god’s roll of the dice
When dealing with discipleship, and the related capacity to generate authentic followers of Jesus, we are dealing with that single most crucial factor that will in the end determine the quality of the whole—if we fail at this point then we must fail in all the others. In fact if we fail here, it is unlikely that we will even get to doing any of the other elements of mDNA in any significant and lasting way.
But even more significantly this is the very task into which Jesus focused his efforts and invested most of his time and energy; namely in the selection and development of that motley band of followers on whose trembling shoulders he lays the entire redemptive movement that would emerge from his death and resurrection. The founding of the whole Christian movement, the most significant religious movement in history, one that has extended itself through the ages, and into the 21st Century, was initiated through the simple acts of Jesus investing his life and embedding his teachings into his followers and developing them into authentic disciples.
In the end, Jesus must have trusted his cause to his followers in the belief that they would faithfully stand the test, and that somehow they would adequately embody and transmit his message to the world. And we might well wonder at the sheer risk that God took in handing over the fragile and precarious Jesus movement to this rather unlikely crew. But the fact that it did succeed, is directly related to the truth that through their engagement with Jesus, this rather dubious human material had somehow become true disciples. Jesus had, through living with them, and showing them God’s way, somehow succeeded in embedding his life and the Gospel into them. Talk about rolling the dice! And it almost failed. After all the amazing things they had experienced in their journeys with Jesus, they all, to a man, deserted Him at the cross. The ‘Rock,’ Simon Peter denied Him three times no less. If Jesus had failed in this critical task of making disciples out of the people that hung out with Him, you would not be reading this book today and I certainly would not be writing it. I do believe it is the critical factor.
Comments
39 Responses to “god’s roll of the dice”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
Amen.
Makes me want to find an upper room to pray in for a while, to make sure I do my part as I should.
Hi Alan (and all),
It’s been said before, but I think the church over the past couple hundred years in the West has been concerned with making converts and not disciples.
I have a pastor friend who says the church in America is 1000 miles wide, but an inch deep.
And yet, far too often we’ve missed the point in trying to go deeper. We try and memorize more verses or learn Greek - not necessarily bad, but still missing the point.
Jesus trusted a bunch misfits who probably would never get along themselves (a zealot and a tax collector!) and who didn’t get it until the very end, with the advancing of the kingdom. I think he provides the best model of how we should make disciples…. starting and ending with trusting God to do the work and not us doing BM (behavior modification).
After all Jesus rode a donkey (okay so that doesn’t fit with anything I said, but I had to put a donkey comment in somewhere…)
Alan,
I am very excited to be attending Allelon’s Missional Order gathering in mid-October…where we’ll be talking about what it takes to make disciples who make disciples to the fourth generation and beyond. Very much in line with my chapter on Virtual Mentoring at The Abbey in the Wikiklesia book and the whole neo-monastic move happening in many places–and soon in CovenantClusters!
I am reading one final book before I retrofit the CovenantClusters vision: Eugene Peterson’s “Eat This Book.” It is a stunning piece–have you read it?
For so many, they balk at the fact that we must become risk takers if we are to follow Christ. But if you have done your incarnation well, it’s not as much a risk as it appears at first glance, eh?
Blessings…
This whole issue is the one barrelling down the highway at us as we get ready to go back to Perth in nine weeks. To be honest I’m astounded at the level of misunderstanding about what we are doing that is beginning to surface among my friends, including an angry email (publicly on my blog) about how over-zealous I am on this issue. Then again I’ve always got Hamo’s example - he’s the “fore-runner” in the Perth ‘burbs of what to expect.
I will look forward to meeting you at the Allelon event Peggy! I am excited as well. And, it is happening only an hour from my home.
Blessings to all!
Pegs, I have red it. Its a great book. Look forward to seeing you and Richard in October.
Alan, are you going to be there? Your schedule has you teaching at Fuller…will you be able to sneak away! That will be awesome!
Richard, I was hopeful that you might come and suspected that you were in that area. Well met, indeed!
Along with Michael Frost and my beloved Debs.
See you there.
Very excited to see you AND Deb and to meet Michael.
