TheLionRampant.net

Ok, my dissertation is in and I’m going to take another stab at my predestination series before studying for finals consumes my life. If you haven’t read my previous posts on predestination (or have blocked them from your memory), check them out first here. We have seen the biblical definition of election, and I have made the first background point that we have to consider predestination in light of our utter inability to do any good in our sinful state. Before going on to defend the Bible’s teaching on election I want to first briefly make another background point.

In order to understand what God is doing in election, we have to understand why God does anything that he does. What is it that motivates God to act the way he acts? The unambiguous answer of the Bible is that God works everything for his own glory. While it would be entirely wrong for us to do everything for our own glory, this is not the case for God. For a human being to do so would be wrong for the simple reason that we don’t deserve such honour. An individual who did everything to bring himself glory would be a deluded, self-absorbed, pompous jerk. Yet God is truly deserving of all glory and honour, because everything he does is thoroughly perfect.

There are (at least) two implications of this fact. First, everything God does (and therefore every individual action) is thoroughly good and should cause us to praise him. God’s integrity is above reproach. We cannot question the goodness of his actions, nor can we question the motivation lying behind them. Secondly, the answer to why God does anything is always that he does it for his own glory; we can never get beyond this answer. We may question why certain actions bring God glory, but we cannot answer this question. The reason for this is that it’s not a question for which the Bible itself provides an answer. We are simply told that God does everything for his own glory, and we must rest in the knowledge that the one who is infinitely greater than ourselves knows how to glorify himself.

Now, what does this have to do with predestination? The fact of the matter is that while it is not difficult to affirm in theory that God works everything for his own glory, we often slip into thinking that a substantial portion of his job description involves keeping us happy. In many churches today the implicit teaching is that God is our personal assistant–he exists to put out fires and get us through tough times. And so when we meet the doctrine of predestination in the Bible our instincts tell us it is wrong. How could our nice God be so not nice as to choose some people and not others? The answer, quite obviously, is that God is not motivated by an over-arching desire to be nice; he is working to bring glory to himself. (Again the satire of the Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism is helpful when it says ‘God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness’.) All this, of course, does not mean that God wants us to suffer continually and works tirelessly to make our lives difficult. It does, however, mean that he will bring circumstances into our lives that are difficult. He is glorified as we understand what it means to be humble (seeing ourselves for what we are in light of his greatness), and we are not often humbled when everything is going well.

The Bible’s teaching on predestination offends our senses. It doesn’t sound right. But truth is not judged by the standard of our fickle feelings and senses; it is judged by the standard of the Word of God. So when we are offended by the biblical teaching on election, we must remember that God’s act in election brings him glory. As we continue to consider what the Bible says about predestination we must keep this point in mind: God is working to bring himself glory, and those who love him should seek to make his glory more fully known.

I’ll start looking at common erroronious views on predestination in a few days. Until then, feel free to leave questions or comments on anything I’ve written up to this point.

I thought it’d be interesting to start my own wee series on personalities and my experience with the Myers-Briggs 16-types; if you’re unfamiliar with Myers-Briggs go here to take a test. Obviously assigning a letter to your personality is a bit more simplistic than the nuances in each of us, but nonetheless, I think it helps us to understand ourselves, each other and why you are attracted to certain types of people more than others.

For this first post, I’m going to talk a bit about some of the similarities I’ve noticed in Bryce and myself as we’re both I’s and both J’s (introverted judgers). I used to think being introverted was bad — like you were a geek, had no friends and didn’t like people generally. But I’ve come to see it more about how one needs recharging. For instance, Bryce’s brother seems to have endless supplies of energy and will be out late most nights with a different group of people each night; just thinking about that makes me tired and a bit anxious (how would I make effective conversation/small talk to loads of people I don’t know?) As far as the two of us, thankfully we’re not super introverted so we do have lots of fun in big groups; but that said, we probably won’t be the ones staying up to all hours with huge groups (small dinner parties are different) and we wouldn’t be caught dead clubbing or out partying with a bunch of hot, sweaty people clad in tiny skirts and furry boots. This of course is helpful as we’re likeminded on this front; we can sense (both being Ns as well) when the other is ready to go back to our basement flat and enjoy quiet and solitude. (I would consider this state of solitude as being just the two of us as well, not just me on my own, although I like that too). Oddly, I think that I’ve become more extroverted with age while Bryce needs a bit more quiet than I do; that’s why he’s in his boxroom most of the time and that’s why he needs to just be alone after we argue sometimes, I think.

