News 'n' Views Online

Thougts on Fundamentalism

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, is a thoughtful and articulate fundamentalist.  After the announcement that Pillsbury Baptist Bible College will close its doors on December 31 of this year, Dr. Bauder wrote an essay entitled "Reflections upon Hearing the Announcement"  This article was included in his electronic newsletter In the Nick of Time.

This article is worth being read and meditated upon by all those who love God and Biblical truth.  I have reproduced Dr. Bauder's article for your convenience and benefit:

Word arrived earlier this week that Pillsbury Baptist Bible College will cease operations in December. This announcement was not entirely unexpected. Nearly two years ago, announcements were made nation-wide that if the situation did not improve, Pillsbury would be in jeopardy. Those of us in Minnesota have been watching the slow strangulation of our college ever since.

Pillsbury nearly closed in the mid-1990s, when it experienced multiple turnovers of administration and a purge of the faculty. This was not the first controversial period in the history of the college, but it was the one that did the most enduring damage. At that time, the decision was made to try to keep the doors open, and Dr. Bob Crane finally accepted the presidency. Frankly, no one expected it to survive. It is a testimony to Dr. Crane’s leadership and to the faculty’s commitment that it has remained in operation for more than a decade since.

Dr. Crane has been trying to retire for years, but Pillsbury has had difficulty finding a qualified person who would accept the responsibility of the presidency. Dr. Greg Huffman was led into that office earlier this year. When he came to Pillsbury, he knew that the situation was already dire. He accepted the presidency knowing that he had only a couple of strategies at his disposal. Huffman had to watch those strategies evaporate in the current economic meltdown. Nevertheless, he rates as a hero in my book for having the faith and courage to make the attempt.

The faculty and staff of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College have shown enormous commitment, and they have served at significant personal sacrifice. Surely they have taught as much by example as by word. Only eternity will show what a rich return their investment will receive, but students cannot remain unaffected by such models and mentors.

In a way, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College is a microcosm of what is happening within institutional fundamentalism everywhere. The fundamentalist movement has never been really cohesive, but during the past decade it has shown significant deterioration. Whether the overall numbers of fundamentalists are increasing or decreasing is hard to say. What is clear is that the mainstream of historic fundamentalism is dwindling.

The reasons for the weakening of fundamentalism are varied, and should probably be discussed elsewhere. What is clear is that its churches are shrinking and often closing while new ones are being planted with less frequency. Fewer young people are answering the call to missions and ministry. Materialism and amusement-Christianity are nearly unbridled. With shrinking constituencies, most of the institutions are finding survival to be a challenge.

The question is not whether fundamentalism is collapsing. The question is how we should respond to the collapse. More fundamentally, the question is how we should even be thinking about these events.

What ought to occur to us first is that God does not need fundamentalism. God did not create or ordain the fundamentalist movement. He did not erect the institutions. We made them up, and even if we offered them to Him, we need to remember that they are the works of our hands. If He chooses not to preserve them, then that is His business.

We ought humbly to recognize that God’s work in the world is much larger than institutional fundamentalism. Some days I wonder whether all of fundamentalism put together accounts for more than a footnote in the book of God’s present dealing with humanity. Much as we might prefer to think otherwise, wisdom will not die with us.

At one time God raised up mighty Reformers. At another He raised up Puritans and Separatists. At still another He raised up the powerful preachers of the Great Awakening. All of those are gone now, but God is still doing His work. If someday the fundamentalist movement is relegated to the museum of theological curiosities, God will still be doing His work. He will still be God.

If it is true that fundamentalism is not everything that God is doing, it is also true that not all of fundamentalism is of God’s doing. In fact, not all of fundamentalism is worth saving. Fundamentalist structures have not infrequently been used to perpetrate abuses or to perpetuate silliness. If those districts of the fundamentalist movement were to disappear, we would be none the worse.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I do value fundamentalism. But the fundamentalism that I value is not essentially a movement or a collection of institutions. It is an idea. It is a good idea, even a great idea. As a friend once remarked, fundamentalism may have been the last great idea.

If we are going to talk about saving fundamentalism, then let us be clear that the thing we need to save is the idea. All of our associations, colleges, seminaries, mission agencies, preachers’ fellowships, networks, alignments, and coalitions are of value only to the extent that they maintain and perpetuate the idea. If they are not propagating the idea, then let them perish.

And here is the real problem: the idea of fundamentalism invariably gets mixed up with other ideas. It can get mixed up with populism, revivalism, imperialism, pragmatism, obscurantism, or any of a variety of unworthy ideas. It has even been known to get mixed up with fascism. Of course, the idea of fundamentalism can also be mixed together with worthy ideas, such as the variety of confessionalism and conservatism that emphasizes orthopathy alongside of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This much is clear: nobody ever was simply a fundamentalist. Every fundamentalist has also been something else, and that “something else” has defined the quality of every variety of fundamentalism.

The only versions of fundamentalism that deserve to be saved are the ones that have mixed the idea of fundamentalism with other right ideas. Sadly, those versions of fundamentalism are in the minority. Not surprisingly, many of the upcoming generation have begun to wonder whether the fundamentalist movement is worth the effort that they are being asked to put into it. They are asking whether we might not be further ahead if the whole thing were simply obliterated and we were to start all over again.

If the fundamentalist movement continues to decline, even that choice will be taken out of our hands. For the moment, however, some of us are still committed to combining the idea of fundamentalism with other good and permanent ideas. And we need each other. We do not need territorialism or institutionalism. We need to build one another up in our most holy faith.