And I signed up to go without even knowing who was coming…kind of like I did going to Long Beach when I fell in with you and Deb
God takes care of me because I am so pathetically weak
It is going to be an amazing time…
Hey Alan,
I read a lot of your posts and often wonder where you fall theologically into position. Now please note, this is not a post attempt to start an argument because truthfully last week I was a Calvinist, this week I am an Open Theist, next week I will probably be a basic arminian and then I will start over again. I ask this question because I wonder how a Missional identity can possibley transfer from: God is Sovereign, has it all figured out and has chosen the destiny of all things (mr Calvin) and the other extremes which hurt my head to much to explain.
I have wanted to ask you this question for some time, but today’s post gave me the perfect opportunity.
If God (Jesus) is a Calvinist (I have always wanted to use that sentence) then he didn’t have to trust his disciples to do anything, he predestined it and that had no say in the matter.
If he is open or in some other way arminian in his pershoonhood, then he had to have faith that his disciples would trust him and act accordingly, but doesn’t that make God weak?
See where I am trying to get to here?
Ah, Gary…the challenge for us is to remember that God is not totally anything that we can construct for him according to our understanding. Bummer on one hand (uncomfortable), blessing on the other (better than we could imagine)
And the loving restraint of power for the growth and benefit of another is far from weak–it requires more strength and courage than trying to plan and control it all. I have learned this as a parent…the hard way (is there any other?)
What I alluded to in my earlier comment was that when you pour your life into others in ways that are True and consistent and loving, and you back that up with the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, they will follow you because they “get it” enough to keep going. It is not as much a risk as we might think.
I experience this when I have people I don’t particularly know who approach me out of the blue to commend us on our three young son’s behavior. It is always a good thing to hear, because we don’t always see great evidence that what we’re trying to teach them in actually getting through. But they are doing it when they are with others, so I know that are getting some of it…and I persevere with faith that God will help us help them.
…and now we’ll hope Alan has a moment to respond to you…
Actually Gary, the phrase “Jesus is a Calvinist” or “Jesus is an Armenian” sticks in my craw. The beauty is that he cannot be put into any pigeonhole. I rather go with the idea that many Biblical ideas/themes are by nature paradoxical and cannot be easily framed in philosophical terms. He shatters our boxes nicely. That’s where I try and live. But pushed into a corner I might admit to preferring Luther to Calvin for exactly the reasons stated above. And I am really more influenced by Judaism than any single Western theological system. I find Judaism incredibly insightful on most issues, and their way of actually going about theologizing much more wholesome. Note the post a few posts ago about the most important thinkers in my life.
And there is a covert Pentecostal in me somewhere too. I don’t like the machine-like apparatus that goes along with it at times, but at core I love its openess to God…its sense of immediacy and Presence.
Does that help?
Hey…
First Peg: Well that is kinda my point, I know that I cannot construct God into a Calvinist point of view or any other point of view for that matter. But at some point, I have to decide that there are some essential things about God’s nature that I can stand on. And for me, the differences between the Calvin position, and the Open position trouble me. There are rich implications there that make me stop in my tracks because how I view God’s sovereignty or lack there-of will determine how I am to react to reality in totality. The question I wrestle with is: How can I be missionally minded, if God is literally in control of everything and has it all decided before I come onto the scene?
You said: “What I alluded to in my earlier comment was that when you pour your life into others in ways that are True and consistent and loving, and you back that up with the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, they will follow you because they “get it” enough to keep going. It is not as much a risk as we might think.” and my struggle is that if what the Calvanist says is true then the logical implications are that it does not really matter what I “decide” to pour my life into…the people I pour into will no more “get it” than I do because whatever they think, do, or say is predestined.
Allan…again, that is my point. Like I said, I myself float from one point of view to the other, so I don’t think that Jesus is a calvinist or an arminian. But, as you said, people do try very hard to pigeonhole Jesus and the Gospel in such a way that Jesus and the Gospel can only be this or that. Point in case: Look at how hard Greg Boyd (open theist) and John Piper (Calvinst) have been going at each other. Greg being the more humble will say that he thinks he has some things figured out, but that he respects those of differing views. Piper believes that what Greg believes is dangerous and leads people down a toally horrible path away from the “real” Jesus and the “real” gospel (which is a coded way of saying on Piper’s side that Jesus is in fact, a Calvinst.).
The big question that I struggle with is how much of who God is am I supposed to leave up to question and how much do I have to figure out?
