A Modern Day Parable

The four CH-47 helicopters arrived through smoke and fire at the embassy in the capital of this foreign nation. Their mission? To rescue people trapped inside by insurgents’ gunfire and grenades. There were 87 people in the embassy, hanging on for dear life, hoping their own military would arrive before the nationals broke in.

The dissidents had already been pushed back by several AH-64 Apaches that flew by minutes earlier. Now troops were descending from the helicopters to the rooftop of the embassy. They entered the building, hurrying to the rooms where people were gathered.

Fifteen minutes later, the helicopters were lifting their quarry away to flight altitude. Twenty-five minutes later, the nationals broke into the embassy and torched it to the ground. Forty minutes after that, the helicopters landed at their military base nearby, celebrating what they considered a successful mission.

In the next hour, the nations around the globe grumbled at this superpower’s actions. In fact, the UN Secretary-General issued a statement denouncing the mission.

Nobody was condoning the terrorists who attacked the embassy, however. What the world found appalling was that the special forces had rescued less than half of the people in the building. Why, with four Chinooks, each with more than a 30 passenger capacity, did they only rescue 42 people? The nationals had been temporarily pushed back, so the soldiers had plenty of time to save all who were trapped inside.

This was no great rescue. The military had no right to celebrate. Forty-five people had died needlessly that day. And this superpower could have saved them without much effort. But for some strange reason it didn’t.

What is the purpose of this story?

For some, this parable could have begun with the words, “The kingdom of heaven is like...”

According to some traditions, God, the superpower of the universe, is said to demonstrate his glorious mercy by choosing a select group of people to be saved, while leaving countless billions to face the judgment of the lake of fire. Additionally, no one is able to respond favorably to God's grace without him giving them the gift of faith and repentance.

If this view is an accurate portrayal of scripture, then (to me, anyway) it begs a very important question. Why doesn't the infinitely powerful and the infinitely merciful God change everyone's heart and save everyone?

Finally, some theological views might add another element to this parable: that the superpower planned the assault on its own embassy, in order to show how great of a superpower it really was.

Hmmm... I just can't see how this view demonstrates a loving, merciful and just God as the Bible declares him to be.

"...but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight," declares the LORD (Jer 9:24).

Please share your feedback by posting a comment below.

Abandoning Age Old Arguments

For hundreds of years there have been many fruitless discussions and disagreements between Calvinist and Arminianist thinkers. You do not have to look far to find various defenses of these views. Try a quick search on Google. You can easily discover the five points of Arminianism and the corresponding five points of Calvinism. And then you can get bogged down in all the logical arguments defending either side.

In my discussions with Calvinists, it appears a fundamental goal is to defend the sovereignty and power of God. Calvinists exalt the idea that God is in control, God is sovereign and unchanging. Their doctrine of election comes from his sovereign choosing.

With Arminianists I’ve found a protectiveness over the foreknowledge of God. They exalt the idea that God foreknows all events in the future, all choices and actions of man. Their doctrine of election extends from this.

Does God’s Opinion Matter?
My recent mental meanderings have made me question: What does God exalt about himself?

I recently asked a group of young people what they thought God’s glory was. I believe their answers reflect many people’s opinions: “his power”, “his strength”, a “bright shining light like Bruce Almighty saw when he was introduced to God”, “his control”, “his knowledge”. But is this what God says his glory is? Another way to ask this question is, “What does God see as glorious about himself?” Perhaps this is what we should be defending above all other theological notions.

Show Me Your Glory
Moses prays, “Show me your glory” in Exodus 33. God’s response amazes me. He doesn’t show Moses his great power, strength, or the blinding light of his presence. God answers Moses, “I will make all my goodness pass before you”. It appears that God’s goodness is what he considers most glorious about himself.

God then says he will proclaim his name to Moses. In the Hebrew dictionary, “name” means also “reputation, fame, glory, and memorial.” At the beginning of the next chapter the Lord proclaims his name:

The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.

The glory of God has more to do with his character than his might, power, sovereignty, and knowledge.

Glory in This
God also says in Jeremiah 9:23, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches” (NKJV). Interestingly, God doesn’t appear to glory in these things either. He is infinitely knowledgeable, but he doesn’t glory in it. He is infinite in might, power, and ability. But he doesn’t glory in it. He is infinite in riches (“the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it”), but he doesn’t glory in that either.

Instead, he continues, “let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD.” First and foremost, God obviously cares that we know and understand his lovingkindness, his judgment/justice, and his righteousness. He puts an exclamation point at the end by saying, “I delight in these things.”

A Calvinist Response to Suffering and Hell
Some theologians would have us believe that God planned and purposed evil and suffering (as well as for countless millions to be condemned to hell). When these ideas offend our understanding of love, justice and righteousness, the common Calvinistic response is: God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts, his ways are higher than his ways; we cannot understand these things in our limited understanding. God, however, seems to have a different opinion. Minimally he believes that we can know and understand his lovingkindness, his justice and his righteousness.

What about Arminianists?
Arminianists run the risk of camping closer to the Calvinists than they admit when they affirm God foreknows the destiny of every human being. A fitting philosophical question would be, “If God foreknows my destiny, is it an actual possibility for me to choose something different than what he foreknows absolutely?” Thus they hold to a form of fatalism. Yet they will strongly defend his absolute foreknowledge while claiming man’s free will. Various unsatisfactory illustrations (to me, anyway!) are used to do this.