We are no longer trying to win a battle. We are trying to keep an idea (or a combination of ideas) alive. Some day, whether sooner or later, the fundamentalist movement will die. Our task is to articulate our key ideas, including the idea of fundamentalism, so clearly that those ideas will survive in whatever movements or structures may be erected in the future. If we fail in that task, then nothing else that we accomplish will matter.

Calvinism and Romans 9

As you may or not have noticed . . . I haven’t blogged for awhile. I’ll not bore you with all the details behind this but a lot has been happening that has kept me busy on other projects.

What prompted to post now is a letter I received from Don Ross. Don and his wife, Betty, have been friends of our family since long before I was born. They were in seminary with my parents, Eldwyn and Alice June, in the 1940’s. Furthermore, the Rosses and my parents worked together in Brazil as missionaries for seven years (1959-1966). The Rosses, who arrived in Brazil before my folks, served in that country for over 30 years. The Lord eventually moved my parents on to Paraguay and then Chile.

Don e-mailed me some comments regarding the Calvinism issue which was on this blog back in April. I’m reproducing his comments verbatim below:

DOES ROMANS CHAPTER NINE REALLY SAY WHAT SOME THINK IT SAYS?

I never cease to be amazed at the way this chapter is used by my Calvinist brothers to establish their concept of God’s sovereignty in saving some and leaving others (or, as some say, appointing others) to eternal destruction. The problem seems to lie mostly in an interpretation of Rom. 9:21-23.

Two distinct purposes of God are indicated here in God’s strategy toward Pharoah (and now toward unbelieving Israelites, for this is the real issue of Rom. chaps. 9 through 11). Paul begins with the expression "What if…?" Paul uses the "Rabbinic" (or Semitic) method of argumentation against his opponents (unbelieving Jews) something akin to this: "What if (God did this or that), then what would you have to say to that?" Well, let us look at his premise: "God used tremendous patience and restraint in ‘enduring’ (tolerating) certain ‘vessels of wrath, fitted (prepared..not "appointed") for destruction…" The argument has been made that these vessels had been totally abandoned by God to a destination of hell-fire with no chance of recovery. If this were the meaning, we must ignore Paul’s argument in Rom. 2:3-5 (same objectors in mind, that is, Jews who pooh-poohed the idea that God, who had once chosen Israel, could now be rejecting hardened Jewish rejectors of salvation through Jesus, the Christ…They were the first Augustinian unconditional electionists!). He points out that they condemned themselves for the following reasons: "Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God's kindness leads you to repentance? ⁵ But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed!" NIV This clearly shows by what means these unrepentant Jews became "vessels of wrath", that is how they were "prepared for destruction". Note it does not say "who were BEFORE fitted out for destruction" as the verb "before prepared for glory" which is said of the "vessels of mercy". The truth is, if you go to hell, you personally choose freely to do so! And it is not merely for "being a depraved sinner" (though certainly that’s what the unbeliever is), but because of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. "He that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE he has NOT believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God". If language means anything, this verse says that a person is condemned to hell BECAUSE of his choice not to believe. The same is affirmed in II Thess. 2:10b and 12: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. …and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in (chosen) wickedness." NIV emphasis mine. (Note in following verses the contrast between these condemned and those whom God had chosen "through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth!" v. 13)) Which is all to say that God was sparing such "vessels of wrath" through His patience (according to Rom. 2 which is discussing the same problem of Jewish unbelief) in order to give them time for repentance (cf. with II Pet.3:9 which states the purpose of God’s "longsuffering" toward the wicked).

Another overlooked factor is that the Rom. 9 passage about God being the potter and the Israelites (Paul’s target audience) being the clay is based on Jer. 18:1-17. New Testament writers like Paul expected their Jewish hearers to connect any brief (or otherwise) quote from the O. T. to the CONTEXT of that passage. In this case, Paul’s argument in Rom. 9 becomes clear: Jeremiah was sent down to the "potter’s house" to learn an important lesson about God’s manner of dealing with Israel or "any nation". The potter is shaping the clay on his wheel into a certain vessel, but it is "marred (spoiled, ruined) in his hand". He then uses the SAME clay to form another kind of vessel. God asks the question of Israel through the pen of Jeremiah: "Don’t I have the same (sovereign) right to do the same thing with you, Israel, as the potter does with his clay?" He goes on to affirm that the principle is also true in his treatment of any other nation. If he has promised to bless that people, but they turn their backs on Him and say "we will do as we please and follow our own ways" God has the right to renege on the blessing and instead bring on them a calamity. The argument here is the same as Paul’s in Rom. 9: either way, whether they repent or rebel, God will get glory! And woe be unto the arrogant rebel who questions God’s right to do so!

As others have expressed, I have a good many great friends in the ministry who are either "moderate" or "hyper" Calvinists, and I do not hesitate to fellowship them because of their position. This is no "personal vendetta", but rather a brief statement to add to the discussion!

Don Ross
Hurst, TX
2007

Is Lying Part of the Great Commission?

I’m a missionary. You would naturally assume that I’m interested in seeing souls redeemed by the power of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection . . . and you would be right in that assumption. One factor that I struggle with, however, is the expectation by some pastors in the USA that I should have a minimum of 1,000 people hourly saying "the sinner’s prayer." (That could be slight exaggeration, but not by much.) It seems that we have lost the focus on salvation, baptistm and lifelong discipleship and simply are playing the "numbers game" of seeing how many people we can get to parrot after us some "magic words" – which often (usually?) do not reflect true repentance and belief of the heart.

