Black, White, and Shades of Grey

I am coming to a realization about myself, and it is that I am a slow thought processor. I marvel at people who have ready answers. Sometimes I envy them (when the answer is really good) and other times I feel sorry for them (when the answer is not so good). Personally, I find myself thinking days later "I should have said this!" But the conversation is over and someone else is either the hero or the villain, having won the day in the minds of the spectators.

I have been silently and slowly observing a human dynamic. There is a personality type that really enjoys 'black and white' answers, and another personality type that likes a little more 'breathing room', shall we say. I generally distrust "there are two types of people" statements, so I am not filing everyone (or anyone in particular really) into these categories. Instead, I am thinking about the dynamic between two very generalized groups. Let's call them the 'Black and Whites' and the 'Greys'.

The Black and Whites, I have noticed, say things like 'It isn't ALL relative!' I think they say this out of a fear that things will deteriorate into a pure relativism, or a situation where everybody's interpretation is as valid as anybody else's, so there is no constructive debate or progress. I sympathize, and I do not believe their fears are entirely baseless. The Scripture warns us about the dangers of private interpretation.

The Greys, on the other hand, say things like 'It isn't ALL black and white!' I think they say this out of a fear of control, a fear that things will deteriorate into a situation of "dictated truth", and dissenting opinion will be squashed. Their fears are not baseless either. I just this week had a conversation with a young college student who said to me that since Christians are connected to God, we should know the truth about every single subject!! These kinds of Christians scare me. Horrible mistakes of the past can be directly connected to this attitude.

The thing that strikes me about this is that the people who say "It isn't ALL black and white" and the people who say "It isn't ALL relative (or interpretation)" are saying roughly the same thing! The two statements are not incompatible, they are complimentary.

I have been cutting wood with a chainsaw for the last couple of days. It is a very useful and productive machine, but also a very dangerous tool. The minute you don't respect its power, bad things can happen. The Word of God is a very sharp, double-edged sword. It is an extremely powerful and useful tool, but it is also dangerous and to be respected. Let us point it at the enemy and train ourselves to use it more wisely all of the time. That is what 'sparring with each other' helps us to do. As long as we remember that we are on the same team--whether we lean towards "Black and White" or we lean towards "Grey".

If you are a "Black and White", ask yourself "what can the Greys teach me?" and if you are a Grey, ask yourself "what can the Black and Whites teach me?"

Peace,

Bryan

Where do we begin?

I have been wondering what impact our 'first thoughts' about God might have on our resulting picture of who He is.

What I mean is this: systematic theology might begin with the 'fundamentals'--God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is immutable, God is timeless. If these are the foundations, then a defense of the faith might become structured around defending these all-important truths.

What concerns me is that, in defending these truths, other things become skewed or fuzzy, like water with a bit of sand mixed in. For example, to defend omnipotence, some very well-known theologians from way back in church history up until now have been compelled to say that there really isn't any such thing as evil, and that our perception of evil is just a 'conflict of interest' on our part (Augustine). To me, this muddies up the very clearly stated "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" In I John. But it is OK to make light a little skewed (at least in our perception) to maintain omnipotence. Along the same lines, theologians have posited that every event, including diabolical evil, must have some loving purpose behind it. Again, it is OK to muddy the waters on what love is, although it is very clearly defined in scripture, because we MUST maintain omnipotence.

But what if we STARTED with love and light as the things about God that are fundamental? John seems to go this way in everything he writes! What if, in order to maintain that God is love and God is light, then omnipotence and sovereignty get a little fuzzy? Can we not say the same things that people like Augustine said about light and love--that it is just our perception, or a conflict of interest that make us misunderstand sovereignty? I think a lot fewer people would die over it at least if we took this road.

So, I boldly ask, if the Scriptures say that our great hope is, at least in part, looking forward to the day when God will be "all in all", doesn't that have to mean that God is NOT all in all right now? How could the thought make sense otherwise? And if He is not all in all right now, it goes a long, long way towards explaining evil without appealing to some 'loving purpose' of His! Light and love remain crystal clear although sovereignty, according to our "absolute control" definition, takes a bit of a hit. Maybe sovereignty means something a bit different than what we were handed down through the influence of Greek philosophy?

What are your 'fundamentals' about God? How has this shaped your view of who He is?

Open Theism

The nature of reality and its impact on foreknowledge. Those of us who espouse open theism are not attacking the sovereignty of God, but questioning the nature of reality. If parts of the future do not yet exist to be known by anyone, it is not an attack on God's sovereignty to say that even He does not know them. Can He not sovereignly create a universe in which certain aspects of the future are unknowable, even to Him? The question "why would He do this?" has a straightforward answer: for the preservation of free will!

The cool thing is, if you think this through, God does know future events as they truly are--POSSIBILITIES! He is able to view the probability wave before, during, and after it collapses (something we are unable to do--our observation collapses the wave into a definite reality). Is this not a bigger God? The one who sees every possible choice and outcome, and is able to steer history to His desired end anyway?!!!

