Saturday, November 26, 2016

My time with some Latter Day Saints

I've finally decided to put together this post about my time spent with the Latter Day Saint missionaries I've been regularly meeting with. I met them several months ago while I was working on homework at the local mill pond, while keeping an eye out for the Jehovah's Witnesses that regularly post up by the nearby park. I recognized them as a pair of the door-to-door types, but I didn't recognize them as LDS missionaries until I got close and began speaking with them.

That day we had an hour and a half conversation getting to know each other. They're both around 20 years old or so; one is newer to the area and the other has been in Michigan a while and Brighton for a shorter time. For my part, I enjoyed our conversation, as I had never sat down and talked with Mormons before. They took my number and I theirs, and we agreed that we would sit down again and chat.

My interest was piqued, so when they texted me asking to meet the next week I agreed. We sat down and I began asking some of the basic questions about their religion. My initial interest was in questioning their Gospel presentation. When I am engaged with proselytizers I want to find common ground, and the Gospel is as foundational as it gets. I let them know as much, and asked, "What is your answer to the question 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'" (Acts 16:30-31). Their answer was as straightforward as Paul's: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

This was as good an answer as I could ask for, although I knew that there were some underlying issues with who Jesus was in the Mormon religion, and what "saved" might mean, etc. But at face value, this statement, and their explanation of Christ's substitutionary atonement, was sufficient to bring someone to salvation. I want to affirm that, because if someone heard only that from these missionaries, and agreed and believed it, then they would be justified by God. In this matter, I believe, Paul would agree, because the result is that "Christ is proclaimed" (Philippians 1:15-18).

I spent some time with them every week for several weeks after that. I took time out of a weekend to watch their semi-annual conference, where their apostles and prophets preach and teach to all LDS members. It was around this time that I began reading the Book of Mormon for the first time as well. The missionaries and I discussed the anachronisms in the book, as well as the historical unverifiability of it.

Eventually after questioning the content, the story, and the purpose of what I had read so far, I let them know that, despite the glaring anachronisms and historical falsehoods, I would actually be willing to set that aside if the theological teaching in the Book of Mormon was in agreement with biblical teaching. On the contrary, if I found a doctrine in the Book of Mormon that was contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, I would be unable to accept the Book of Mormon as true. They understood and agreed to work with me on those premises.

I did some more reading the following week and came across a particularly interesting passage: 2 Nephi 2:22-23.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

The reason this was interesting to me is that the Bible makes no such claim anywhere. We can speculate about what would have happened had Adam and Eve not sinned, about how death would not have entered into the world, about how long Adam and Eve would have lived, etc. But the Bible never makes anywhere near so specific a claim about their ability to reproduce.

We'll come back to this idea, but first I want to mention another doctrine the missionaries and I discussed. Mormonism teaches that all humans are co-eternal with God in the form of "pre-mortal souls." These pre-mortal souls were, for some reason, incapable of "growth" and therefore incapable of fully appreciating God. God did not want them to stay this way, so God devised a plan to allow these pre-mortal souls to grow: being born into mortal bodies with the purpose of having them experience the choices between good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness (which, coincidentally, the Book of Mormon teaches are codependent; righteousness cannot exist without unrighteousness, etc.; see 2 Nephi 2:11ff.)

It is safe to say that God wanted all pre-mortal souls to be born, choose righteousness in their mortal lives, and then come back to God after death to fully appreciate God. According to the missionaries this doctrine and teaching can be found in the Book of Mormon in Alma chapters 34 and 42. I confess I read through these chapters and found only glimpses of what could be interpreted as this doctrine. But the missionaries assure me that this is official LDS teaching, and the LDS website confirms such ideas. (For the idea of co-eternality with God see Doctrines and Covenants § 93.28. See also the LDS page on pre-mortal life at

Now I will return to the idea that if Adam hadn't transgressed, they would not have had children. If you couple this explicit teaching with the ideas about pre-mortal life, and that God desires that all pre-mortal souls be born, then what we must conclude at the very least the entire plan of God is founded upon a sin, and at the worst we might conclude that God wanted Adam to sin. This last point is debatable; maybe God wanted pre-mortal souls to be born, but not for people to sin, but knew that the only way for people to be born was for Adam to sin, and planned accordingly. I would argue that in this scenario God still, on some level, desires that Adam sin, in order for the rest of his desired plan to take effect. I use the image of a vaccination: I don't want to get a shot because it hurts, but I know that it is the only way to get the vaccination into my body effectively, so on some level I do want the shot.