A number of years ago, a pastor of a church that supported us financially at the time, shared an example of a yearly missionary report that he seemed to think all missionaries should hold as their standard. All the statistics and figures included in that report escape me at the present but I do remember the claim that over 40,000 people were saved under his ministry in one year (in the interest of fairness, the missionary [whom we’ll call Missionary X] did not claim to have personally won them all himself) and over 3,000 were baptized.

The first red flag is raised by the slight difference between 40,000 and 3,000. Now, I’m not that great at math . . . but even I can see a hint of a problem here. Any missionary work that fails in getting well over 90% of its "converts" to take the most basic step in discipleship and Christian obedience is not carrying out the Great Commission.

The second red flag, at least for me, is the high possibility that those numbers are "padded" (falsified might be more accurate). I told the pastor who shared the report with me something to this effect (the exact words have long since been forgotten): "He [Missionary X] is lying, and it bothers me that dishonest missionaries are lifted up, while honest ones are criticized." By the pastor’s reaction, I believe I would have been better off attacking the Apostle Paul than questioning the integrity of Missionary X.

Since then, another missionary who happened to have served in the same country as Missionary X, provided me with more information: when groups from the USA would visit Missionary X’s ministry, they would be loaded up on buses and driven out to villages. A Christian film would be shown to the villagers, and then those who wanted to accept Christ as Savior were invited to raise their hands. Raised hands would be counted (with no personal counseling taking place, according to the missionary telling me the story) and then all the Americans would climb back on the buses and leave. The number of raised hands would be recorded as the number of "conversions" at that village. Furthermore, my own brother (who is also a missionary) told me he had heard intriguing rumors of different groups from the USA being bused out by Missionary X’s ministry to the same villages that had been visited by previous groups and the same number of "conversions" would happen once more in that same village. It’s enough to make one wonder. . . .

The Missionary X I’ve been talking about is an INDEPENDENT, FUNDAMENTALIST, CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST (I’m also an Independent, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist – but I don’t particularly desire to be identified with that branch of our movement). These unethical, unbiblical, and sinful methods are not limited to some Fundamentalists, however. Other, more "progressive" groups, are guilty of the same crime. Sometime back, I came across an article by a Warren Smith. After doing some searching on the web, I found out that he is the head of World Newspaper Publishing (http://www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com). I also discovered that he is a friend of Dan Burrell, pastor of Northside Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina (http://www.northsidebaptistchurch.net). I enjoy reading Burrell’s writings on his blog (http://www.danburrell.com) and have come to respect him and his insights.

Anyway, the Warren Smith article to which I referred is titled "Body-Count Evangelism." I’ve posted it here for your consideration and meditation (and no, lying is not part of the Great Commission – it's simply a product of our sinful nature) :

COMMENTARY--- Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, Calif., and author of "The Purpose Driven Life," which has sold 25-million copies, is perhaps the most famous evangelical pastor in America. He writes often about church growth, leadership, and related issues. Here's something Warren wrote for the Mar. 16, 2004, "Leadership Journal":

"Three key responsibilities of every pastor are to discern where (and how) God's Spirit is moving in our culture and time, prepare your congregation for that movement, and cooperate with it to reach people Jesus died for. I call it 'surfing spiritual waves' in The Purpose Driven Church, and it's the reason Saddleback has grown to 23,500 on weekends in 24 years.. You don't criticize a wave; you just ride it as best you can. When Mel Gibson showed me his film, The Passion of The Christ, last year, I.knew a huge wave-a spiritual tsunami-would hit when the film debuted on February 25 [2004], and we began praying and preparing to surf it."

When I read this passage, I was taken aback. The celebrity name dropping, the appeal to size as an indication of God's blessing, the propagation of an extra-biblical theory ("spiritual waves") as a sign of God's working, the pre-emptive strike against critics - these are heresies and logical fallacies pervasive in the evangelical church today, all rolled into a single paragraph.

Warren continues:

"We booked 47 theater screens for members to take their lost friends to. Kay [Warren, Rick's wife] and I personally invited over a thousand lost community leaders of Orange County to a VIP premiere showing, including every mayor, congressman, superintendent of schools, other community leaders, and four billionaires. The results? Over 600 unchurched community leaders attended our VIP showing; 892 friends of members were saved during the two-week sermon series. Over 600 new small groups were formed, and our average attendance increased by 3,000. That's catching a wave!"

When I read this, I wondered: Even setting aside the theological and philosophical problems, how could these numbers possibly be true? There was something about them that just didn't make sense. So I turned to "Outreach" magazine, which each year publishes lists of the largest and fastest growing churches. The 2005 list (which covered the period about which Warren writes) had Saddleback's weekly attendance at 23,194. The 2006 "Outreach" list had Saddleback at 20,595. That's a drop of nearly 3000. And - at least according to these numbers, which were reported to "Outreach" by the church itself - at no time did Saddleback have the 23,500 that Warren asserted.

"Outreach" reports the largest churches and the fastest growing churches on adjacent pages in the magazine. So I flipped the page and discovered something even more puzzling. Even though Saddleback's weekly attendance fell by 3000, it reported a "gain" of 1,149 for the year! How does a church that loses 3000 report a gain of over 1,000? Maybe they planted a new church. That's an admirable thing, but even if true why should Saddleback be reporting the numbers of another church as its own?

