This post is a follow-up to the FBCTW College Bible study on 7/6/2008.
“My name is will, God’s will!” “It’s not in God’s will for us to be together anymore.” “I don’t know which color carpet God wants me to have?”
The term God’s will has become a rather nebulous concept within Christian circles, mostly because the term will has several meanings in and of itself. Will can refer to one’s desires, purposes, plans, intentions, and motives. The same is true of God, and when we or the Scriptures refer to His will, in one sense we refer to his desires, law, and precepts. At other times, the reference is to his purpose, plans, intentions, and counsel. Although God’s attribute of purpose is distinct from God’s other attributes, it is strongly related to his other attributes, especially that of His holiness, love, independence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
When we fail to note the distinction between God’s will of purpose from that of His desire or precept, confusion is the common result. Often times, when we think of us following God’s will, we think of some spiritual tightrope that God has set before us that if we do not precisely follow, we fall to our doom—not to mention frustrate God in his purposes. Just listen to the way many describe our place in relation to God’s will! These descriptions of God’s will make Him seem so dependent on human beings! This is simply not biblical.
First, we will cover God’s will in terms in his purposes, decrees, and plans. Then we will cover it in terms of desire, law, and precepts.
God has a unified purpose in the creation of the world and all that happens in it—and that purpose is to reveal his glory and majesty. Like the plot of a great book or movie, God’s overall purpose has many “sub-plots”—individual persons and events—that piece together to produce His masterpiece that accomplishes its chief end. The main character in His plot is Jesus Christ and the climax is His life on earth. Everything centers on this event. [Eph 3:11]
God, in his grace, involves us in his purposes and plans, but we as the creature cannot frustrate the plans of the Creator! Compared to greatness of God, I am but a drop of water compared to the vastness of earth’s oceans, and all of humanity might be slightly more than a bucket. Therefore, if I or the entire human race were to oppose God in his purposes, we would be like a penny stopping a freight train! Whatever God purposes, He does. We must know, understand, and accept this. That is why Paul says:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?” 35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:33-36
This is the foundation of Romans 12:1-2. There is no one sovereign over God—He is the sovereign. He has no need for our advice or service to accomplish his ends. The counsel of Scripture allows for no other interpretation: Job 12:13-25, 23:13, 42:2; Psalm 33:1-22, 115:1-3, 119:89-91, 135:6, all of 139; Daniel 4:34-35; Proverbs 19:21; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11. [Many others]
Whether we are in submission to or rebellion against God, God will accomplish his purpose through us—and judge us for our rebellion if that be the case.
However, when we view God’s will in terms of his desires, precepts, and law, it is clear that this is not always done. Only in terms of God desire for our behavior can we be “out of God’s will.” God consistently commands us to obey his will, so obviously He desires our obedience. However, even as believers, we consistently rebel against God’s laws! Paul confirms this in Romans 12:1-2:
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove [test, determine, or evaluate] what is that good and acceptable and perfect will [purpose] of God.
Clearly, God is commanding us through the apostle Paul to be transformed [metamorphoomai] by the renewing of our minds. God desires that our minds be transformed by the disciplines of the Christian faith: the study of the Word of God, prayer, and service in the body of Christ. This is also not always done.
This brings us some interesting questions. Does God purpose evil? Clearly by his hatred of it, God does not desire it! Therefore, how can God purpose something that He does not desire? If He does purpose evil, is not God responsible for it? How can I trust a God who is responsible for evil? If we cannot thwart God’s plans, how does that relate to our freedom of choice?
These are substantial questions that will be addressed in coming FBCTW Bible Study, and a short answer here will not do justice to the questions themselves. However, some of the questions must briefly be addressed in order to complete the topic of God’s will and purpose.
God Himself does not commit evil, nor does He tempt people to commit evil. His nature is good—and his knowledge is perfect. He knows the inclinations and motives of our hearts, even better than we do! Evil has a place in God’s overall perfect plan, and God purposefully allows men to act in evils ways, knowing exactly what they will do, with the intention to bring about a greater good and reveal a greater glory of Himself by His use of those actions!