Like I said to peggy, suppose that God’s nature is true as the Calvinist says, then Jesus didn’t roll the dice at all did he? He doesn’t take “chances” at all.
A bigger question would be: Does God believe in the box?
The only thing I can say is that we can only know as much as God has revealed to us–and that must be understood over the totality of Scripture and interpreted in and through Jesus.
Many of these questions, from my experience, come from a sense of wanting certainty when we have been asked to live with the tension ambiguity that accompanies a life of faith.
Obviously, I am not a Calvinist and Piper and I would be on opposite sides of the table–if he would even come to a table with me, as woman! I tend not to be an “extreme” Open Theist, either. I try not to be extreme about things that are disputed.
That I am to be a disciple of Christ and be a disciple-maker is not up for dispute. When we spend more energy choking on the disputed boundaries of what we can learn or understand instead of getting busy obediently doing what we do know, then I must excuse myself from the table and get out into the “yard” and get busy.
I expect God believes in the box (time/space), since he created it…but we are the ones in that box, not him!
…however, when we are in Christ, we begin to move beyond that box into the Eternal Community. And that means we are only in the box some of the time…that we transcend the box much of the time.
Mystery…it can’t be figured out–it must be experienced.
Its funny about Piper. He claims to be a biblical hedonist, and yet he seems to be the most unhappy type of man. Calvinists,,,,what can I say? Lets talk about it? Wha tis it about Calvinist that seems to create a certain type of unhappiness? Can anyone explain?
Thanks Alan…I guess maybe I am being kinda misread here, or maybe not…maybe I am not framing my question right:
The struggle is basically this-What things do we pursue as settle matters in regards to God’s nature, and what things do we leave up to mystery.
My gut feeling has historically told me to leave things up to expereience…stop arguing about it and just let the spirit of God move me where He wants and just assume that He will give me “Golden eggs” that He doesn’t give others, and approach those eggs with humility, in other words what God reveals to me He reveals to “ME” and not you, so I shouldn’t beat you up.
But lately I have been looking at what those eggs acutally are, and what the implications are regarding my views. For the record: I come from a thoroughly Arminian background, and that is what I typically hold to. But I have always toyed personally with the idea that the Arminian ideaology misses the point in reference to God’s sovereignty.
It’s not necessarily that I feel like I have to have a “certaninty” about things as peggy says, but more that I see some of these questions as foundational questions that give me some stability to live within the dynamic tension of the ambiguities and questionable matters.
“What is it about Calvinist that seems to create a certain type of unhappiness?”
They stop at Romans 7
without proceeding on to Romans 8
. They appropriate language about life before Christ but don’t read on to see what God calls those who participate with Christ. They claim the Spirit but not the Spirit’s renewal, which makes us not worms but heirs.
In trying to affirm the need for God’s work they reject the thanksgiving that comes from God’s work. I was a sinner, but now I am free. Who am I now? A slave? A wretched, foul, being? No. A child of God, able to increasingly take up God’s calling. This approach seeks to affirm the theological point of humanity’s need for God, but in over-pressing that point to an extreme they forget that God has brought an answer.
They take up some of Paul’s language, but not all of it, focusing on the negative while forgetting he addressed his letters to the saints.
Focus on thanksgiving, there is joy. Focus on negativity, there is unhappiness, and unhappiness tries to get everyone else unhappy.
Good insight Pat.
And Gary, I went into that theological wilderness abut 12 years ago. Sought to find a more authentic soil for my faith. As I said, for me it ended me up in the Hebraic stuff. But then, I have written about that in Shaping and TFW. And my new book will have lots of it as well,
So, Gary…what is the point about God’s sovereignty that is being missed by the Arminian or Open positions?
Does God HAVE to control everything because he CAN? Is God not able to control some things and allow other things to unfold naturally?
Does God not have the freedom to restrain his power for the sake of relationship?
For me, the Pipers of the world err in trying to defend God’s honor in a way that is unnecessary. It seems to me that they say that since God has done such and so in this circumstance, God always works in this way. God can take care of himself–he is patient and able to develop relationships and communicate with his people in a variety of ways. I think that for us to say God MUST do or be anything other than what God has revealed about himself goes too far.
Looking forward to Alan’s new book….
