ, read this book. It's up to you to sink the bucks and devote the time.

Today, I have chosen one little topic and a few quotes to share with you. Hopefully this will be a pleasant appetizer for you. This is only a crumb of the goodness in this book.

Early in the book, Willard explains the importance of re-visioning God in our current lives. It is essential to view God in a certain way, to behold him and give him the proper consideration that is due him by his very nature. It is not only easy to forget how grand God is and who he is, but it is also easy to make him something he isn't, in our own minds. If we understood God as he truly is, it would be impossible to belittle him as we tend to do. Willard says:

"Central to the understanding and proclamation of the Christian gospel today, as in Jesus' day, is a re-visioning of what God's own life is like and how the physical cosmos fits into it." (The Divine Conspiracy, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997, p.62)

All things point to our great God, the Father, whom Jesus proclaimed. If this is so, then it follows that we should properly understand and imagine God. He is as he is, not as we want him to be, and not who we make him to be for our own uses. Willard goes back to appreciating and loving God much later in the book, when writing about discipleship. But how can we love a God we do not properly understand?

Willard goes on:

"We should, to begin with, think that God leads a very interesting life, and that he is full of joy. Undoubtedly he is the most joyous being in the universe. The abundance of his love and generosity is inseparable from his infinite joy. All of the good and beautiful things from which we occasionally drink tiny droplets of soul-exhilarating joy, God continuously experiences in all their breadth and depth and richness."

Thank you, Dr. Willard for reminding us of the vast good of God. God is so wonderful, so terrible, that it is difficult for us to find fitting words. Our minds can hardly begin to grasp it without straining and bursting. Only when we see God as Willard describes him, can we learn to love him as he is. Oh, but when we do see him and love him as he is, this is the seed that will grow in our hearts, beginning our transformation. This is a big point late in the book.

As humans, we often live for great experiences. As physical beings, we desire to squeeze the value out of life by experiencing good and grand things, and sharing them with others. Willard says:

"We treasure our great experiences for a lifetime, and we may have very few of them. But he is simply one great inexhaustible and eternal experience of all that is good and true and beautiful and right." (p.63)

These quotes from Willard are just tidbits. With them, I hope to turn your mind to your love for the Holy God. And in that place of love, I hope you will take time to read The Divine Conspiracy and allow yourself to receive Willard's unique training. This training will lead the intentional reader toward the transformed life of those who aspire to be true apprentices of Jesus of Nazareth.

The funny side of the Christian life.

Today, a friend linked me to a blog called "Stuff Christians Like".

I have read a dozen or so posts now and have been near tears a handful of times - I mean laughing tears. The writer is exceptionally good at wording his thoughts about many common American Christianisms. Many of you will probably find this blog to be a nice break from the stress or tedium of your day.

I recommend not reading this blog in a quiet room, such as a library.

Does anyone have it right?

I have given years of attendance to a few churches during the course of my life and have visited many others. I've come to understand something that you have probably realized yourself: there is no perfect Christian church. When I say "church" here, I am referring to a local gathering of people to a single location to share in the practices common to their denomination's beliefs.

I think that most people can find a church that emphasizes something which is important to them personally. Nevertheless, how many people can honestly say that they've found the perfect church? By "perfect", I don't mean absolutely flawless. I mean, a church that does everything right. You may be convinced that you've landed at such a church. Because I don't know your personal experience or situation, I'm going to share my thoughts from my own experience, as well as a discovery I made during recent meditation on the topic.

Like most of you, I've often found myself in the odd position of appreciating many features of the church I attend, while simultaneously longing for the features I find lacking or the changes I wish would take place. There's that part of us that recognizes that not all things are as they should be. You might think to yourself: "I like that part of Denomination X, and that part of Denomination Y, and that part of Denomination Z - but it seems as if no churches have all of those features." You are not alone.