In the "Leadership Journal" article, Warren also touted his church's ability to attract young people, saying that "the largest Gen-X church in America is Saddleback with over 20,000 names under 29 on our church roll." Again, how could a church with only 21,000 members have more than 20,000 under the age of 30? And even if that is true, is it a good thing to have so thoroughly "shut out" those over 30? How could such a congregation possibly represent the true community - or "koininia" - spoken of in the New Testament?

Some pastors are growing wise to these self-aggrandizing perversions of truth. Dan Burrell is the pastor of Northside Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. Burrell says he has grown disillusioned with the efforts of what I and others are calling the Christian-Industrial Complex to get him to participate in Body-Count Evangelism. Interestingly, the movie "The Passion," which provided the context for Rick Warren's comments, provided the context for Burrell's epiphany.

"I will admit that I got seduced with Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ,'" Burrell writes. "I was convinced enough that it had evangelistic value that I bought out five screens at a local theatre before its public release and we invited scores of non-believers to join us in watching the movie and discussing it afterwards. I recall one 'decision,' but no conversions, after all the effort and I learned my lesson. From that point forward, I've been pretty much immunized against 'partnering' with Hollywood. Upon further reflection, I've reached the decision that pastors are actually being asked not to partner with, but to pimp for Hollywood."

Burrell makes the important distinction between "decisions" and "conversions." If that distinction seems a false one, consider this: The American Church Research Project reports that in 2000, only 18.7 percent of the U.S. population attended a Christian church on an average Sunday. Ten years earlier, in 1990, that percentage was 20.4. In other words, the percentage of churchgoers in America is going down, not up.

Of course, Warren is not alone in making outrageous claims. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association claimed in its 2005 annual report that 3.2-million people had made "decisions" for Christ as a result of its ministries. Emergent church leaders, Willow Creekers, and others constantly propagate the claim that they are reaching unchurched people. I'm not saying that some of them are not doing good work, but the most basic demographic analysis suggests strongly that many of their claims cannot possibly be true. Indeed, it reminds me of the one-liner going around during the church-roll padding scandal of the Southern Baptist Convention a few years ago: "There are more Southern Baptists than there are people."

The Southern Baptists took steps to clean up their scandal. I can only hope that Rick Warren and other megachurch and parachurch ministries choose to exercise more care and integrity in the assessment of and reporting of their impact. Because the inescapable conclusion is this: the Body of Christ in America is not growing - either numerically or spiritually. It is, relatively speaking, shrinking -- burdened by crass commercialism, a lack of integrity, and the quest for power and glory of celebrity preachers. An all but inescapable second conclusion is this: the rest of us, if we do not speak out against the lies of those who practice "body-count evangelism," are standing by just as Paul stood by when he guarded the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen. We, likewise, are guarding this cloak of falsehood - subjecting the Body of Christ to a modern stoning of its own.

Theodicy, Calvinism, and God’s Sovereignty Continued . . .

My college buddy John Rush (now a tremendous pastor in Tennessee), who wrote the article to which I referred in "Theodicy," comments on "A Letter from a Calvinist Friend." His thoughts are posted (as were Steve Sanders’) . . . "unabridged, unedited and unrevised"!

(By the way, I encourage those of you reading to share your thoughts on this topic. We need to practice more "iron sharpening iron.")

Here’s John:

Thought I’d jump in to the conversation here...

Steve,

Your spirit and attitude are right. And you are right to distinguish between yourself and the hyper-Calvinists. Also: I appreciate and admire the work of men like MacArthur, Piper, and Mohler. In fact, I thank God for the work they are doing—in all seriousness.

I wanted to mention something about the "lens" through which we see God.

I’ve always heard taught that the primary attribute of God is holiness. When Isaiah saw the vision of God, they cried "Holy, Holy, Holy." Not "Sovereign, Sovereign, Sovereign." (I’m not trying to be polemical—just illustrative...)

I understand that sovereignty is not a communicable attribute, but I think this is where we do see the differences in our vision of God—all within orthodoxy.

It’s the question of voluntarism vs. essentialism. Does God’s will determine what is right? Or does God’s holy nature? I think there is a difference. I believe that God’s will cannot and does not determine the rest of God’s attributes. I think we have to say that God’s nature is essential—and God’s will acts in accordance with everything that God is.

I do not believe that God is limited in any way by an outside agency. He does whatever He pleases! But His nature determines what He pleases.

I understand that God is sovereign and has no compulsion to save anybody—except from His own nature.

And there is a difference between what God can do and what God does do...

I believe that God ordained to allow evil. But He cannot cause or promote evil in any way. He ordained to allow it because He has morally sufficient reasons to do so—some of which we know from Scripture.

He ordained to allow evil and is sovereign over History. He is in control in such a way that all His purposes are accomplished—but sin finds no grounds in God. If we believe that it does—we’ve got serious problems. I even read this past week where James Mont. Boice reminded me of that fact.

Anyway....

There you go.

You’re letter is as great letter. I understand where you are coming from.

Good stuff.

JRush

A Letter from a Calvinist Friend

A friend, Steve Sanders, e-mailed me some observations regarding my comments about Calvinism and Theodicy. After obtaining his permission to do so, I'm posting his letter here in its entirety—unabridged, unedited and unrevised!

Hey Philip,

Greetings to you and your family, Philip. I hope that all is well with your family and the church. I have enjoyed seeing the progress of God’s work in your ministry. Please give my warmest greetings to all the brothers and sisters there.