Peggy…Great points!!! One thing I would say is that there is an implication in the open position that God does not know the future, but that he partly knows it because he knows all the options the future road could take (which of course is a round about way of saying that he does know the future, but is not a controling force over it, but has instead built in an infinite number of roads to get to the end)…HOWEVER, some open guys, like Boyd, would also say the the ultimate end is a settled matter, and that proves his sovereignty over all of creation.
But the implication is stil there that God is not a controlling, and intervening force. If there are an infinite number of roads, and the pathway is determined by us, then where is there room for God to intervene etc…?
I am not saying that I agree with that, what I trying to get to a point to is how much of that do I just say: God I trust you, and I will go…
And by the way: Patrick, I have made that same point many times to other people. I truly believe, as you do, that the hyper Calvin position misses the boat on a total view of scripture, and especially Paul. BUT…I have still yet to find someone from the Open and/or arminian position that can explain how sovereignty fits into things.
Gary, then I would push at the meaning of the “ultimate end” and suggest that it is not as precisely “calculated” as we would like, but rather sweeping.
I tend to put it this way. God is as far above and beyond us as we are to our small children. I could exercise tremendous control over what they do…but that would be bad for them because they would fail to develop into fully functioning and capable adults. So I must do what I can to secure their environment so that they are able to crawl and taste and touch and look. They will learn what hurts them and what helps them only if I stay out of their way. But I am always ready to step in if catastrophe approaches. I say that I have their circumstances are under control without being in control.
The difference (and where the example falls short, as they always do when trying to explain the unexplainable
) is that those who accept God’s offer of covenant adoption can ultimately be secure in God because even death does not separate them–we transcend this life because we are a mixture of temporal and eternal–flesh and spirit. It is almost as if the sovereignty question is the wrong question. God is free to do whatever he wants because he is, in fact, sovereign. However, he has revealed to us that he is relational and personal–and this means that he has chosen to restrain his power for the sake of his love.
Those whose Kingdom paradigm is built on power to control want to go the way of Calvin–because it will give them power as well. But God, in Christ, has established a Kingdom of love that woos and does not coerce. The only power we are to have is the power to serve, submit and lead by influence and example. I just don’t see too many flocking to this…pathetic, isn’t it?
Sometimes God steps in to preserve a life so that there may be another outcome down the line. Sometimes he lets circumstances roll. What I see, simplistically, I know, is that Calvinists feel that they can pin down the what and why and how of God’s interactions with us. And I am unwilling to be that presumptious.
This is where the faith part comes it. What I know to the core of my being is that God is my faithful covenant partner. He will provide everything I need to faithfully keep covenant with him. Period. I walk this life of faith in this knowledge, even when I cannot see or understand the path before me. The new covenant in Jesus Christ promises us no earthly, physical blessing as the old covenant did. Our promises are spiritual and relational–they transcend the physical.
The problem I see is that many people are trying to discern God’s specific will in an isolated and individualist manner through the glasses of their own will. What is God’s will for MY actions today. When God’s revealed general will is that we be faithful covenant partners–loving him and loving others in all circumstances and relationships.
We must struggle with the choices along the path, but his provision is bountiful: the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ.
So, do we want what he wants or do we want what we want? I say more often, in these kinds of discussions we want we want–knowledge that is only God’s. I say “too bad”…just like I tell me kids “because I say so” when the reasons are beyond their ability to understand.
Gary, for me at least God’s sovereignty is found in eschatology. He wins. I haven’t read a lot of open theology folks (just a little Pinnock along the way) so I don’t know how much that veers into their thought. I see God’s victory as not necessarily meaning he plans all the steps but that no matter what step is taken he still wins. As many infinite ways as can be adjusted he can infinitely adjust in return, with the Spirit the empowering and shaping reality which affects all aspects of this world, down to the quantum level.
Rather than a God who gives the world a script to follow, he is the God who wins no matter what the opposition. This is, to me, more of a sovereign.
I think of a general who no matter the foe will always turn it to victory as opposed to a general who is playing a war game in which he set up the enemy’s moves.
That, to me, seems to be how the Bible tells the story. We have choices and we have responsibilities and there is the real risk of enduring something nasty. But we can trust the fact that God will win, and indeed insists upon our keeping eschatology at the front of every risk we take.
Patrick, yes the “sweeping” ultimate end is the fact that God does win–that there is no scenario which results in any other outcome.