Although the commission of sin stirs up anger is displeasure in God, in patience God permits it to exist for a greater good. How this is so lies within the unsearchable wisdom of God, and when these horrendous acts of wickedness take place, God is not obligated to reveal to us how they are a part of his plan. However, we must know they are for our [believers] and His good!
Take note of the parent who must let his child do something that might hurt him in order that the child may learn an important lesson that would not be learned if the parent kept trying to protect the child. Both the parent and the child are hurt by what takes place, but it is for the child’s good. So it is with God and us.
The story of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ are clear examples of this. Think of how much it hurt God to see His Son experience what He did on Calvary! On the other hand, what a glorious revelation of God’s love, grace, wrath, and justice in Christ’s Work!
Now, how are we to know and be in God’s will? From Romans 12:1-2, it is clear that in order for us to know, test, examine, and prove God’s good, acceptable, and perfect purpose, we must continually be transformed by the renewal of our minds. What does “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” mean?
It means first and foremost that we must be born-again—regenerated by the power of Christ’s resurrection. That is the beginning of the metamorphosis. That means we must have trusted Christ and His work alone as the only means to a relationship with the Father and eternal life! If we have not done so, we cannot be “in God’s will.”
It means that we must study His Word so that it becomes the guiding principle of our lives. We must be in surrender to the wisdom therein.
It means that we should be in prayer, fervent and consistent prayer.
It means that we serve the body of Christ—the church—through a local congregation of genuine believers.
When we are doing these things, we are in “God’s will”—regardless of what career we may choose, or the person we marry. In fact, when we are truly conformed to Christ’s image, we tend to make wise decision in these major choices—even when God doesn’t clearly show us the decision to make. When we conform to God’s desire, we have freedom in knowing that we cannot frustrate God’s purpose.
To sum it up: To be in God’s will is to do God’s will. To do God’s will is to live like Christ. The rest falls into its place by the awesome sovereignty of God.
I am sorry it has been two months since my last post. A ton has been going on, and now that everything is official, I can make mention of it here. Due to a transfer at my company, my wife and I are moving to The Woodlands, TX, a community 30 miles directly north of Houston. My new position will be greatly involved with IT project management. Due to all business due to the move, I have had and will have little time to post anything of substance. I hope to pick back up after June 10th or so.
Before I mention the prayer request for my wife and I, I wanted to make mention of a few prayer requests for some friends, and some folks that I do not personally know:
For me and Laura, pray that the transition goes well, that we sell our current home and get the contract on a house on which we have placed an offer, and that Laura is offered a job in a nearby school district, either Klein, Spring, Tomball, or Conroe. Lastly, and most importantly, please pray that we find a solid, biblical church that has strong preaching and fellowship.
At this point in time, I am literally shrinking under the covers, because I have expressed my sentiments on Sunday School material on multiple occasions, although I can't remember if I had done so within earshot of Dennis before. The funny thing was, Laura and I had "productive conversation" along those lines the day before.This past Sunday, I expressed in the midst of my sermon, as I have on several occasions, my frustration with people who have some theological training and express their dissapointment in the Sunday School material for "being too shallow", among other things...
I found this to be hilarious! And, if you are reading again, thanks!...and use this as an excuse to not go to Sunday School at all. Like I said, I have said this before, and no one has ever told me anything in the past. This week, a person who attends our church misunderstood the comments and thought I was talking about him/her. Now this person has complained in the past about the shallowness of material, but he/she attends Sunday School, so she was not the target of my comments. We easily resolved the misunderstanding.
There is another man in the congregation who has a seminary education who hasn't been coming to Sunday School for a while, but he has medical reasons for doing so. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding, I went to visit them [or call them, I [Brent] can't remember].
His wife answered the door/phone and I began to speak with her. She assured me that there is no problem, and the conversation changed paths to another subject. She attends a BSF study, and the subject of the material is the book of Romans, and I have also been preaching through Romans--but the study is a bit ahead of where I am. She told me that the most recent study was on Romans 9. I said, "You all must be dealing with some significant issues, such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination. Now from what I understand, you can't address demoninational issues in this study can you?"