We’re also (strong) judgers — planners, to-do-listers, likes-to-know-what’s-happening-nexters, and having thing generally figured out and solved (or in the process of concluding). Erratic behaviour is maddening. Both being J’s is great in so many ways: we can plan vacations together and we both know what we want out of our times away, we work well discussing future events and settling on plans. In the past however, I think it’s made it so we don’t “go with the flow” enough; we don’t allow enough spontaneity in our lives and the J in us often means we expect a whole lot (especially consistency) from each other; which as flawed human beings is difficult to follow through with to say the very least. I think too, because we’re so similar in lots of ways it can make us judge others who have opposite characteristics than us in a bad way (not always of course, but sometimes). Because we’re similar, the people who differ from us are “odd” or “weird” rather than just “different”; basically they don’t seem to make sense to us. Of course we do have our “P” tendencies in such things as procrastination and learning to be okay with life as fundamentally open-ended in several areas.

Albert Mohler has written an article discussing a recent study, which found that the predominant ‘religion’ of American teenagers is ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’. This view ‘consists of beliefs like these: 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”‘

While this study focused on the views of teeneagers, the researchers behind it suggested that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is the most common ‘religious’ view of all Americans, and has infact been very influential in the Christian church. Consider this quote:

“Other more accomplished scholars in these areas will have to examine and evaluate these possibilities in greater depth. But we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually [only] tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity’s misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

They argue that this distortion of Christianity has taken root not only in the minds of individuals, but also “within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions.”

How can you tell? “The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, . . . and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward.”

Does this mean that America is becoming more secularized? Not necessarily. These researchers assert that Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.

Thanks to laura for the link.

Some of my favourite things:
1. A great novel (like The Brothers Karamazov, Anna Karenina, Tess of the D’Ubervilles, most anything by Chaim Potok or Henry James). I tend to like big, fat, absorbing novels that make you so sad when you’re done and have to put it on the shelf. Man, it’s been awhile since I’ve had that, but I am learning to enjoy lots of other writers, especially Hawthorne as of late.
2. #1 accompanied by a big mug of tea (preferably some high-quality black blend with a bit of milk or chai or earl grey)
3. a glass of red wine with a book or over a good conversation.
4. a bubble bath
5. hosting dinner parties
6. pretty dishes
7. fresh flowers (I’m a big fan of tulips, lilies, roses, gerbera daisies — anything really cheerful and obnoxiously bright)
8. fancy-dress parties
9. homemade afghans knit by my grandma and mum (quite enjoyable with #1, 2 or 3)
10. the colour red
11. dessert
12. big fat vanilla candles
13. long satisfying conversations
14. travelling

American goodies to your European door.

I had meant to return to my predestination series today, but something else came up, so you’ll all just have to wait in eager anticipation :). I was talking with my Dad about my previous post on the Easter service at Saddleback Church. He asked if it was specifically checking a box that I find problematic, or would raising a hand, ‘going forward’, praying a prayer, etc, all fall into the same category. I think this is an important question, because it gets to the heart of an important question: ‘what do we do with people who profess faith?’