As a child, I went along with my family to a Baptist church. In high school, I switched to a "non-denominational" community church. In college, I attended a Covenant church. Then I switched to an Evangelical Free church, where I am now. Like you, I choose to remain a part of this particular church body because I find that they are solid in many areas which I value. In my case, this church has a very unique form of church leadership in which there is a body of elders who lead the church and take turns preaching and teaching. Everything they do is done as a group. This is different from the standard model of my past experience in which there resides a single "head" pastor who sits above everyone else. This "plurality of elders" approach is the best I've ever seen, and it has some solid Biblical backing.

This church also has sincere elders who fit the model of elders described in the New Testament letters. These are open and honest men who seek God's glory first of all. To match their level of sincerity and integrity, these men teach sound Biblical doctrine. The men who preach most often are also Biblical scholars/professors. To top it off, they are passionate for God's work, for Jesus, and for the gospel message as it goes out into the world.

This church body is also unique in that every member is considered to be an essential minister in the body, and externally to the world. The genuine fellowship and love expressed throughout the body is reminiscent of the early church as described in the book of Acts.

Finally, the worship is led by a man who is uncommonly thoughtful in his programming of the worship portion of the service. He writes many of his own songs to fit the need of the sermon's theme. He is sensitive to the congregation's desires in the worship setting. He organizes appropriate and fitting readings, meditations, and prayers to contribute to the flow and depth of the worship time.

These are the features that keep me at this church. And yet, this church, like yours, is not doing everything right. You might say: "That's only your opinion!! Who are you to determine what's best for a church?!" You are right to say so. Truthfully, I am nobody. I can't say with absolute certainty that my views are correct. But I do think they are correct - otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. I can only talk about what I have come to believe through my own study. That said, let's move on.

"If I were to leave my church, what church would I go to?" This is a question I have asked myself, and maybe you have too. Over time, I have narrowed my answers to:

• the Catholic church
• the third-wave charismatic church

I have found aspects of these churches to admire. I have friends and acquaintances who have left the standard conservative evangelical church to join one of these other two churches. I can't blame them. My friends have brought up great points about these other churches.

Why the Catholic church? There are two things that have draw for me in the Catholic church.

1. Appreciation for tradition
2. Emphasis on spiritual formation and true discipleship

I think the protestant church, despite its strengths, is still living in a state of overreaction to these facets of the Catholic church. I'm no church history expert, for certain, but I do know that the current evangelical church still bears signs of reaction against Catholicism. Not only do we lack appreciation for tradition, but we swear by the phrase "sola scriptura" and take it to the extreme. Not only do we appreciate the authority of scripture and its usefulness in showing us the way to true salvation in Christ, but we throw tradition out the window, reciting slogans like "If it's important, it's in the Bible" (a slogan I happen to disagree with). The Bible becomes the end of all things. J.P. Moreland adequately discusses this topic in his controversial article "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It".

I believe that tradition holds some good things for the church. I think tradition gives us insight into useful Christian spiritual disciplines, as explained by Dallas Willard in his book, Spirit of the Disciplines. It also teaches us what honorable saints long past have discovered to be useful in the Christian life and practice. I would love to see the evangelical church at large give up its shy attitude toward Christian tradition.

The thing I appreciate most about the Catholic church is their appreciation for spiritual disciplines and spiritual formation. While most churches I've participated in greatly deemphasize the topic of spiritual formation, I am thankful that many Christian teachers are eagerly pursuing the topic. Most of the books listed in my recommendations - to the right - relate to this topic. Willard's Renovation of the Heart powerfully opened my eyes to the topic in a new way. From there, I dove into the pool of good literature on the topic. Biola University has its own Institute for Spiritual Formation, which has been training sincere Christians in this field for a few years now. I am grateful that such programs exist. We need this training, and we aren't getting it in the church most of the time. The extent of spiritual disciplines (though they won't call them that) commonly discussed in the evangelical church can be summed up as: "Read your Bible. Pray. Think correctly. The Holy Spirit will do the rest." While churches might sometimes go beyond such a minimal ideology, this summation of spiritual growth is inadequate, I think.