I posed this to the missionaries, that God actually wanted Adam to sin. Their response was one of contemplative silence. I gave them a moment to think about it, then followed up with the biblical teaching that God would never want anyone to sin (e.g. Habakkuk 1:13). They attempted some answers, but as we worked through them we discovered that none was able to solve the original problem of God wanting someone to sin.

I let them know that I would be pausing my reading through the Book of Mormon until I had an official answer to this particular dilemma. We didn't meet for some two weeks after that. Some of those two weeks I spent putting together a case against various answers I anticipated. Finally we scheduled a meeting. I asked if they had an answer ready for me, to which they replied that they did.

Fast forward to the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. We sat down in my living room as we always do and got right down to business. The official answer begins with what they say is the official interpretation of the Book of Moses 3:17, viz. that the choice to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was not explicitly a sin, but a choice that God gave them. God let them know that if they ate of it they would die, but that it was their choice to do so. God didn't prohibit them from eating it, such that eating it would be a transgression. Simply put, it wasn't a sin that Adam ate the fruit.

Let's take a break here and look at just one biblical passage that deals with the result of Adam's chomping into that fruit: Romans 5. Beginning in verse 10 we learn that we were enemies of God. Woah, that's not good! Reading on we learn in verse 12 that sin entered the world through one man, and that through sin death entered into the world, and then since everyone after that sinned everyone would also die. And in verse 14 we hear Paul refer to what Adam did as a transgression. Paul is saying that, even though not everyone transgressed in the same way Adam did, they still had death reigning over them.

This word transgressed is the Greek word παραβασις. This word denotes "sin in its relation to the law, i.e., to a requirement or obligation which is legally valid or has legal force" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume V, pp. 739-40). In this passage παραβασις is interesting, in that while v. 13 informs us that "sin was in the world" between what Adam did and when the Law was given, what Adam did was something beyond αμαρτια or "sin." Hence the term "transgression" or παραβασις is used for what Adam did. Adam specifically violated a known law of God. There is no escaping the fact that what Adam did was immoral, evil, wrong, and any other negative synonym we could come up with. Read the rest of the Bible and you get the same idea. The account in Genesis goes something like "God told Adam not to eat. Adam ate. God punished Adam."

This is what the Bible teaches. And yet, the LDS religion teaches that what Adam did was not a sin. In fact, on the LDS website ( it explicitly states that "Latter-day revelation makes clear that the Fall is a blessing and that Adam and Eve should be honored as the first parents of all mankind." This teaching is absolutely contradictory with what the Bible teaches.

I challenged the missionaries with the biblical position on what Adam did. I made it clear that the Bible taught that what Adam did was morally wrong, and that the consequences are contradictory to what God wants for humanity. And I made it clear that LDS teaching and LDS books are in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. I challenged them specifically to go back through the passages I mentioned, and other passages about the fall of Adam, and to read them with an open mind. I asked them to do this with integrity and intellectual honesty, and then to ask themselves if the Bible takes even a neutral stance on what Adam did, let alone such a strongly positive stance found in LDS doctrine. Finally, I challenged them to think about this contradiction, and to question their own teaching in light of what they read. I made it clear that one cannot hold both of these opposed doctrines at the same time. The Bible teaches Adam sinned; LDS writings teach that Adam did not sin. I told them that if they wanted to continue to be LDS members that is fine, but that they would necessarily be unable to accept the Bible as authoritative, given that it is in direct violation with the other writings LDS members hold to be authoritative.

We ended our meeting on that note, after several awkward silences. Throughout our time together everyone has been very respectful. I developed rapport with these missionaries over the course of several weeks, engaging them and asking questions, listening and learning, and doing for them what I would want anyone to do for me. This rapport allowed me to issue such a strong challenge without being offensive. This kind of relationship is incredibly important for witnessing and challenging other people.

My purpose in this post is twofold. First, Mormon teaching is in direct contradiction to Christian teaching, and no one is capable of holding both the Bible and LDS writings to be authoritative at the same time. Second, go out of your way to listen to other people. That is how you make a space for yourself to speak. Respectful dialogue is imminently important in our age.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Gospel-Centered Beliefs

This is a lengthy blog post, and it is my sincere wish that my rhetoric sufficiently counteracts the length.