Let me first respond to the immediate question. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with any of these things–that is to say, one is not (necessarily) sinning by employing any of these methods. The problem is that such things are liable to cause the individual to put his or her confidence in the wrong place. I just read of a Christian who was talking with a coworker about Christianity. The coworker said he had ‘prayed a prayer’ at one point, and he figured he had his bases covered because of it. Who knows how many others there may be in the same situation? It is important that we don’t give people a false sense of security. One of the idiosyncracies of Scottish church circles I have experienced in our time here is the idea of questioning one’s salvation. There is a history going back several hundred years in Scotland of people seriously doubting their own salvation–often for very long periods of time. Occasionally it has gotten to the point that people have said you aren’t really saved unless you question your salvation. This is a strange concept to an American mind, yet I have to believe that Americans, for the most part, suffer from the opposite problem–we are far too assured of our own salvation. The reason for this, to a large extent, is that we are placing our assurance in the wrong place. If asked how we know we are Christians, many of us would answer that we remember praying the ’sinner’s prayer’. The Bible, however, is clear that we are saved by the grace of Christ, and so we need to look to this grace for our assurance of salvation, not to something we have done. The tendency to place our confidence in ourselves is deeply rooted within us; we have inherited it all the way back from Adam and Eve. The church must therefore be careful to guard against our natural inclination, and emphasise instead God’s grace in ever aspect of conversion. For this reason, though I don’t think it is necessarily sinful to ask people to check a box or ‘come forward’, I can’t imagine a situation in which I would (will) do it myself.

The question may then legitimately be asked, ‘what should we do with those who profess faith?’ Along with the tendancy to trust in our own effort comes the tendancy to think we know better than God, and to therefore invent methods when he has already established his own. On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, when they became aware of their sin through Peter’s preaching, the crowd asked ‘”what shall we do???? And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized”‘. When Philip explains the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 and he believes, he is immediately baptised. In Acts 10, when Peter preaches to the household of Cornelius, they believe and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and Peter ‘commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’. I could point out other examples, but the point is clear: the Bible says that those who profess faith are to be baptised. Not surprisingly, God’s ordained method is more effective than checking a box, or whatever. Anyone who is at all familiar with church life knows that following up with those who profess faith is difficult, to say the least. Yet baptism does so much more than checking a card, etc. Checking a box adds another tally to a database; baptism places the individual in the church. He or she is then under the spiritual care and discipline of the elders, who can look after the new convert to ensure that they are growing in their faith. This is, of course, more difficult than the ‘check the box’ method: it will take more time and people, and quite frankly, it won’t work in a church of several thousand people. But the command of Jesus to his church is to make disciples of all nations, not to increase our market share.

We should probably note here that there are also many people who grow up in a Christian home and never remember a time that they didn’t believe in Jesus. As a paedobaptist, I believe that such people should properly have been baptised as infants (as opposed to ‘dedicated’, another method we have made up yet which lacks any biblical warrant), and are therefore non-communing memebers of the church–that is, they are a part of the people of God, but they do not receive the Lord’s Supper. When they are able to profess faith in Christ they then begin celebrating Communion with the rest of the family of which they have been a part from birth.

It would be interesting to do a study of conversions in the New Testament. I suspect that much of what has become standard in the evangelical church would be quite foreign to the early church. There is no doubt that the ’sinner’s prayer’, practically sacrosanct to us, is conspicuously absent from the Bible.

Soooo, I don’t really know what to say to sum this all up…Let’s look to the Bible to establish our church practice, and when the Bible is silent, let’s proceed on biblical principles, keeping in mind that our hearts are idol factories, always wanting to place our confidence in ourselves. Let’s avoid adopting the passing wisdom of this age, and avoid those churches which have become infatuated with it. Above all let’s strive to give our Lord the glory for what he has done, and stay away from this silly business of telling each other how many people were ’saved’ at our services.

I see the Lord providing for us in lots of small ways. One way is the encouragement I gain from reading how other Christians on the blogosphere live out their faith, dream big dreams, share their struggles and above all God’s covenant faithfulness. Another is my experience today. Today I got to meet a woman I know through an email list, Reformed Women, named Susan Ferrell. She’s lived in Glasgow for a number of years and now resides in Boise, Idaho with her husband (an OPC pastor) Glenn. Sarah and I took the bus to Glasgow to spend the day with Susan as she’s visiting a friend with cancer. I feel overwhelmingly blessed, not just because Susan so generously brought us American goodies in her suitcase, treated us to tea, dinner and taxi rides (how posh do I feel riding in a taxi!) but just hearing her story and listening to the ways in which God has lead her is amazing and so encouraging for us younger women starting out.