And I agree that this represents a “better” sovereign–one with more flexibility and power and creativity. This is the God who inspired Romans 8:28
–because he can take whatever circumstances befall us and make it work out for good.
That’s better than having to plan it all out and leave folks wondering why they have to do anything or make any choices….
This is what I mean when I say that some defend God is ways that God just doesn’t need defending.
Peggy, that’s exactly how I see it. The Romans 8
passage is huge. One passage that keeps sticking out recently too is the Philippians 2
passage. God is sovereign, but we have to let him tell his own story. Like you say, we don’t need to defend him. The incarnation is the reality that he’s willing to let it go.
Which takes me back, again, to my earlier comment that there is not as much at risk as one may think. The “ultimate” risks have been “secured”–we always have Christ with us, never to be forsaken, and it will all be alright in the end.
That means that we must be faithful and persevering in the chaotic “already” part of our salvation during our brief lifetime, remembering that the “not yet” part of our salvation is ordered and secure for eternity.
But we must persevere in faithful covenant-keeping, not look for ways to weasle out of our responsibilities under the ruse that we really have no impact (invidually and corporally) because God has preordained all our steps and he is directly causing everything that happens to us and our world. It is not that we make God fit into our understanding, but that we crawl up into God’s lap and understand his story and find our place in that story.
I’m still processing Peterson’s “Eat This Book” and it is resonating powerfully….
Blessings.
Hey Peggy, Thanks for thinking things through with me. Ok, let me get to your parent/child anaolgy for a second. I love it, and in some ways it makes sense. But lets put this sweeping thing to the test:
Lets say for example that you don’t want you child to burn their hand on the stove. But, you still have to cook right? You still have to act as a parent, so you use the stove but will intervene (if you can) when the child gets to close to the stove burner. You will in effect “stop” them. To that effect you said: “They will learn what hurts them and what helps them only if I stay out of their way. But I am always ready to step in if catastrophe approaches”. In other words, you will control them in and as much as you can in a sweeping fashion. You will keep them away from the things that hurt them, that you can “reasonably” keep them away from. In your role as a parent you exert a sweeping control over your children without exerting total control over them as a if they were on remote control.
With God in mind, what “reasonable” trouble can, and does God protect us from? I could keep reframing this question a thousand different ways, but the point is: If God acts towards us in the way that you would act towards your children, then it makes sense (to me at least) that there would be a lot more avoidable “evil” being dealt with. God would protect people from: earthquakes, Bridge disasters etc…
Now I am not saying that that is what I believe, but what I am saying is this: How we fram sovereignty has logical assumptions and consequences that we cannot avoid. So we either have to continually work fo reframe our view of sovereignty, admit that we are wrong, or decide that some things are a total mystery. My stuggle is; how much to I hand over to mystery?
I agree with your “Power over” assumption in Calvinism which is why I so often get lost in thinking about it because it never makes sense, and makes me feel like God means for me to be a co-dicator.
One question I would ask you is in light of this comment: “This is where the faith part comes it. What I know to the core of my being is that God is my faithful covenant partner.” How can you trust a God whose nature is, by your own admission, to work within circumstances? What if the circumstances were (I know this is an absurd example, but its the only thing I can thik of) that 10 people would be saved by the sacrificing of someone elses possible faith? Let’s use my family as an example: My Dad went to Church with my Grandmother 1 time when he was 14. The elders of the Church pulled my Grandma aside and told her that my Dad, her son, could not come to Church dressed the way he was dressed (they were poor and all he had was white t-shirts, jeans, and tennis shoes) so they never again stepped into a Church building, my Dad died at age 53, an alcoholic, and a protessed athiest (my dad had me read Cosmos by Carl Sagan when I was 12). But yet, I, my sister, my mother, my grandmother(s),and grandfather(s) have professed a love and a faith in Christ.
Now, please hear me on this: I am not blaming God, nor have I ever blamed God for the position that my Dad found himself in. Do I blame the Church? You bet your behind I do!! But I understand how things work when people assume they are in charge. But the examples still work on some level: If God’s action is sweeping, and he can and does get swayed by circumstances, then he can be swayed by Spock’s ideaology of “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
Patrick: I tend to aggree with you pretty much about how the end works. I am not so much concerned about that though as I am concerned about his actionable soverignty in “our” here and now. His sovereignty, and how it works out does have implications for the here and now. The reason this is, despite if your a calvinist or whatever, you still have to deal with the fact that we do HAVE TO make choices. Whether or not the “end” is what we think or wish it may be, really shouldn’t effect how we make choices today. Yes I realize that knowing the end gives hope and gives us a target of sorts. But the question is still: How is God sovereign today?