I try to have as many theological conversations as possible, covering a wide range of topics. One of my personal favorites, and one I keep returning to, is the Calvinism and Arminianism discussion. I love the depth to which the conversations can go, the breadth of disciplines involved, and the people who participate. Unfortunately the conversation is occasionally corrupted by a lack of love and peace, and can degrade into name-calling and trolling, but the conversation continues regardless.

An important point of formation during my time at college was learning about the creeds of the church. I was at a point in my life where I was still marred by my negative church teachings, which led me to bifurcate people into black and white categories: either they believed the truth or they didn't. My trouble was that leaving my home church left me wondering just what truth was supposed to be believed.

The church creeds helped pull me out of this mire. Finally I had found a document (The 381 Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, to be exact) that delineated truth from error that I felt I could fully get behind. This document spelled out what a Christian believes about some of the biggest points in the religion. I came to appreciate this creed not only for what it said, but also for what it didn't say. Suddenly, I could look at someone as a brother or sister, even if they believed completely differently than me about, well, take your pick: abortion, homosexuality, the purpose of the book of Revelation, inerrancy, and even Calvinism/Arminianism.

That last conversation, one of my favorites, takes place squarely within Christian orthodoxy. Most people fall within the beliefs outlined in the 381 creed. People on both sides of the conversation worship the same God. I personally try to acknowledge this reality whenever I begin dialogue with someone about Calvinism/Arminianism, as well as at the beginning of lengthy blog posts on the topic.

I recently engaged in another iteration of this conversation on a Facebook group I'm a member of. It was refreshing to see the original post's treatment of both sides of the issue; I felt he accurately represented both sides of the discussion fairly, given his short descriptions. My contribution , which I expound on here, was to point out an important and oft overlooked aspect of the discussion: starting points.

From my experience of this conversation, each side begins with a certain set of premises, combines those premises in an argument, and draws valid conclusions from them. Both sides bring convincing evidence to bear on their respective arguments. Failing to recognize this important aspect of the discussion leads many interlocutors to talk past one another, failing to see from one another's perspective.

Nowadays I find myself in the Arminian camp (whereas I grew up in a mostly Calvinist church). Thankfully I had the influence of humble professors who offered their position on the topics in a loving, respectful, and logical way. It is under their tutelage that my own perspective on this conversation grown more solid, and I grew more self-aware of the lenses I use to look at the evidence available.

One of the lenses that I've been trying to keep in front of me at all times is the Gospel. While an excellent buzz word (synergy!), Gospel-centeredness has become a sort of rubric in my theological discernment. When I come at a topic, I do my best to focus on how believing this or that relates to the Gospel: does this position communicate or obfuscate the Gospel, does that belief incorporate or reinterpret the Gospel? What does the Gospel say about my beliefs, and how can it reshape them? 

This is my starting point for my Arminian position. I'm intimately concerned with Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. What does Jesus say about it, and what do his disciples say about it? Many other people are concerned about this as well. I believe this concern nudges many to be "four point Calvinists." They see that it is apparent in scripture that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and thus profess accordingly the third point of Arminianism: Unlimited Atonement

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the ἱλασμός for our sins, not for ours alone, but even for the whole world.
Romans 5:6-8 Yet Christ, while we were helpless, at the right time still died for the ungodly. For someone will hardly die for a righteous man, though maybe someone will dare to die for a good man. But God demonstrates his own love to us, because while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
Notice also that I have left ἱλασμός (hilasmós) untranslated in 1 John 2:2. This is because this word is theologically huge (technical term). At its root is the Old Testament idea of atoning sacrifices and payments. These were intended to pay for sins committed, which then prevents judgments of various sorts from falling on the sinner. To quote Büchsel (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 317) "The meaning, then, is the setting aside of sin as guilt against God." This concept becomes important later in my argument.