God isn’t Insecure
God doesn’t need us to defend his infinite power, knowledge, and sovereignty. He’s secure in who he is. In fact, God makes statements about himself that no Arminianist or Calvinist would dare make. In Jeremiah God says three times that the Israelites were burning their sons and daughters to false gods, a thing which had not entered his mind (see Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, 32:35). God says to Abraham, “now I know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12) and to the Israelites that he tested them 40 years “to know what was in their heart” (Deut. 8:2). There are also the instances of God changing his mind (a peculiar difficulty with many views of God’s foreknowledge): Ex. 32:12-14, Jer. 26:19, and Amos 7:3,6. (I can already hear different objections to these references.) Hmmm. I wonder if the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.

God is Love
If there is one thing God wants to be known for, I believe it is summed up in John’s repeated phrase, “God is love”. This appears to be the most glorious thing about God. This is what God cares so much that his creation knows about him. (Perhaps we should care more about understanding this than predestination and free will.)

Certain attributes of love are included in 1 Corinthians 13. One of those is love “does not insist on its own way” (ESV). Yet Calvin, at least, would have us believe that God is love and God does insist on his own way by his sovereignty.

Our Theological Base
Theology means the study of God. Shouldn’t our starting and ending points be what God reveals as most important about himself?

God is more concerned about his goodness, his lovingkindness, his justice and his righteousness. When our logical conclusions lead us away from common sense understandings of his good character maybe we should stop. Maybe we should reexamine our theology rather than redefine who God claims to be. Should we sacrifice God’s love and goodness on the altar of his sovereignty, power and knowledge?

Shouldn’t our theology be based in the goodness of who God shows himself to be? He says we can understand and know these things. We don’t have to redefine God’s justice or grace or love to match a theological position. Instead our exegeses should stem from what God declares as the most glorious thing about him.

Let’s spend more time and energy defending and glorying in what God says he delights in. What he delights in should shape our theological interpretations of scripture.

And maybe, just maybe, the scriptures we use to defend our age old arguments have different, legitimate interpretations than what we’ve considered.

God, Suffering, and Theology

I've been reading a book by popular author/editor John Piper called Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. The book has various contributors who have suffered in their own ways (including Joni Eareckson Tada & Stephen Saint), and by all means have the "right to write" about suffering because of their personal experiences.

What troubles me in this book, however, is the theological base from which the rest of the book is written.

You may be surprised to find that the theology expressed here is that all suffering exists because God ordains it. And He does this to demonstrate His glory.

God's Foreordination is the Ultimate Reason
Mark Talbot contributes here that "God never does evil. Yet this is not to say that God does not create, send, permit, or even move others to do evil..." In explaining Hebrews 1:3 he goes on to say that "God the Son holds each and every aspect of creation, including all of its evil aspects, in his 'hands' ... where it accomplishes exactly what he wants it to do." His interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 where God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" implies that God is the one working all things -- all things -- by His sovereign will. He "brings about these evil aspects for his glory... This includes -- as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem -- God's having brought about the Nazis' brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: 'The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil' (Prov. 16:4 NASB)..." And finally, "Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside of God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God's foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events." (Excerpted from pp. 41-44.)

The Slaughter of His Son
John Piper goes on to lay what he believes is the Biblical foundation for God's purpose in creating the world, planning its sin and suffering: so that He could show the greatness of the glory of His grace by the "slaughter" of His Son. I'll limit myself to two quotes here:

According to this divine plan, God permits sin to enter the world. God ordains that what he hates will come to pass. It is not sin in God to will that there be sin. We do not need to fathom this mystery (p. 85).

"...the aim of creation is the fullest, clearest, surest display of the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. And that display would be the slaughter of the best being in the universe for millions of undeserving sinners" (p. 83).

Thus, God's intention was to bring about a fallen, sinful, suffering world, so that He could save us from it by the slaughter of His Son. This would demonstrate the greatness of the glory of His grace.

'My Thoughts Exactly'
Exegesis. John Piper and Mark Talbot did a fine job of using many scriptures to lay a foundation for their (traditional) theological position. But at the expense of what other scriptural revelation about God? Obviously, there will always be different theological camps, each one nestled closely to the scriptures that seem to affirm their views. One can do better than this, however, by looking at the Bible (God's revelation of Himself) as a whole. I wonder why a God who planned every evil would say things like this:

"All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people" Rom 10:21

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling" Mat 23:37

"And they built the high places of Baal ... to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin" Jer 32:35 (cf. Jer 7:31, 19:5)

One more important question for Talbot and Piper is: are there any other legitimate interpretations for the references they use to support their theology? Quite so.

Philosophy. Does someone who is supremely good have to create evil contrasts to show how good they really are? I wonder if I should try that with my children.

Additionally, I wonder how the suffering of countless "undeserving sinners" in hell demonstrates "the greatness of the glory of the grace of God". After all, this theology affirms that God specifically did not choose to save them, but has a greater good in choosing to let them suffer the pain of Hell. Maybe "we do not need to fathom this mystery" either.