Why the third-wave charismatic church?

The reason I am attracted to this church is that they are expectant. As a group, they expect to see the Holy Spirit work in real and powerful ways among the people. I can only imagine entering my local church meeting place and sensing the mutual expectation among the people, ready to receive the Holy Spirit's graces as He stirs in the "body of Christ". Powerful works of the Holy Spirit are happening all over the world, but much less, relatively, in western cultures. One reason for this, I suspect, is that we have naturalistic minds. We are products of our culture's teachings, as much as we wish we could deny the fact. But where a group of people is united in expectation, there I think it is far more likely for the Holy Spirit to act powerfully. He is welcome there.

So why does any of this matter? Recently, when I was running these ideas over in my head, it struck me that there is an answer.

This issue is exactly what J.P. Moreland was addressing when he wrote Kingdom Triangle. He saw these issues and realized that all of the church's strengths were scattered into pieces, spread out among various Christian church types. He realized that the church, as God would have it, would have all of the strengths mentioned above.

This was a real-life application of the ideas presented in Kingdom Triangle. J.P. had an answer for my questions. Once again, I recommend grabbing a copy of this book.

Debate: D'Souza vs. Hitchins

I was looking around on the website of Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian writer and speaker. On his website, he has a link to a debate he did against the prominent "new atheist", Christopher Hitchins. The topic of the debate was: "Is Christianity the Problem?"

These types of debates are very valuable for Christians because they require you to examine what it is that you believe, and to think critically and carefully about the points argued for and against your own position. You might find that you are uncomfortable listening to an atheist argue against your beliefs. This is a good thing. You need to know why you believe what you do. J.P. Moreland discusses this issue thoroughly in the "knowledge" portion of Kingdom Triangle. Do you really believe what you say you believe, or do you just say you do? If you don't have a good reason for believing something, then your belief really isn't a strong belief. But beliefs can be strengthened, Moreland argues. I think debates such as the one linked above are a great way to challenge our beliefs and spur us on to study and strengthen our position, while thoughtfully considering the opposition.

As you watch, I recommend you pay attention to the approach both men take to this debate. Keep an eye out for the strength of their reasoning and rationality. From what background are they presenting their arguments? Are they using good philosophical practices?

So, if you have a fast internet connection, go watch the debate.

Faith and Reason update

I'm posting briefly to add one more resource that I discovered after posting my initial post called "Faith and Reason".

I discovered a site called Skeptical Christian. The site is run by Kyle Deming, who devotes his energy to providing useful information and resources for a reasonable defense of the Christian worldview. He has a podcast and a blog. There is a huge volume of information on his site, so don't hesitate to read his blog or listen to his podcast.

I have also been listening to Greg Koukl's Ambassador Basic Curriculum and Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring. I purchased both in MP3 format from the Stand to Reason website. While I can't say I agree with Koukl on his everything he says in his ABCs, I highly recommend purchasing these products. Koukl is very articulate and solid in his training.

My only disagreements with him relate to small aspects of his approach to Biblical truth. I could be wrong in my assessment, but I think he leans toward the idea that, if an important truth for the Christian life exists, it is taught in some clear form in the Biblical canon. I tend to think that church history and tradition, as well as some extrabiblical sources, contain very valuable information for the Christian life, but Koukl doesn't touch on these sources in his training about the Christian life, at least not in this series. I know that he respects J.P. Moreland highly, but I find that these two seem to disagree on a few things. All in all, I only disagree with Koukl on about 1% of his thoughts in the entire curriculum.

That said, don't let my assessment keep you from using these resources. They are invaluable in training Christians to be top-notch ambassador's for Christ. I will listen to them over and over.

The Tin Woodman's worldview

A few weeks ago, I was tucking my boys into bed. I had recently finished the book of Beatrix Potter's Bunny stories, so it was time to choose something new to read them before they dozed off. I looked on their bookshelf and saw an old copy of L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz. I had never read the book, and hadn't seen the movie for many years. I prefer to read them imaginative books, usually with some element of fantasy or fairy tale, so Baum's book seemed a good enough choice.