Gary, I still think you are struggling with a false dualism: the need to have philosophical congruity on something which is by its very nature pradoxical.
I have found Paul Minear brilliant on this score. Listen to him….
“The omnipresence in the Bible of this problem of election and freedom cannot be contested; the most striking fact, however, is not its ubiquity but the lack of viewing it as a problem…..Such absence underscores the contradictory assumptions and approaches which separate the speculative and the existential views of history. Standing at the perspective centre of the divine-human encounter, Biblical writers assume that the essense of every situation lies in the interpenetration os personal purposes, that each event is the outcome of the confluence and conflict of wills, that man the actor is an actor precisely because he must respond to the various purposes which are acting upon him. He assumes that man the spectator will never understand any event, will never see that hand of God in it.”–P.S.Minear, Eyes of Faith, 59
and….
“To separate God’s action from man’s action presupposes a complete and artificial disjunction between the human and the divine. To the actor, life is an activity of subjects in the present Here the past is present not so much in the sense of causes determining results as in the sense of history of persons defining the present situation in terms of guilt and memory. the past is only real as it is included in the living present, shaing the context of decision but not modifying the neccesity for responsible choice. But the attempt to analyse that past in speculative terms is bound to produce to an abstraction the concrete meaning which it originally had to the men involved. “The past is always mediated, it is no longer life, but only the image of former life (R.Kroner). In the past, man’s freedom is no longer discernable because the becoming has ben frozen into an unchanging become.” –P.S.Minear, Eyes of Faith, 60
Oh, and just one more. (and sorry for the grammar of the last two quotes)
“Consciousness of God’s sovereignty produces rather than prevents the consciousness of responsibility.”–P.S.Minear, Eyes of Faith, 60
Alan, I really like the last quote. I think that this quote expresses exactly what I am going though personally. Its not so much that I am losing my faith, or that my relationship with God is waning, but more that because there is so much mystery out there and the questioning that I am doing right now, about how God’s sovereignty works itself out in “my” decisions, is actually helping me take more ownership over what God means to me and what His nature is.
I think that I may have been misread here by some thinking that my “crisis” as I put it is a crisis of losing faith…the opposite is true, this crisis is bringing me closer and closer to God. For most of my life I was someone who unquestionably accepted what God’s nature was, and I ignored the mystery or argued it away (which was just my attempt at intellectual ignorance).
Like I said, I used to be mostly from the arminian background, although in the Church of Christ (Campbell-Stone movement) arminian is not as well developed because all we really want to do is proof text baptism, but that is another story.
Point is, the movement I came from is very very theology lite. We confess, repent, and are baptised…and that is all we want to argue about.
Then in my mid 20’s I started to think about all the stuff regarding TULIP. Some of it makes sense with reality, and some of it even makes senes with what I see in the Bible…I know this is getting long and ranty, sorry bout that running a fever.
The point is: I really started to look at the implications of where theology takes me in terms of how I find myself in “God’s lap” as Peggy says. A few years ago, I would have been ready to give it all up because the implications of a hyper-calvinist point of view cannot argue for an all loving benevolent creator…I don’t mean to rub mister Piper the wrong way, but it just can’t. The moment you put God into a total control, tyranny kind of position, you loose all that is good in that He is a tyrant…But there still has to be some level of Sovereignty that can explain God as creator and sustainer. And this is the place where I have come in these last few months.
I like the Open view because it allows for a God of infininte possibilities, yet with a determined “end”. But even it has holes…but I think those are holes I may be willing to deal with because they make me weak…not God.
Gary…I also come from the Stone/Campbell movement, so I know your pain and your perspective. And I am happy to process with you…there are so many who patiently process with me!
This is the deal with the parent/child/God/us thing: Remember that I said the analogy breaks down because God’s perspective is “already” and “not yet” in that those of us who accept his covenant offer in Jesus are “already” saved eternally. Paul said to live in Christ–to die is gain. If we die now, all is still well. But if we continue to live, we deal with the “not yet” reality of fallen/broken world full of people making choices that impact us.