I was going to leave a little comment on your blog but couldn’t figure out how so I thought I’d drop you quick note concerning the Theodicy blog. Obviously, you know where those of us at Crossroads stand and I think you’ve had some conversations with Clark or maybe Randy so I don’t want to waste your valuable time re-hashing those issues but I did want to offer my own understanding, as limited as it is.

You made this statement, "One issue that has concerned me with Calvinism is its unswerving, overarching emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the (seeming) neglect of or indifference to His innumerable other attributes."

I think where I would differ with that statement is that I don’t see God’s sovereignty as one of many other attributes but rather as a lens through which all his other attributes are seen. That obviously means that when you consider the love of God (all the different loves of God) you must consider it through the lens of his sovereignty. I don’t think you can separate them. Really, you can’t separate any of God’s attributes, they must all work themselves out without contradicting one another. Just because God is sovereign doesn’t mean that his love (or any other attribute) is necessarily diminished. In my observation, no one has a greater appreciation or a higher view of God’s love than a true Calvinist.

Concerning Calvinism in general, I understand that Calvinists can be viewed as fatalistic or deterministic but that’s not a true Calvinist- that’s a hyper Calvinist. True Calvinism is fervently evangelistic as evidenced by John Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress), Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, John G. Paton and Adonirum Judson, just to name a few oldies. And I don’t think you could find anyone as mission minded and as full of zeal as John Piper, John MacArthur or Dr. Al Mohler.

As you said it’s all about balance. Yes, I believe God is sovereign and that his sovereignty is in full effect in salvation just as anywhere else. The election of God’s people according to his own will (as I believe it’s presented in scripture) makes perfect sense to me, though it is a hard truth. But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to sit around waiting for God to save everybody. He doesn’t need me but he’s ordained that it’s the foolishness of "preaching" that will bring the gospel to the ears of his people and so I will "preach" personally by my life, in personal witnessing of God’s great grace in my own life and by supporting my own church and others in spreading the gospel. This seems balanced to me.

Free will is another big area in this debate but I don’t think there is any great argument surrounding man’s free will- we all have free will. It’s the nature of man that is of concern, I think. A man’s will is determined by his nature and I believe you and I would agree that man’s nature is fallen and that he would never seek God, never. So man is responsible because he sins and is guilty, he is free to choose but chooses sin every time because it’s who he is.

If Romans 3:10-18,23 is correct then every man is condemned before God for his sin and not only that but every man is perfectly happy with that arrangement. No man is seeking God. So if all people, according to their nature, are running as fast as they can away from God how is it unloving for God to save some of them from their own sinful nature? It would seem unloving if God didn’t save some. That’s grace. We don’t deserve it but he lovingly grants it anyway. Again, this seems balanced to me. Well, that’s not true. Balance would tell me that God is perfectly just in saving no one, yet he does. O, how merciful a Savior!!! What love!!! What compassion!!!! O, that the God of all creation would condescend to save a single wretch is beyond all comprehension. Yet……. He does just that.

Philip, I’ve not presented these ramblings to stir up debate between us. I’m not looking for any response or anything. I guess I just want to be categorized correctly. I don’t want to be lumped in with all the hyper-calvinists of the world.

God Bless you all Philip and may he continue to bless your work there.

Steve

Mike's Musings

My oldest brother, Mike (who happens to be my senior by over nineteen years), periodically puts down on paper (or types into the computer) "musings" which he shares with friends and family. Mike, who is an ordained Baptist minister, was recently diagnosed with lymphoma. Some of his latest "musings" are related to this unexpected development in his life. Here’s the latest piece he’s shared with us—"If There Is a God . . ."

Having said that the universe is the way it is, the question arises: What is God doing? And especially, Why? We have all heard of people who said something like, If there is a God, why doesn’t He stop war? Or, why doesn’t He stop suffering? Or, why does He allow children to die?

I believe God created the universe and sustains its laws and processes by His providence. I believe that the mind of God instantly keeps track of every sub-atomic particle that has ever existed in the universe, as well as every nano-second in which they existed. I believe that God’s providence ultimately controls everything regarding people, things, time, space, angels and eternity.

Yet, in order that sentient beings - human and angelic - might have real free will, he made it so that these sentient beings can mess with the processes and produce real natural and spiritual consequences - if not always the ones intended, anticipated or desired. These consequences may have very concrete and far ranging effects on nature, people, the spiritual realm and God’s actions or reactions.

God basically lets the universe run according to the general laws, plans, purposes, goals of nature and of His will. Or, within limits, by the actions, choices and decisions of His creatures. From the human standpoint, it often appears that the universe runs by its own natural momentum. The Deists used to believe that God created the universe, then wound it up like a clock and let it run without further intervention. Satan believes he will ultimately get total control of the system and is constantly interfering. To some it appears that humans can have more influence on the overall effects and operations of the universe than is really the case. Some creatures convince themselves that they can get God to operate the universe like a coin operated candy machine for selfish or silly wishes.

As far as possible, God lets it be so. Nothing would happen if He didn’t supply and maintain the energy, oil the machinery, sustain the atoms, provide the spiritual realities - alone or through agents - keep the galaxies in their places, make the laws operate. But, to give maximum freedom to sentient beings, God frequently lets the universe run with His hands off of particular controls. And though God did not create certain entities that now lodge within the universe, or initiate certain actions, or cause certain effects that happen within the bounds of the universe, He usually gets the credit or the blame for whatever transpires because He created the platform and allows whatever happens, though in fact it may not be according to His will and it may grieve Him sorely.