I have quoted the two passages above to give a sampling of scriptural evidence in support of Unlimited Atonement. But of equal concern to me as the "who" of atonement is the "what." Just what did Jesus accomplish on the cross? While this question is of incredible significance and scope, the scripture does speak to it. Below are a few passages that shape my understanding of the atonement.
Galatians 1:4 who gave himself for our sins, in order that he might deliver us from the present evil age according to the will of God our Father
Revelation 1:5 ...To the One who loves us and freed us from our sins via his blood, 
2 Corinthians 5:15 and he died for everyone, in order that those who are alive would no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them.
Through these three verses we glimpse a fraction of the picture, but a crucial fraction nonetheless. Deliverance is an important theme, and it appears that we are being freed from our sins. Sin is a master, a prison, something we as humans have to be rescued from. Christ came to bring us freedom, though not for freedom's sake, but so that we can live for Christ. Again, these are crucial realities that the Cross created for us, and if we take the verses concerning unlimited atonement at face value, this reality applies to all people. Take up this lens and look with me at one of my favorite passages, containing the most popular and widely translated verses in all of Scripture.
John 3:16-21 For God loved the world like this: He gave his only begotten Son, so that all who believe in him wouldn't perish, but have eternal life. For God didn't send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so the world would be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not condemned; the one who doesn't believe is judged already because that person does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God, and this is the basis for judgment: the Light has come into the world and people have loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For anyone who does worthless things hates the light, and come into the light so that their deeds won't be exposed. But the one practices the truth comes to the light so that it would be made known that the works were done in God. (emphases mine)
This passage is a choreographed dance showing us the intimate relationship between faith and works, belief and deeds. Not only does it reiterate unlimited atonement by showing that God is acting on behalf of the whole world out of His love for the whole world, it sheds light on the judgment of those who don't believe. Notice the bolded word "because." Judgment, according to this passage, is already in place, but it is there because people haven't believed. The basis of this judgment, the basis for judging that people who haven't believed, is that they are still behaving in terrible ways. But there is a fine line here that must be recognized: People are judged because they haven't believed, and it's obvious that they haven't believed, because they're still behaving wickedly, loving darkness rather than light, and refusing to have their works illuminated by Jesus.

Taking all of these passages into consideration, my argument is as follows: The atonement is for everyone, available to all, based on the love God has shown to the whole world. The atonement accomplished, among other things (and this is where the above treatment of ἱλασμός becomes relevant), "the setting aside of sin as guilt against God." And the atonement, per the passage above, among others, is unlimited, for the whole world. If the atonement is unlimited, and that one thing the atonement accomplished is that it set aside sin as guilt against God, then it is no longer sin that makes anyone guilty before God.

Now, let's return to John 3:18 and the because of judgment. Sin has been "paid for" in the sense that it is no longer sin that makes us guilty before God. Rather, unbelief is the cause of judgment. Unbelief is shown to be unbelief based on the works that a person does. The unbeliever will hide his or her sins, failing to allow the Gospel to shine on them. But the believer, in John 3:21, allows his or her deeds to be revealed for what they really are. It is the universality of the atonement as a great ἱλασμός that allows belief to be the basis of judgment; if all sin is paid for, the only thing left for us is to believe that it is so. This opportunity is available to all, because all sin is paid for.

If it seems at this point I have left the discussion of Arminianism and Calvinism behind, fear not. I needed to establish Unlimited Atonement as biblical, as well as elucidate a biblical view of what said atonement accomplishes. If I have done so, we can now work with the premise of unlimited atonement, and see how it affects the other points of Calvinism.

While it is reassuring to affirm the universality of the atonement as a display of God's love for His entire creation, one cannot help but be struck by the stark reality that many do not accept God's gift. These are those mentioned in John 3:18 as those who have not believed. That these individuals are judged because of their unbelief is telling, and in contrast with the second point of Calvinism: unconditional election.

Judgment of an individual is a result of their belief or unbelief; it is entirely conditional on the belief of the individual. While this doesn't counter unconditional election by itself, it serves as a stepping stone toward that end. It would be good to turn to 1 Timothy 2 at this point, and see how Paul uses unlimited atonement as evidence for God's desire to save.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 [the prayer for all people] is good and acceptable before God our Savior who wishes that all people would be saved and come to a full knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and people, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for everyone
Paul here talks about praying for everyone. He says that God finds intercessory prayers for all people to be pleasing. The reason God is pleased when we pray for others is that God wants everyone to be saved. And God wants everyone to be saved, since Jesus was given as a ransom for all. But here's the kicker: not everyone is saved. This here is where experience interjects reality into our understanding of God. Paul says that God really does want everyone to be saved, but reality shows us that not everyone is. In this instance, what God really does want, and what actually happens, are different things.