This is very different with me and my children. If something catastrophic happens to my children, they are lost to me forever. They are not replacable, even if I had another child–that one would not be like the one lost. This makes my job extra challenging and requires purposeful action and discipline on my part so that I disciple my children toward accepting God’s covenant offer when they are capable of understanding it and become obedient…then, they are also secure…and that brings me to another level of comfort about what happens to them in the day to day.
On to God in the day to day. I grieve for your father’s story and for the opportunity the church had to embrace your father’s family, but turned them away instead… This was the tragic result of the choices of many people–the church members and your grandmother and your father. But God was at work where he was welcome–and somehow was able to bring you all through in spite of your father’s experience and efforts to turn you away from God.
I look at it this way. God is always reaching out to us, looking to connect. But the connection is always dependent upon receptivity. Some are more receptive than others. Some are more resilliant that others. God does not give up on us…but sometimes we give up on God–especially when God’s people are not acting like Christ!
The challenge is always to trust…especially in the face of the paradox. The point is not that God could spend all his time “catching” and “preventing” stuff, but that he has revealed himself enough for those who are looking for him to find him. And once we are found, then we must continue to believe…persevere in the faith.
The fact that God works with circumstances does not mean that he (using your example) “sacrificed” your father for the sake of the rest of the family. Your grandmother and father reacted and made decisions that impacted his life–and yours. Sad, but true. Rather, God redeemed the circumstance your father and grandmother experienced in such a way that the rest of you were saved. This is a different thing totally. Does that make sense?
As faithful covenant-keeper, God is always working to initiate good on our behalf…but he does require that we receive his initiative.
I know it is a tired story, but it always makes me think of the one about the man praying for God to save him from the flood waters rising around his house…but he refused to evacuate when there was time because he knew that God would save him. A neighbor soon came by with a boat, but the man waved him on–knowing that God was going to save him. The waters continued to rise and he had to go up on the roof. All this time he is getting more and more fervent in his prayers–trusting that God would be saving him any time now. Just then a helicopter comes by with a rope ladder for him to grab and climb to safety. But he waved it on, too. Sadly, the man drowned. When he got to heaven, he was outraged that God had not answered his prayers. To which God replied: look, I gave you time to drive out at the first warning, but you refused. Then, I sent a boat, which you waved on. Finally, I sent a helicopter, but you sent it away, too! What were you waiting for?
A groaner, I know…but the point is that we must look for the opportunities that present themselves and make choices that are consistent with what we know of God and what we know of our circumstances. Does God usually scoop people up and move them out of harm’s way? Why do we expect that is the way he works?
Ah…the paradox. We trust God’s faithfulness. We ask for wisdom to see and choose what is right–not just for us, but for those around us. We look to brothers and sisters in Christ for help and guidance. We then move to action in ways that are as consistent with those who are faithfully growing to be like Christ as we can. We trust that God will help us and make things work for our good–because he has promised to do so. And so we believe…and learn to be content in our circumstances because we believe.
Another groaner, but still true: We pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us. It is a partnership. God equips and enables us to work…he does not do the work for us…we must learn and grow and struggle and repent and ask forgiveness and forgive and choose reconciliation….
Talk about rambling…YIKES! I’ve been away and wanted to get back to you, but my brains are a little fried. I am hoping that God helps you hear what I mean–even it I didn’t quite say it right!
Be blessed.
Isn’t Peggy a darling?
Hey Peggy,
Thanks for processing through this with me. I appreciate your insight. As I was reading your post from yesterday I was reminded of Jesus’ first miracle in John, and how it actually wasn’t “his” miracle in the sense that he spoke, or did anything that directly effected a change, but instead he told the servants to fill the jars with water, and draw it out. Who changed the water into wine is the wronge question, but rather “why”. Obedience seems to be the answer precisely because as you say, it is a partnership.
But it isn’t the partnership that perplexes me. Again, maybe I am just asking an unanswerable question that I have to give up the realm of mystery, or I am not asking it the right way. Regardless if we are in partnership or covenant with God, He is still “God” and is by some measure of definition “sovereign” over human affaris and circumstances…But how much so? What is the exact nature of his sovereignty, and how far does the “partnership” stretch?