Another thing that has been encouraging is that I have 3 more editing jobs. I’m not counting on having many over summer and right now is prime paper season, and I have no idea how we’re going to earn money this summer to pay for rent, utilities and food, but these little things and little luxuries are more than proof that somehow God will provide. I need to keep remembering that if I say I believe in the providence and sovereignty of God for my eternal soul, how much less of a worry should my day-to-day needs be? Reformed faith isn’t primarily a set of doctrinal tenets but a full direction towards God, realising all we are is for his glory, and thus whatever state I find myself in (meeting my expenses or not even coming close to it) God shall be glorified as I place my hope, trust, my all upon Him. For this I was created and in this I find my worth for I am always a saint and a sinner.

I know most of the readers of this blog aren’t super keen on getting their hands on the latest Dan Brown novel, so I thought I’d recommend some of my recent reads that are quite old by our standards and yet quite accessible.

Washington Irving, The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon
This was written in 1820-21 and was simulaneously published in the US and Britain while the author was sojourning in the UK. It’s probably a vestigal form of a work of collected short stories and a type of travelogue of a Yankee travelling to his cultural mecca, England. It contains the famous short stories “Rip Van Winkle” and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” - two stories which deviate substantially from the rest and have become enshrined in American literary nostalgia. It’s great to not just read these two stories, but to understand how the work as a whole fits together; a whole lot of interesting things going on! (I recommend the Oxford World’s Classics edition with a great intro by a Susan Manning, who just happens to be my PhD supervisor).

Charles Brockden Brown, Edgar Huntly
This Gothic novel was published in 1799 by American’s first successful novelist and was enjoyed on both sides of the Atlantic. It follows Brown’s more popular (at least today and more widely taught) Wieland. Edgar Huntly is the story of Edgar and his involvement with the sad story of an Irish immigrant somnambulist, Clithero, whom he finds digging under an oak while asleep. Edgar is trying to solve the murder of his friend while also helping Clithero. Little does he know that he himself is sleepwalking and this puts him in an adventure to save Clithero’s life, save his own against the Indians and to continually make sense of multiple stories. A different kind of Gothic set on the American frontier.

Charles Brockden Brown, Wieland
This novel is another of Brown’s Gothic novels set in Pennsylvannia. The story was based on a true story of a man who thinks he’s been told by God to do something bad (I can’t tell you, it’d ruin the book!). It involves ventriloquism, issues with the American wilderness and Enlightenment learning, conflicts between reason and experience and early American fears and issues. Although Brown’s writing can be a bit clunky at times, both novels are surprisingly readable for their age and have resonances through Poe, Hawthorne, Melville and modern day “Gothic” writing of the likes of Stephen King. This novel as well as Edgar Huntly is in a compilation by the Library of America.

Nathaniel Hawthorne, Selected Tales and Sketches
I actually haven’t finished reading this but do enjoy reading some of his early works, before the novel that many schoolchildren probably hate because it’s been grounded into their heads, The Scarlet Letter. Most of his fiction was written in the 1830s and 40s while his four novels were written primarily through the 1850s. I’d recommend you get the whole collection of his shorter works by the Library of America if you’re interested, as the Penguin and OUP editions are only selections.

Happy Reading and let me know what you think about any of these authors, if you have or haven’t read them before. I’d be happy to have some reading recommendations from you as well, my loyal (blog) readers.

This is so gross I don’t really know where to begin. Pastors.com, Rick Warren’s ministry site, is reporting that “4,000 [were] saved during Saddleback’s Easter services”.

Rick’s Easter sermon, according to this story (and also to my father-in-law, who was one of literally 45,000 who attended Saddleback on Easter), was based not on the enduring Word of God, but on his own best-selling self-help book. Rick told worshippers, “When there is no vision in your life, you drift…You just kind of drift through life, bouncing around. God didn’t mean for you to drift. He doesn’t want you to waste your life. You were made for a purpose. He wants you to have direction and meaning and significance.???