"WOAH HOLD UP!" one might say. "Ok now we're talking about God's Sovereignty and human free will! You can't just interpret the passage like that! It has to be interpreted with Sovereignty in mind!" I'm not sure why my interlocutor has begun using exclamation marks at this point, but were I in his shoes I'm sure I would as well. One would be right to discern that this is a part of the overall conversation. At this point, it is a question of whether God gets what He wants in this instance, as well as a question of whether God causes everything that he wants. If we work with the understanding of unlimited atonement I have described, and know that God's justification of a person comes as a result of their belief (the only unstated premise here that I can see is that justification is a prerequisite to salvation, but I'm not sure anyone would argue this point), then God does not always justify everyone. God in his infinite grace has provided all circumstances for people to believe and be justified. It would appear that he earnestly wants all people to be saved. Which is why I take 1 Timothy 2:4 at face value, through the lens of unlimited atonement, and infer that God doesn't always get what He wants. If this is the case, if God only provides salvific faith and subsequent justification to those whom He has previously elected unconditionally, then God is working contrary to His desires. Since God does not work against his own desires, there must be something else going on here.

I contend that this something else is libertarian human free will. Let me dwell for just a moment more on free will and sovereignty. I contend that sovereignty should not be considered in terms of "control" but in terms of action based on desire. I have heard sovereignty described frequently as God's meticulous control over all creation. I challenge that definition because in light of this discussion we can see that, taken at face value, God doesn't appear to get everything God wants. This doesn't deny God's sovereignty if we think about sovereignty less in terms of "God getting His way" than "God doing what He wants." It is possible that God, as an entirely sovereign being, chose to give free will to some of his creation. This would indeed be a mighty gift, for in giving it, the Creator of the universe is allowing His creation to make meaningful, substantive, could-be-otherwise alterations to creation. Because one or another creature freely decides to act against God does not violate God's sovereign actions toward that person; God will always continue to sovereignly act in the self-sacrificial love that He has exemplified in giving us His only begotten Son. This view of sovereignty is my attempt at a Gospel-centered view on sovereignty. Also, as a devotional point, it should be noted here that the greatest gift we can give to God is to return our free will to Him and live not by our own decisions, but by the Holy Spirit.

I have not even begun to touch on the concept of free will and its relation to our perception of it, and what that might say of a God who (theoretically) created us to think we had free will when in fact we don't. Nor have I touched on the utter impossibility of actually believing, and behaving accordingly, that we don't have free will. I will say at this point that I believe free will to be a part of the imago Dei, something that remained relatively undamaged by the Fall. It was heavily influenced, and continues to be, by sin, to be sure. But that free will exists as part of the image of God lends me to believe that the divine image in human beings wasn't totally destroyed by sin. This appears, from my perspective, to go against the teaching of Total Depravity, but let me nuance my position on this teaching further by defending against accusations of Pelagianism.

God is the only one who is capable of saving humanity. Apart from God's grace and mercy there would be no ἱλασμός to begin with, and if there is no ἱλασμός, faith in the ἱλασμός would be void of meaning. Thus, it is God sovereignly and graciously acting to provide a ἱλασμός that makes faith in the ἱλασμός possible. In fact, it is logically impossible for faith in ἱλασμός to exist without there being a ἱλασμός. Theoretically, I suppose that the Law, if it could be followed, could have provided righteousness. But I agree with Paul's estimation of the likelihood of that happening: 0%. I believe humans are so tainted by sin that, alone, they are incapable of saving themselves without divine mercy. But that is a different thing to say than what I believe: human beings are capable of exercising the remaining faculty of the imago Dei and choose to believe in God's merciful ἱλασμός. I think this is where my departure from traditionally understood Total Depravity takes place.

Thus far the argument has primarily rested on the concepts of unlimited atonement and free will, and what those spell out for the first two points of Calvinism. If my argument has been persuasive thus far, it will be easy to see why I don't adhere to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace: I believe in libertarian free will.

*hits a Staples button*

I will admit right offhand that this point is by far the scariest point of all of them for me. For a very long time I have wanted to find a way to defend a Calvinist view of this doctrine in some iteration or another. I've done everything I can think of, but intellectual honesty forces me to draw conclusions from the premises I've set up above which on the surface are unappealing to me.

If we are to accept that people have free will, and that God doesn't cause anyone to believe, but has provided the sufficient means for salvation such that any who do believe will be saved, then what does it say about how we live that salvation out in our lives? What does a Gospel-centered take on Perseverance of the Saints look like? I'm a little shaky on this myself, so bear with me as I put my addled thoughts down on digital paper.