God is not without resources or recourse in dealing with any effect or consequence, anywhere, of any kind. Based on His own purposes, or the outer limits of His tolerance of sin and suffering, or the faith and prayers of His creatures, He can and may put His hands back on the controls. He may overrule, He may reverse, He may fix, He may heal or restore or restrain or repair some individual process or group of processes gone awry. Or He may not. While generally letting the universe naturally run down (according to the second law of thermodynamics) toward its destiny, in the interim He may work a miracle, He may do a new thing, He may create additional matter, new laws, new nature, more space, more time. Or He may not. He may limit Himself in particular cases, but He is never at His wit’s end. His hands are not tied. He is never a day late or a dollar short.

But He does not guarantee the outcome we desire. He may not intervene the way we want. If He does nothing, is He to blame? If He does something not as good as desired, is He to blame? If He grants our wish but it is ultimately harmful to us, is He to blame? Since He created the universe and bad things happen in it, is He to blame? Perhaps in our perplexity, the real question is, why did God create such a lousy universe at all? For that matter, does God even care? Is He impartial? Is He fair? Is He just? Is there really a God?

It is perfectly normal and legitimate for human beings to try to understand as much about God and His ways as possible. It is not a sin to ask questions of God or about God. It is not wrong to note problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, paradoxes, lack of information and the massive tragedy of the human condition. Furthermore, those who believe in God should not try to apologize for God with easy explanations, platitudes, excuses, clichés, caveats, outs. We should not attribute evil behavior to God (as in predestinating individuals to suffering or hell) and say that because God does it, it is OK.

Though God is sovereign, He cannot be a bully dictator and be consistent with the character or attributes of Godness. God cannot lie. God cannot deny Himself. God cannot be unjust. God cannot act like the devil and still be God. The picture that some people portray of God is of a Saddam Hussein or a Stalin or Hitler doing things because He has the power to do them, because He can get away with it and it is our sin even to wonder. God is not the author of mindlessness, of chosen ignorance, of intellectual slavery. No. If there is a God, even He must always act true to His character. God is love. God is good. God is just. He gives universal grace. We might fault Him for creating the kind of universe where free will exists, where He is not the only sentient being, where He is not the only One capable of making God-like choices with consequences for ourselves and others. But then wouldn’t we be vegetables or rocks or empty space or mattered robots - without mind, will or emotions or self-conscious pain or eternality?

Even if we concede God allows pain or catastrophe for an ultimately good and higher and "logical" and finally explainable purpose, we still wonder, Why? We still don’t like it. There are moments when we only want relief, we don’t care about free will, we don’t care about building character, we don’t care about the will of God, we just want the agony and the hassle to stop. We just want to sleep or forget or die.

Frequently God does not explain (so people will make of that whatever they want to). There are things that the best human mind cannot understand and may never understand (we will never be Gods). Whatever we say to ourselves, nothing changes that fact. God may seem arbitrary, blind, silent, mocking. The universe can appear – and for many practical purposes is – random. So, we have the choice of drawing closer to the Lord or of hating or cursing Him for the way things are. We have the freedom to become naturalists or nihilists or atheists. Though God loves such people still, those are poor choices to make with the limited amount of information and capacity we currently have. And choices do have consequences.

No illustration is perfect, but this one helps me. Like a parent deciding to allow doctors to perform a necessary surgery on the brain of their baby knowing it may leave the child permanently retarded; or permitting doctors to amputate the mangled legs of their unconscious teenager; or someone deciding to take a spouse off life support to die; so God allows shocking events to befall His loved ones, for what He knows is sufficient reason. I say, in the grand scheme of eternity, these tragedies are temporary, minor and ultimately forgettable. I don’t mean to be flippant. Though we may hate such circumstances with one part of our being as they occur, myriads can testify that these experiences do not per se prevent any individual from achieving their full essential potential. My friend, Jean Ruff, who has cancer on her aorta, told me recently that most of the cancer patients she knows that have sought God’s will for their lives, would not go back to their status quo ante. Without rationalization, many have found such experiences - their own and those of their circle - to be rich, replete with grandeur, full of spiritual fulfillment and contentment. And death itself represents no loss of essential human potential and fulfillment.

Theodicy

My friend John Rush recently attended a Ligonier conference in Orlando. Even though neither John nor I are Calvinists, we both acknowledge that many (most?) of the "great" Christian scholars and authors of our day are in fact Calvinists.

One issue that has concerned me with Calvinism is its unswerving, overarching emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the (seeming) neglect of or indifference to His innumerable other attributes. While I believe unreservedly and unashamedly in God’s sovereignty, I also believe the teaching and application of that truth must be done in a way that highlights all of God’s traits. The declaration I heard many years ago that "truth without balance leads to heresy" comes to mind.

Back to my friend John . . . he has written a tremendous article analyzing God and the problem of evil (theodicy). Please take the time to visit his blog and read his observations. I assure you, it will be well worth your time.

My Will or Jesus Christ's?

Even though the New Year begins on January 1, in Chile—for all practical purposes—it starts in March. Summer vacation ends and folks return to work and school. Last Sunday, March 4, therefore, I preached a sermon emphasizing some important points to be considered as we look forward in 2007. I would like to share a portion of that sermon that was a blessing to my life personally.