The reason this thinking appeals to me so much is because the Scripture portrays a God who genuinely repents, changes His mind, experiences regret, and at least in one place says that He THOUGHT Israel would do one thing, but they did another! All of this evidence indicates a God who is at least in some sense moving through time with us.

This makes Him, in my mind at least, so much more involved with us. Instead of the unmoved, unchanging outside observer and judge, He is movable and changeable. Jeremiah 18 all of the sudden makes sense, when God says that He will change His mind about prophesied disaster or blessing based upon the response of the nation to whom He is speaking! He wants to interact with us.

Abraham believed God could be persuaded to change His mind. Moses believed that God could be persuaded to change His mind. I believe it too.

Republics and Allegiances

Words mean things. I used to be rabidly involved in conservative politics, and one guy used to say this a lot. It is true--words do mean things.

Allegiance, for example, comes from a French root somewhere in the fourteenth century, and it speaks of the loyalty of a "leige-man" to his (human) lord.

A republic is a nation that is not ruled by a monarch, where the power supposedly rests in the hands of the voting populace, who are then represented by elected officials. A good political idea maybe, but not my lord.

Gospel is another interesting word. When Caesar conquered a new land, his gospel would then be proclaimed there, reinforcing his lordship over the people. When the disciples of Jesus proclaimed "Jesus is Lord" as their gospel, it was intentionally meant as "Jesus is Lord over and against Caesar!" Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not. Jesus is Lord, the republic is not.

So, no, the republic may not have my allegiance, thank you very much. The Republic (Caesar) may have my money--his face is printed on all of it--and they may even have my obedience to authorities insofar as they do not ask me to disobey God. But my allegiance already belongs to Jesus Christ, and what Jesus Christ owns, the Republic may not have.

Words mean things.

Bryan

Cynicism and Faith

I have been invited to speak at UNM's Intervarsity group on Sep. 17, with the topic "Cynicism and Faith". I am honored and a bit scared! Maybe I can use this blog to generate some thoughts, so here are mine:

I think that much of the cynicism you find in academia is somewhat justified, so we have to be clear first of all that cynicism, if gullibility is the other option, is not all bad.

I probably share some of the cynicism myself. I am cynical about Christians that want to insist that God is a patriotic American Republican. I am cynical about Christians that want to insist that you must believe in a 6,000 year old earth to be a Jesus follower. These kinds of cynicism I do understand.

There is one person who comes to mind about whom I cannot imagine anyone being cynical (though I am sure there are some), and I mention her quite a lot: Mother Teresa. Even the staunchest of cynics can usually admit that she followed Jesus in a way that was praiseworthy.

I don't recall that she ever got into a debate about the age of the earth.

But she did fight--for the oppressed. She did state her mind about abortion often, in a "pleading for the oppressed" manner. Maybe the cynicism has arisen because we keep choosing the wrong fights, even unwinnable fights at times (remember geocentrism?), or maybe we forgot to be Christlike when we were fighting because we forgot that we were not fighting for idealism, fundamentalism, or even 'the truth', but for the oppressed.

So, can we minister in the midst of an increasingly "cynical about Christianity" culture? I think so. I don't think it hurts to admit to them that we share some of the cynicism. I don't think it would hurt to repent for the often horrible mistakes of the past, and even do some meaningful restoration for them. Then we can remember that we were assigned to a simple task of pure love.

Your thoughts are welcome

Bryan

Father's Business

Jesus said that the disciples were "friends" and no longer servants because they now knew the Fathers business. They knew what God was up to, what His plan was all about.

I have long eschewed the Business Model of church and ministry. That all-too-American idea of economic success, image, and productivity. It is taught at seminars all over the country, and we, as pastors, are urged on to things like "excellence", which has taken on a networking, capitalist definition of economic success. We are told to surround ourselves with 'excellent' people so we can become an efficient organization and "light" to the community, which is also defined by elegant buildings and programs.

Jesus went down to the docks to build his team. What an incredibly different model He was following! Perhaps if He had the advantage of learning from a successful capitalist society, He could have chosen some better people to get the job done.

What happens to the business model of the church when we realize that the business is love? What if the core values of God's business are things like patience, kindness, and longsuffering? Not to mention "not seeking one's own"! How in the world can any business succeed without looking out primarily for its own interests?!

Jesus never wrote down a mission statement. His driving goal was to get Himself crucified by the powers that existed at the time. He met that goal.

And He changed the world.

Bryan

Sixteen Years in A Moment

Sixteen years ago today dad went to be with Jesus. It was a morning just like this, bright and clear.

I am amazed this morning at the grace of God and His lovingkindness to me since that day. He has accomplished so much in that time, always remaining faithful to me, my wife, and my children. Thank you, Father God, for your loving hand in every moment.

Say hi to dad for me, and tell him that I am all better. Tell him that I will do my very best to watch over the church that he built. Most of the people are different people now, and he wouldn't even recognize the ones that were just babies when he left! They have grown up into fine young women and men. Tell him that I will follow Jesus no matter what.

Tell him that I will be kayaking the Rio Grande tomorrow, and that teaching me to fish was one of the greatest things a dad could do for his son.

Bryan