As I showed above, justification rests squarely upon whether or not an individual believes in the gracious gift God has given us in Jesus. If one does not belief, it is on that unbelief that he is judged. But we also repeatedly see throughout scripture that salvific belief is the kind of belief that is evidenced by a change in behavior for the better. In fact, Paul argues in Romans 6 that this kind of belief, this "dying to sin," prevents us from continuing in sin. It certainly removes sin as a master over us, and through the cross it has no more power over us.

The real questions to address here is whether one can realistically lose that salvific faith, and whether that loss somehow revokes the justification God bestowed previously. If we stop believing, and consequently enter back into sin, does God once again consider us unrighteous? One parable in particular comes to mind:
NET John 15:1-6 "I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me– and I in him– bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up.
Alongside this parable are other scriptures to this effect, such as:
NET Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!
In my attempt to interpret scripture at face value, I must take these passages alongside my treatment of John 3:16-21 above. There is an intimate relationship between faith and works. If one ceases to believe, one is naturally going to resort to the kinds of selfish behaviors that marked their life before belief. And it is apparent that these individuals will not inherit the kingdom. Thus, salvific belief is not the kind of belief I was introduced to as a child, a kind of one-and-done acknowledgement of divine truths as true. To believe is to surrender free will to God until we pass into the kingdom.

I said this was the scary part, and I meant it, in a way. Many will say that this undermines any assurance that we are saved, for at any time in the future one might decide that all of this Jesus business is bologna. I can't see the future, and I'm not convinced that the future even exists as a thing to be known by Omniscient and Almighty God. But the New Testament does have something to say in this regard.
NET 1 John 4:13-18 By this we know that we reside in God and he in us: in that he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us. God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him. By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.
I know that I strive to love others as I love myself, and to love God through loving others. I know that I have the Spirit. I know that I'm not sinless, and might not be before I croak. But I am confident that I am saved, here and now. I also know that I frequently ask for a portion of God's Spirit to be with me throughout my day to help fend off my old tendencies. I have believed, God has justified me, and I am empowered to love my neighbor. To do so is to travel the narrow road leading to the narrow gate. I hope that I've done an adequate job of laying out my beliefs in a comprehensible way.

I hope that I have argued logically. I hope that it invites questions and discussions. And I hope for the resurrection promised to all who believe in Jesus. I conclude with this prayer of Paul.
NET Philippians 1:4-11 I always pray with joy in my every prayer for all of you because of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. For I am sure of this very thing, that the one who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. For it is right for me to think this about all of you, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel all of you became partners in God's grace together with me. For God is my witness that I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.

Monday, August 1, 2016

The greatest commandment(s)

I just (as in today) finished a book by Miroslav Volf called Allah: A Christian Response. This is the first book I've read by this theologian, but it will certainly not be the last. The book is intended to argue that the God of Christianity and Allah of Islam are the same God. But Volf doesn't leave it at that; he elucidates implications for this belief.

I engaged with the book because it is assigned reading for my systematic theology class at Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS). I will say that I went into this book already agreeing with Volf's conclusion: that the God of Christianity and Allah of Islam are the same. I had different reasons, and a much simpler argument, than what Volf presents. What he wrote still blows me away, though. His description of the Trinity presented here is descriptive and beautiful, as is his treatment of the Incarnation.

A thought occurred to me as I was reading the book. I'm sure it was triggered by the subject in the chapter I was reading at the time, but it struck me nonetheless. I was thinking about that time when Jesus had someone test him (which gets me every time. I love these parts of the Gospels). And, in typical Jesus fashion, he answers with two greatest commandments instead of one.

Matthew 22:35-40
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test [Jesus]: "Teacher, which commandment is greatest in the law?" So [Jesus] said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. But the second is like it: love your neighbor as you love yourself. On these two commandments the whole law hangs, as well as the prophets."

Strictly speaking, these aren't found in the big 10 (commandments). But, as Jesus says, these are the foundation, the hook, the (insert metaphor here) for all of the other commandments. Every single other commandment, even everything the prophets were prophesying about, can be summed up as dealing with either love of God, or love of neighbor.

What followed on the heels of my brief internal reflection of these two commandments was the stark realization that something was missing. I didn't read "believe in me for salvation" or "invite me into your heart" or "make me the Lord of your life."