My text was Luke 9:23-24 (King James Version): "And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (To be completely accurate, my text came from the Spanish Reina Valera Version [1960 Revision], "Y [Jesús] decía a todos: Si alguno quiere venir en pos de mí, niéguese a sí mismo, tome su cruz cada día, y sígame. Porque todo el que quiera salvar su vida, la perderá; y todo el que pierda su vida por causa de mí, éste la salvará.")

As we came to verse 24, I said, "Jesus, in a certain way is saying, ‘I know that what I’m asking [verse 23] isn’t easy but let Me go on and explain precisely what’s at stake.’" What the Lord is doing is offering us all the options so that we might make a wise decision. He is carrying out what is known in the business world as a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Whenever making an important decision, it’s necessary to weigh the costs involved and compare them with the benefits to be obtained.

Option #1: Following My Own Will ("Save [My] Life")

• Benefit: Extremely Low—Following my own will never gives me the return I expected for my investment . . . the little happiness that it might offer me is rapidly replaced by sadness and depression; instead of filling me, it leaves me empty and wasted. Any benefit that could exist in following my own will will only last for a few brief instants during this earthly life.
• Cost: Extremely High

For those who have truly accepted Jesus Christ as Savior: Following our own will after having accepted Jesus Christ as Savior will bring us sorrow, irritability, depression, interpersonal problems . . . and an almost endless list of other troubles. Furthermore, sooner or later, it will bring God’s discipline on our lives. Finally, arriving at the end of life only to see all that we’ve done amount to a great, big ZERO will be the icing on the cake of a life dedicated to following its own will.

For those who have never truly accepted Jesus Christ as Savior: Following your own will instead of turning your life over to Jesus Christ will cost you your soul in hell. You will pay eternally for continuing in your sin and yet will never, ever be able to pay off the debt of your rebellion against God.

Option #2: Following Jesus Christ ("Lose [My] Life for [His] Sake")

• Cost: Extremely Low—The costs of following Jesus wholeheartedly are so insignificant that it is not worth our spending much time discussing them. The Apostle Paul (who knew something about suffering!) declares in Romans 8:18, "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

• Benefit: Extremely High—The benefits of following Jesus are literally innumerable y even unimaginable. En this present life, we have an Almighty Friend who has promised never to abandon us (Hebrews 13:5-6). In the life to come, we will spend an eternity learning from God and enjoying such delights that the human mind cannot even fathom (1 Corinthians 2:9-10).

Slavery Is Alive and Well

Two hundred years ago today, William Wilberforce achieved the first major victory in his anti-slavery campaign when Britain’s House of Commons outlawed the slave trade. Even though slavery is now illegal in most countries of the world, it is probably safe to say that it is even more of a scourge than it was in Wilberforce’s day. World Magazine puts the issue into perspective with an article titled "Let my people go". In the story line preceding the article, the writer—Priya Abraham—makes the astonishing statement that the lives of modern slaves are "worth far less than any colonial era slave." Read on (emphasis in the piece is mine):

Premila’s parents sold their daughter for $18 on her 18th birthday. The buyer, from hundreds of miles away, said his Indian village had no good women to marry so he had to buy a wife. He took Premila as a concubine, then sold her into 10 grinding years of prostitution in two cities before rescuers returned the shattered woman to her home.

Premila is a modern slave, one of 27 million in the world today. Two hundred years ago, slaves were relatively scarce, expensive, and publicly owned by men holding title deeds to them. Today, they are plentiful and cheap like Premila—and much harder to spot.

This week Western countries celebrate the life of William Wilberforce, the pioneering abolitionist who labored 20 years to end the British slave trade, a fight he won on Feb. 23, 1807. Today’s abolitionists are no less tenacious but find their work is different: Unlike in Wilberforce’s time, slavery is illegal almost everywhere. Yet modern slavery flourishes because corrupt governments and law enforcers do not enforce the law.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice offers a number of incredible statistics regarding human trafficking and slavery:

• "Human trafficking is the third most profitable criminal activity, following only drug and arms trafficking. An estimated 9.5 billion is generated in annual revenue from all trafficking activities, with at least $4 billion attributed to the worldwide brothel industry."
• "Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders (some international and non-governmental organizations place the number far higher), and the trade is growing."
• "Of the 600,000-800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year, 70 percent are female and 50 percent are children. The majority of these victims are forced into the commercial sex trade."
• "Each year, an estimated 14,500 to 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked into the United States. The number of U.S. citizens trafficked within the country each year is even higher, with an estimated 200,000 American children at risk for trafficking into the sex industry."

May we not have the typical reaction of "Oh, that’s terrible!" and then continue our self-centered existence. Let us make our voices heard to those in government and lend a helping hand to those near us. Psalm 82:3-4 (King James Version) urges us to . . .

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Helping our fellow human being is not a political issue; it’s a Christian one. May believers realize that "pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit [relieve] the fatherless and widows [and, we may add, as does Psalm 82:3, all 'the afflicted and needy'] in their affliction" (James 1:27, King James Version).

Super Bowl XLI

With Super Bowl XLI set to take place this coming Sunday in Miami, a football related posting is in order. As most everyone knows, Lovie Smith’s Chicago Bears are set to take on the Indianapolis Colts of his friend and former mentor, Tony Dungy.

When the Bears beat the New Orleans Saints in the NFC Championship Game on January 21, Smith became the first black coach in history to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Later on that same day, Dungy become the second black coach to take a team to the Super Bowl when the Colts beat the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship Game.