Hopefully you will have noticed that this message is entirely unChristian. Rick’s protrayal of God makes God exist for the benefit of human beings, rather than the other way around. But what is even more appalling in this report from Pastors.com is the declaration that the 4,000 people who checked a box are now saved. First off, there’s absolutely nothing in the Bible that would even point to the idea of having people check such a box (or raise their hand, stand up, whatever). Secondly, there is no indication in the Bible that anything we do can save us, or assure us that we are saved. Actually, the exact opposite is what is made clear in Scripture.

Now, some will surely say that no one believes that checking a box will save anyone. I would reply by saying, first of all, that (hopefully) no Christian would believe that, but there are likely many people who checked a box and, being completely ignorant of the Bible’s teaching (this is not to insult them; they are, after all, new Christians), are now assured that they are saved. Secondly, if you read the article on pastors.com, it is not all made clear that checking a box isn’t what saves someone.

In fact, the whole article is brazenly audacious. Why would any church decide it is a good idea to broadcast the “fact” that 4,000 people were “saved” at its services? Are we really so self-serving or insecure that we have to make that sort of thing public knowledge? And what is the deal with Rick’s quazi-blasmphemous statement comparing the Easter weekend services at Saddleback to the never-repeatable salvation of 3,000 people in Acts 2 on the day of Penetcost? If we are going by Rick’s standard, he actually superceeded the Holy Spirit by 1,000 people.

I’m beginning to think that there is exactly one good thing about the consummeristic, market driven trend that is overtaking the church, with Rick Warren and a few others at the helm. This movement is all about giving people what they want, marketing a product to them just like every retailer in the world. A church that is proclaiming what it believes to be the Good News because that is what they are called to do will continue to do so regardless of the response, because (they believe) they are called to do so by God. However, if a church that judges success on consumer surveys is not pulling in the desired numbers, they will change their methods, or declare bankruptcy. This gives us the power to say, “No, thank you”, and have it mean something. It may not mean very much, but over time, it may make a difference. I’m not saying that everything Rick Warren says and does and writes is blasphemy. I’m not even saying that nothing he writes is helpful. I am saying that the movement (as a whole) he is leading is contrary to the Bible’s standards, and should be avoided. If next Easter only 20,000 people come to Saddleback (how ludicrous does that sound, only 20,000, and yet it would be less than half of the number that attended this year!) Rick and friends will take notice, and they will make changes. They might try to put on a better show the following year, but they might also return to the Bible to see if they’ve gone wrong. Or so we can hope.

I’m trying really hard not to be overly critical, but this type of thing really gets my blood boiling. It is a severe departure from the standards of the Bible, and yet it is not questioned by the church, but is rather the ideal many are striving to emulate. Thanks for reading my rant, please take a look at Tim Challies better written thoughts on the matter.

First of all, I can’t believe I’ve actually titled my blog that, wow…and yikes. (I guess there’s a wannabe diva in most of us!)

After reading Sarah’s post about piano and prayer, I suddenly re-realised how blessed I am in friendship. I have girlfriends, those who live close by (Sarah, and Lori isn’t that far away) and those who live far off (Katie) and those I don’t even know in real life (Laura, and Manders) and a few women I don’t even know for semi-”reals” (for instance, Amy loves books, Marla Swoffer, Amy’s humble musings). Not to mention all those women who don’t have blogs: my sister-in-law Kerry and all my friends from Oxford (Heidi, Joanna, Sarai, Danielle, Annie, Katie and Sharon). These women have surrounded me physically, through emails, telephone calls and blogs and I see them living out their faith, sharing their doubts and insanities, the ways in which they profane the gospel (because we’re all sinners) and yet their searching after Christ as their one true hope.

Thank you ladies for your humour, your honesty, your faith, your struggles, your grace and love for me, she who errs constantly and is usually blind to her own sin. Thank you and may you be blessed today as you struggle against and relax in grace.