"But that's really what the first commandment means!" I hear someone, who has mysteriously become my interlocutor, say. Or perhaps this person says, "Well, you have to believe what Jesus says to believe that these are the two greatest commandments." But these reactions miss the point, which is that the greatest things a person can do is love God, and love neighbor. It's my belief that these two commands are intrinsically linked to one another; if you're loving God, you'll love your neighbor, and vice versa. Others might take issue with the "vice versa," but let me speak (write?) to that here.

The reason I add "vice versa" is because it is my belief that God is pleased when anyone loves his or her neighbor as himself or herself. God wants us to relate to God in specific ways, yes. But Amos 5 gives us another picture of God, one of a God who demands justice more than religion, love more than "worship" as the term is used today. Proper relationship with God, both in Amos and in the great commandments, looks like justice flowing like a river, and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. Loving neighbors is loving God.

"That's all well and good, but it doesn't really deal with belief in Jesus." You're right. But I'll point out again that belief in Jesus, the kind of belief that many evangelicals would say "saves us" isn't mentioned here as one of the two greatest commandments. It might be a part of "love God" but it isn't expressly mentioned. My point is that regardless of what you belief, when you love your neighbor as yourself, you are in fact loving God, whether you know God or not.

I certainly don't believe that faith in Jesus is of no consequence. On the contrary, faith in Jesus is paramount to following these commandments fully. But the key word here is "fully." People of all faiths and all walks of life perform acts, and shape lives, in neighbor-loving (and therefore God loving) ways all the time. This is great, please keep doing that. I love that.

Putting faith in Jesus is what allows us to obey these two commandments completely. The ability to live a life in perfect harmony is impossible without the Holy Spirit inside of us, and that only comes through belief in Jesus, who He is and what He did. So belief, in this conversation (and maybe in others), is the means to living a life in complete accordance with the two greatest commandments. Trusting Jesus in some sense gets us to listen what He has to say. But fully trusting Jesus allows the Spirit to change you into a fully loving person, one capable not only of loving our friends and relatives, but even loving so far as our "enemies."

These are the ideas behind the last half of the I talked about at the beginning of this post. Volf thoroughly explores what it looks like to fully love our neighbors, specifically our Muslim neighbors. How does this commandment impact us on an individual level, a communal level, a national level, and a global level? How might understanding that both Muslims and Christians hold sufficiently similar views on God, to the point that we can say they worship the same God, alter our relationship with the more than 1 billion people following this religion? Does our understanding of God, in this way, affect whether or not Christians and Muslims can peacefully coexist? Volf gives a resounding "Yes, and here's how." A hearty two-thumbs-up to this book.

May the God of Peace bless us all with love like His.

The obligatory first post


This is my blog, revived! 2.0! Here's who I am:

My name's Lynn, and I live in Michigan! (hey, it's exciting for me) As it says on the little sidebar to the left, I'm a Christian, husband, father, and student of theology. I have a lot of other attributes and qualities, but that hits the gist of it.

What is this blog about?

In a word: theology.
In two words: Christian theology.

Ok ok. So I do a lot of thinking, in my apartment and abroad, about theology. I do a lot of reading about theology. On very good days, I get to do a lot of talking about theology. I've been looking at various theological blogs lately and thought, "Oh man, that was really informative. I have some thoughts. I wonder if others would find them informative!" Other times I've thought, as I am wont to think, "Wow, I strongly disagree with that. I should leave a comment to express myself. But wait... it will just be a comment. I need a blog to explain why I believe differently!"

Thus my interest in blogging has been renewed. I say "renewed" because if someone reading this knew me during my time at Southern Nazarene University you would know that I started this blog as a kind of "digital portfolio" for my papers and projects there. It has been approximately 3 years since I've touched this site. In three years I've graduated, moved twice, attended a seminary, and am currently prepping to start classes at another seminary this fall.

It is my intention that this blog will serve whomever reads it. My aim is to provide well thought out positions on various theological topics. I invite conversation, and welcome comments and emails. Usually what I write about will be spurred by something I've done recently, be it a book or blog I've read, a sermon I've heard, or a conversation I've had. Hopefully by reading what I put here someone will be informed or enlightened regarding a particular topic. At the very least, I hope someone thinks, "Huh, I hadn't thought about it that way before" and that this thinking is useful to them in some way.

So there it is! My first post. I'm trying to decide what my second post should be, since I didn't start a blog to write a first post about myself and what I want the blog to be about. I'll post another... post in a bit.

(insert salutation here)