She said, "We can deal with any topic the passage addresses. Besides, there are a lot of Calvinistic Southern Baptists. In fact, I believe your son-in-law is a Calvinist, at least that is what it seems from reading his blog."
So I've said all of this merely to say that I ran into someone who has come accross your blog.
In all honesty, I am really frustrated with the church today. Either one cares about ministry, or she cares about theology. Hardly ever do they meet in the same church congregation. I find completely theologically irresponsible claims in some of the study material that has come across my eyes lately, and would love to be in a situation in which error is not so commonplace.Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?
Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.
Why are they irresponsible? When does God love me the least? When did I deserve God's love the most? Would God be just in accepting me despite my guilt? Am I still guilty in they eyes of God as a member of the body of Christ? What would God be doing at the Great White Throne judgment?"God loved me most when I deserved it least."
"God accepts me even though I am guilty...Faultfinding is not God's style."
Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:
Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.
The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.
1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.
There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.
First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.
This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.
Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.
To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:
Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"
Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.
Labels: Theology
Take some time to read my friend Daniel Hixon's criticism of Calvinism. The criticism is brief and broad, covering a lot of topics an a short amount of space, so he doesn't develop some of his arguments as much as I would like. Daniel is a brilliant guy. In fact, I respect him very much because of his honesty when we have discussed issues in the past.
I was one of the "real-live" Calvinists Daniel engaged at LSU. I was let out of my cage from time to time, so that I can roam to-and-fro and debate to pesky Arminians. ;-). Of all the non-Calvinists I have ever debated, Daniel was one of the most gracious and honest opponents. We talked about it on many occasions, too.
To be honest this movement distrubs me a little...Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of [off] as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us...
I cite this section because Daniel is right...and this arrogance is not limited to the young and the zealous. My wife and I have discussed this elitist tendency among Calvinists on many occasions, and because of this, we avoid "Reformed" churches. I know that some of my Calvinist friends might gasp at me saying this, but it is the general tendency when Calvinists get together. It's not that they "come off" as arrogant--the most vocal Calvinists typically are arrogant and elitist. This is ironic to me, because elitism is inconsistent with Calvinist theology, although it is often it an outcome when people let sinful arrogance reign in their hearts. I will explain this inconsistency more in a moment.
This elitism does not come out of the doctrine of election itself--it simply comes from thinking that we are right and the rest are wrong. It comes from the belief that we preach the truth and the rest preach blasphemies, and the arrogance is most apparent when we think that we have nothing to learn from Christians outside of the Reformed circles. You can see that I am speaking from experience...
Daniel gives his summary of the 5 points of Calvinism:
Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.
When Daniel said, "this expression does not occur in scripture," he was attempting to bias his reader against Total Depravity. The term "prevenient grace", a term coined by John Wesley (the founder of Methodism, Daniel refers to his sermon against Calvinism) and central to his theology of man, also does not occur in Scripture. Neither does the word Trinity. Just because the actual term does not exist does not mean the concept is not taught in God's Word.
His quoted definition is the correct definition of Total Depravity: every inclination of all the thoughts of our hearts, apart from the redeeming work of Christ, are evil, and on that continually. The definition is a citation out of Genesis 6 and 8. Reformed theologians qualify this "restraining grace" a bit more than Daniel does, and most common term is "common grace." Common grace comes several forms, with the most evident one being human government. The influence of the church upon society is another form of common grace. It is common grace that prevents the human heart from plunging into anarchy, as can be seen when the presence of certain forms of common grace, such as government, are removed.
However, common grace more often affects man's action rather than his motive. It keeps people from doing evil, but it doesn't necessarily stop man from desiring it. Most Calvinists, myself included, believe that altruism in an unbeliever is rare at best, if not impossible. Even when good is done, it is done with corrupt motives. Common grace also does not save; it does not change the obstinate heart of the sinner to be able to accept Christ.
In fact, Wesley's "prevenient grace" is an outflow of his belief in something similar to total depravity. Wesley did believe in severe noetic effects of sin; sin impeded man's ability to come to Christ. In Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace, God temporarily removes the effects of sin when the gospel call is made so that a persons response to the gospel is truly his own without any influence from God or sin. Prevenient grace is what make a "free choice" possible. In common grace, God does not remove the corruption of sin, he merely limits its capabilities through external means. In prevenient grace, the corruption is removed for the purpose of "free choice." Hence, these concepts are not one in the same.