I've been reading a chapter to them every night or two. The last time we opened the book, we read through the chapter where Dorothy and the Scarecrow meet the Tin Woodman, rusted and groaning. Once the Tin Woodman is well oiled and functioning, he declares that he will accompany the others on their journey to find the Wizard of Oz. He narrates his lengthy tale of woe, sharing with Dorothy and the Scarecrow how he was tragically kept from marrying the munchkin woman he loved and how he had once been a real man, losing his body parts piece by piece. He had been repaired by a tinsmith until he was completely made of tin. He explains to them that he had carelessly stayed out in the rain one day, rusting until he was completely frozen in place.

He mentions that, during his time of frozen solitude, he had "had time to think that the greatest loss I had known was the loss of my heart. While I was in love, I was the happiest man on earth; but no one can love who has not a heart." (The Wizard of Oz, Grosset & Dunlap, 1981, p.43)

The Scarecrow philosophically responds that he would rather have a brain because "a fool would not know what to do with a heart if he had one." (p.44)

To this, the Tin Woodman replies: "I shall take the heart . . . for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world."

This says something about the worldview of the tin man.

I wonder what "happiness" is, for the tin man. I wonder what L. Frank Baum thought "happiness" was. I have not finished the book, so I don't know yet whether this comment was a statement of Baum's own worldview or if it belonged only to the Tin Woodman. Regardless, the Tin Woodman seems to be describing what most living souls today believe to be true. "Happiness is the best thing in the world."

You might ask yourself what affect this statement has on your own life. Does this describe your own worldview?

In Kingdom Triangle, J.P. Moreland gives thorough attention to the topic of happiness in relation to our worldview. As you have probably already determined, the word "happiness" must first be defined. Certainly our understanding of what happiness is will affect our analysis of the Tin Woodsman's (and our own) worldview.

Moreland explains succinctly that the modern definition of happiness is: "pleasurable satisfaction". Is this your own understanding of happiness? When we seek happiness, are we seeking merely pleasurable satisfaction? It's worth mulling over.

J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler also discuss the topic of happiness in their aptly titled book, The Lost Virtue of Happiness. In both this book and Kingdom Triangle, Moreland explains that pleasurable satisfaction (modern happiness) is a primary goal of the "empty self". (I highly recommend reading these books for his full discussion of the empty self.) But, the empty self seeking pleasurable satisfaction is a recipe for endless disappointment, Moreland argues in so many words. This is one large aspect of the widespread depression and discontentment today. The reason for this is that we have replaced classic happiness with modern happiness.

Moreland writes:

"According to the ancients, happiness is a life well lived, a life of virtue and character, a life that manifests wisdom, kindness, and goodness." (The Lost Virtue of Happiness, Navpress, 2006, p.25)

This wording was very useful for me. As you can see, classic happiness is the result of a very specific type of life. But in a worldview which embraces modern happiness, that "happiness" is always the primary goal of one's life, the treasure being sought above and before all else. It drives us to manipulate people and circumstances, subtly or not, to achieve our own ends. This pursuit has as its purpose the filling of the empty self. Self. Think about how often that word, that person, is our central focus.

Having this knowledge, I think we are required to decide which we desire, a life of virtue, duty, and character, resulting in classic happiness - or - pleasurable satisfaction for the Self?

My guess is that the Tin Woodman was not thinking of happiness in the classic sense when he shared his ideas with Dorothy and the Scarecrow. To him, fulfillment of his desires was the best thing he could imagine. To him, that was the extent of his happiness. He could have said, "I shall take the heart . . . for if I had a heart I could devote my life to loving and serving others in imitation of Christ." Sure, that sounds silly - it's just a story after all. But the point is - how closely does our own worldview match that of the Tin Woodman?