Although much has been made of the color factor of these two coaches, another more important element must be emphasized: their faith in Christ. ESPN.com’s Michael Smith (himself a black man) makes that point in a fine article titled, "It’s character, not color, that separates Smith, Dungy":

So just how big a deal is it that a brotha (two as it turned out) finally led a team to the Super Bowl? Put it this way: a big enough deal to make black folk in Baltimore root for the hated Colts.

"We’re leaving Baltimore," Colts coach Tony Dungy recalled, "and the bus drivers, they were all black guys. They said, ‘We were rooting for you today [in the divisional-round game against the Ravens] and we’re rooting for you next week. Even though we live in Baltimore, we want you to win and get to the Super Bowl.’"

In the African-American community, the excitement of having Dungy and Chicago’s Lovie Smith – two of the league’s six coaches who happen to be members of said community – make history by becoming the first such coaches to reach pro football’s biggest game (played during Black History Month, no less) is similar to when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington and Jamie Foxx won Oscars for leading roles. The difference is that awards and elections are subjective. Having two coaches whose skin happens to be darker than most of their peers lead teams to the Super Bowl simply is the inevitable result of equal opportunity.

"It’s just like we’ve said all along," Dungy said. "If you give enough people an opportunity, it’s going to be just like everything else – you’re going to have some guys that rise to the top, you’re going to have some guys that do well, you’re going to have some guys that have to change situations. We’re going to be no different than anybody else. Eventually there will be plenty of guys that get there."

For Dungy and Smith to get their teams here had nothing to do with where their ancestors originated. Just as a person’s ethnicity, ideally, should have nothing to do with ... well, anything.

So, then, why are we wasting so much (air) time talking about the colors of these men’s skin?

I’ve been guilty of it for six paragraphs, but no more. It distracts us from what’s really important: what’s inside these men. And, trust me, it would do people good to see more of that.

Dungy and Smith are role models, not just for coaches who look like them or men who look like them, but for all coaches and all men. They live their lives the right way, and as a result they do their jobs the same way. Their priorities are, in order: faith, their families and football. The outcome of the Super Bowl or any game does not define them. They personify words such as class, grace, dignity, honor and integrity. We all can draw inspiration from men such as these.

Dungy and Smith haven’t sold their souls in pursuit of the game’s Holy Grail, and yet here they are, reminding us that good men can do great things, that nice guys can and do finish first. Dungy learned from Dennis Green and Chuck Noll and passed it on to assistants Smith, Mike Tomlin, Herman Edwards and Rod Marinelli (all head coaches now) that it’s OK to enjoy life outside the facility. Dungy and Smith are family men. And they still win.

You won’t hear either utter a word of profanity. And they still win. They care about and foster relationships with their players. And they still win. They serve their communities. And still, somehow, they find time to do what it takes to prepare their teams.

Dungy can – imagine – spend the Saturday evening before the AFC Championship Game against the Patriots at the mall with his family. Or Dungy, Smith, Edwards and each of their wives can gather for dinner at P.F. Chang’s the night before Dungy’s Colts and Edwards’ Chiefs met in the first round of the playoffs. And yet it didn’t halt the Bears’ or Colts’ journeys to Miami.

Dungy and Smith are Christian men who serve the Lord first and spend nearly as much time serving their communities. Doesn’t prevent them from winning. And often. In just three seasons Smith, last season’s Coach of the Year, has helped build the Bears into a league power. Dungy has won more regular season games than any coach since 1999. Where does color factor into that?

After they won their conference championships, you heard Smith talk about his "being blessed" and Dungy give thanks to God. That isn’t just lip service with these guys. As Christians they believe it is their responsibility to let their light shine whenever they’re in the spotlight. Just as they have a game plan for each other come Super Bowl Sunday, both plan to use the global platform that the Super Bowl provides to speak words that could make an impact beyond football. At his oldest son James’ funeral last year, Dungy used the eulogy as an opportunity to teach lessons about manhood and fatherhood.

Neither man gets caught up in, you know, being the head coach. Talk about humility: Smith was seated among the fans at the RCA Dome for the Colts-Chiefs playoff game (the Bears had a bye) when a fan approached him for an autograph. Smith, who had been signing for several minutes already, politely told her "not right now" and said he would like to turn his attention to the game. But he watched as she returned to her seat, and during the next break he went over and gave her the autograph.

Regarding a coaching matchup between friends and former colleagues, these are the kinds of things we should be talking about exclusively leading up to the game, the class way in which Dungy and Smith lead their respective organizations. Not something as trivial as Dungy and Smith’s skin color. It seems as if every day we hear about players getting arrested or being involved in some embarrassing incident -- and failing as role models. When Dungy walks away from coaching he likely will devote more of his time to the prison ministry about which he’s so passionate. He and Smith are examples of what a strong man is. Never mind what they look like. They’re the perfect people to represent not just the African-American community but the NFL community.

On Jan. 15, the nation celebrated the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We could honor his dream by celebrating Dungy’s and Smith’s achievements not because of the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

There’s a lot of talk about hoping for a day when black coaches in the Super Bowl won’t be a big deal, when we won’t find it necessary to refer to a coach as a "black coach" (or any person by their race, for that matter).

What’s wrong with that day being today? Dungy and Smith have made history, and we happily acknowledge it. As for our practice of categorizing NFL head coaches, let’s make that history, too.