Hey Peggy,
Go check this out: http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/09/35w-bridge-collapse-and-book-of-job.html
After I wrote you this afternoon I read this and it really started to bring some things about my questions inot perspective.
Hello, Gary…I’m pleased that Greg’s blog post made some sense for you. Job is one of my personal favorites…and it ranks up there at the top of those texts that are largely misunderstood.
The bottom line of the sovereignty deal, for me, is this: God spoke the universe into existence, and Christ holds it together moment by moment, and the Holy Spirit is hovering over it and in us at all times…there is no doubt about the extent of his sovereignty–he is absolutely sovereign.
That being said, I go further to agree with the message of Job–for which one must wade through all the error to get to the last few chapters for the zinger of Reality. When we call God to account (what nerve, eh?) for what happens in our circumstances (or another’s, for that matter), we are asking the wrong question. We are asking a question that we don’t even know how to ask…and we are unable to comprehend the answer–with which God graciously doesn’t even burden Job.
In the midst of this reality, God HAS revealed to us that he has chosen to restrain his sovereign power so that he may enter into dynamic, personal relationship with us–if we will freely choose such relationship. He has bound himself to a new and eternal covenant–which he made in his very own blood at Jesus’ death. He has forgiven our sins and made us joint heirs with Jesus. He has entrusted his mission on earth to us. In all of this he has declared that he is our faithful covenant partner, who will provide everything we need to accomplish his will and remain faithful ourselves–if we trust and obey and persevere.
That involves a lot of restraint of his power, if you’re paying attention here. And what he doesn’t need is us down here in the “misty mystery” second guessing what he’s doing. We are to trust that he is absolutely faithful. Period. And that he will always be working, in whatever our circumstances are, to benefit us. Period. And it is our covenant duty to believe him and act accordingly–with as much wisdom and grace and mercy and love as possible.
This does not fit into many people’s idea, but the whole point is that WE are to fit into God’s idea…. God is completely sovereign–and that HE chooses to restrain his power does not take away from his sovereignty. Rather, it shows his nature and his idea of power-for-covenant-keeping rather than power-for-coersion.
And all this means that when we face life’s circumstances we do it confidently and without questioning God’s love for us and his presence with us and his initiative for our best interest. We also are on the lookout for what he is doing in and around us and live in the posture of expectancy that is receptive to whatever he sends–without turning it into expectations about what he must do or must not do because of his sovereignty.
Well…Dr. Mom is called away–my first grader will be going to his first day of school tomorrow with a sling because he cut his hand in a big way…there it is…I was here blogging and he was in the kitchen trying to open shrink-wrapped book with a knife. So we learned another lesson about knives and consequences…sigh….
Blessings, all.
Great points Peggy…I still feel there is a disconnect between what I am saying, verses what I am thinking and asking, but I think you are getting closer, and more to the point…I think I am getting closer too!!!
last word…scissors
Yes…scissors! But they can be just as dangerous, just in different ways…and they still require “permission”–which was the whole problem with my fiercely independent 6 year old and the knife…AAUGH!
Gary, it is a great thing that you are struggling to articulate your thoughts and questions. It is a very worthwhile effort, brother! Glad to be here in the ditch with you, digging and brushing and uncovering the treasures that reveal more and more of our awesome, sovereign, covenant God!
I know it’s stupid to identify yourself on one side of an argument or the other becuase generally you paint yourself into a blind corner, but with this whole Calvin/Arminian/Open thing that I have been struggling with over the past few years I really do think it does one well to do the hard work of prayer and thought to define onself. I think it’s important becaue I think it does more in defining who you are and not necissarily in defining who God is. And it’s for that reason that I think I have finally settled on saying that I am more or less “Open” in my theological perspective. I think that both the traditional Calvin position and the traditional Arminian position take our eyes off the ball. I reall do think that they stop us in our tracks faith wise, obedience wise, and grace wise, and force “us” to define who God “is” instead of calling us to live our lives in light of what God has plainly done for us, and what he plainly calls us to.
I think the open position respectfully deals with a God who is “all” sovereign and “all” loving in that it simply and humbly says “I don’t know” to many questions and concerns.
So, my two and a half year stomach ache is gone and I have moved on to another of life’s pressing questions:
Is professionally rasslin staged?