Total depravity is not a "theory." It is a consistent teaching of Scripture, and it is the basis of biblical grace (Eph 2). Before Christ, my will was a slave to sin to do its bidding. It's reality can be seen, for we all know what we are truly like we no one is looking, and we see what people (and governments) can do when accountability is removed.
There is a biblical basis for Total Depravity and Common Grace. Genesis 6 and 8 cite Daniel's definition almost verbatim. Psalm 14, John 6:44; Romans 1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 13; among many others. If you need more, let me know.
More to come...wifey says it's time for bed.
Labels: Theology
In chapter 16, we come to Miller's idea of worship. He begins with saying that there are many things in Christian spirituality that are confusing. Well, he says that they are more than confusing, they are contradictory:
There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I know them...Love...beauty. Jesus as God.
If these ideas contradict the facts of reality, are they even real? Essentially, Miller is trying to say that many ideas and concepts within the Christian faith are difficult to understand--and some are impossible to fully understand. I would certainly agree with this, but I would not use the term contradiction to categorize these difficult ideas. Tense, of course. Indescribable, in some ways, yes. Contradictory, never. The definition of contradiction is this: if statement A is true, then statement B is false, and if statement B is true then statement A is false. One must true and the other false. If both can be false, but at most one can be true, then we have concepts that are contrary, but not contradictory. In a contradiction, one statement must be true and the other false.
A married bachelor, a circle square, a smart Democrat (little joke at my friend Donald Miller's expense): these are contradictions. Three Persons in one Godhead? Not a contradiction. It is a difficult concept to comprehend and explain, but categorically, it is not a contradiction. Love is not a contradiction simply because it is not a tangible thing, and neither is beauty a contradiction because of its subjective nature.
I have a friend who is a seminary student who criticizes certain Christian writers for embracing what he call "mysticism." I asked him if his statement meant that he is not a mystic. Of course not, he told me. I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.
You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.
Three separate persons in one God would certainly be a mystical (as in impossible) idea--but it is not the definition of the Trinity. This is an uninformed statement on Millers part, and it doesn't prove his point. First, no orthodox theologian would ever say that the Persons of the Trinity are separate--that would be tritheism. The proper term is distinct: three distinct Persons of the one divine essence.
Second, Miller hijacks his friends argument by redefining mysticism. There is an ancient form of philosophical practice and belief called mysticism, and these ideas have influenced many Christian thinkers. The Christian form of mysticism is most often expressed in gnosticism, although there are other forms of mystic Christianity. There are teachings in mystic and gnostic practices that are contrary to Christian belief. Miller redefines mysticism in etymological terms alone: mysticism is the belief in anything mysterious and unexplainable. Of course, we Christian have many beliefs that are mysterious...but that is not the mysticism Miller friend is talking about.
In the entirety of this chapter, Miller seems to think that he knows he is right because he "feels awe." We essentially should never engage God intellectually, only emotionally. Fearing God and being in awe of God are the path to wisdom, says Miller. However, the intellectual engagement of God's nature is not an act of reducing God to math (something Miller accuses theologians of doing), in fact, it can spark incredible feelings of awe, wonder, fear, and humility. In fact, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that with much wisdom comes much despair...
At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know that the chances of any of our theology of being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay...I don't there there is any better worship than wonder.
Miller, there is no possible way for you to know that God has things "figured out" (as if He has to think through these things) if your theology has a "million to one" chance of being "exactly right." This is purely emotional rambling...
Also, God isn't sitting up in heaven trying to get us to sit down and wonder all day long. Worship is best expressed in obedience. We can wonder all day long, but if we fail to obey God's commands, we do not respect Him, and wonder and disrespect can coexist. Reverence and obedience together cannot coexist with disrespect.
Lastly, which will be the final critique I make in this book (although I could make many more), Miller tells us in the next chapter:
I began to attend a Unitarian church...The people were wonderful...I was comfortable there...I did not like their flaky theology, though...
In respect to his "million to one" comment, he has no right to criticize the Unitarians of flaky theology. If he can't be certain of his own, then he forfeits his ability to judge the theology of others--unless Miller wants to be a hypocrite...
All in all, I judge this book to be a great glimpse into shallow emotionalism, but as far as a source of spiritual growth, it's not a good resource. Miller is inconsistent in his own theology and offers us nothing of real substance outside of his demand to "feel God." In fact, I think this book can be dangerous to someone who doesn't think critically about spiritual issues. He advocates an perspective of anti-intellectualism (thinking about God is dangerous) and fails to engage God's revelation in the Bible at all. Not one verse is cited verbatim, some are alluded to, but no unbeliever will ever know which words are Scripture and which are Millers. When Miller does directly attribute his words to a biblical source, he doesn't tell you where to find it.
The gospel that Miller presents is a social gospel intended to save us from our own "self-addiction" to an awareness of social causes that we need to follow. There is no demand for repentance, no explanation of God's wrath and anger, and no discussion of what Christ actually did on the cross. Christ is here to fix up the mess of my life and make me feel good about myself. It's all about me and what I can gain from "Christian spirituality"; The god of this book looks nothing like the God of the Bible. He is passive, waiting, drunk with love, figuring things out, incapable of truly revealing Himself to a point where we can be certain, risking Himself--among other near-blasphemous ideas. Hence the reason I use the word dangerous.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
Labels: Personal Note
Chapter 13 is titled "Romance." It's was one of the most humorous chapters in the book to read. In it, Miller presented the analogy of human marital love with that of God's love for us. His anecdotes of dating and "finding the one" were hilarious and easy to empathize with, but again, we should not use romance as a metaphor of God's love. He does not seduce us with flowers, a nice restaurant, and candles. His love is expressed in terms of action and commitment, not mere romantic feelings.
"I mean that to be in a relationship with God is to be loved purely and furiously. And a person who thinks himself as unlovable cannot be in a relationship with God because he can't accept who God is; a Being that is love...," Paul says... [Pages 146-147]
In order to understand the theological implications of this comment (which is spoken by a married friend of Miller's, but Miller's tone indicates that he buys into it), one must understand that this comment is an enthymeme--a conclusion drawn from unmentioned premises. The premise is this: God's love for mankind is rooted in man's "being lovable." In other words, God's love in not rooted in God's character alone--despite whatever condition in which man may be. No, rather, it is also grounded in qualities that man possesses that make him lovable. Several times in the book Miller has qualified God's love as "unconditional", but now he tells us that man is "lovable." God's love cannot be unconditional if we deserve it, and if we do not deserve God's love, then we are not inherently lovable.
If God's love is truly unconditional (which it is), then it matters not that man is lovable (which he is, in fact, not). If man were lovable, possessing the qualities that deserve God's love, then the idea of free grace is completely obliterated. If you need more proof that Miller buys into this man-centered theology, listen to the closing words from a play Miller wrote, which are also the closing words of chapter 13.
God risked Himself on me. I will risk myself on you. And together, we will learn to love, and perhaps then, and only then, understand the gravity that drew Him, unto us.
Miller completely has it backwards here. Biblically speaking, it is God who draw us to Him. Here, Miller seems to think that somehow we have something, some quality, some attribute, who knows what, that created a "gravity that drew [God] unto us." It is God who is drawn to us in Miller's theology. We are the center of God's universe.
Moreover, I hate the word "risk" in relation to God. In order to truly say that God took a risk, one must also say that God does not know something. The concept of risk depends on the concept of chance, and chance depends on a lack on knowledge. These words of Miller's are an appeal to warm fuzzies that carry severe theological consequences. For you logicians and mathematicians:
God + Risk < Omniscience
For the rest of you, this means that if God could take a risk, God cannot be omniscient--He knows less than everything.
Chapters 14 and 15 deal with the importance of community. This is decent content, besides the endorsement of profanity [Page 179]. The devil's goal is to get you to cuss. ;-) (See my previous reviews to get this joke). Chapter 16 concerns the importance of faith involved with giving. This is also decent material, besides the bashing of conservatives on page 188.
Next review will complete chapters 17 - 20, and thus finish the book.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
