vital signsmeditations on God humanity art culture
jputster
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit jputster's Xanga Site!

Name: Jonathan
Birthday: 7/14/1977
Gender: Male


Interests: God, Art, Culture, International Politics, Humanities, Violin,
Expertise: Still searching.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Education/Research


Message: message meEmail: email me


Member Since: 8/22/2004

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Blogrings
Mosaic
previous - random - next

SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES
previous - random - next

Desiring God
previous - random - next


Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Wednesday, December 21, 2005

I love sin! I love it!  And, though any good Christian would dare not say it, there are many times when it is difficult for me to choose between this seductive companion and more heavenly interests.  Sin is simply so attractive.  It offers a level of sensory experience and exploration that I often feel I am lacking on the straight and narrow.  Sin offers a sense of freedom to do what I want to do, when I want to do it without restriction, without restraint . It allows me to tune out the sometimes annoying voice of conscience that seems to torment me with twinges of guilt that dampen the happiness I feel on a weekend fling with this seductive lover.  Sin offers me the opportunity to feel, when my heart is so unfeeling (even pain is better than not feeling at all).  And so I find myself in bed with Sin, enjoying its company and comforts,  unsure what will happen when I decide to break up (yet again).  

I've been thinking this decision, separating, is a step I probably should take at some point in the future.  There are certain aspects of this relationship that are beginning to bother me. First, Sin seems to be strangely jealous of me when I spend time apart from it.  Though it promised to broaden my options it seems to limit them, and I find that when I'm in love with Sin it is near impossible to love anything else (even myself).  Second, though Sin offers me more sensory stimulation than I know what to do with, I wouldn't call this experience pleasure (well, maybe the pleasure of those who find satisfaction inflicting wounds upon themselves). Third, though Sin would claim to be the ultimate lover, it becomes more and more difficult to put-off the advances of another lover who seems relentless in His pursuit of me.  Even when I attempt to ignore the overtures, they come to me in subtle, momentary flashes of realization that makes me wonder if perhaps love is blind and I have played the fool and blindly chosen Sin.  Who would I choose if I could see?  And so, even though I love Sin I hope that another lover, The Lover, will overcome the jealous grasping of this illusion and win my heart.

"Take me to you, imprison me, for I, Except you'enthrall me, never shall be free, Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me."  John Donne 


Saturday, November 19, 2005

Last night was the first discussion (okay, I'll say debate) that has fired me up in a long time.  I was hanging out with a bunch of guys that have also completed the MA at Trinity and we were stroking our egos by throwing around big theological words like Amilenialism,  post-tribulationalism, dispensationalism, historic premilenialism, cessationisism, predestination...  words that essentially describe a system of theological thinking.  I can see the strength and weakness of using such words.  They are good for word efficiency but can also divide people in ways that are counterproductive. Anyway, it wasn't over any of these "isms" that I became frustrated, but rather over the fact that I often seem to take a different theological path than those around me. Why am I always on one side and everyone else on the other? Now that I have set out from the Chapel and am a part of another movement, I find that it is more and more challenging to have theological conversations with those I love for we are speaking from very different frameworks.  Don't get me wrong, its not that we always disagree, just that I seem to be on a very different path through the theological jungle making it more and more difficult to discuss the scenery. I am sure, however, that this is a temporary problem. We will adjust. We will adapt our manner of discussing so that we bring the other up to speed on our current whereabouts in non-offensive ways and then proceed to share what the Lord has done in our lives...but this will take time.  Last night I brought up what I was discovering about a movement called "Biblical Counseling."  It has been a paradigm-shifting process for me and I am hungry to know more. I began by sharing some of the tenants of this counseling perspective only to be met with a barrage of cynicism.  hmmm.  I can only stop and wonder if my approach is to blame. How am I approaching this wrongly?  How can I share all that I'm learning without belittling others?  How can I be "convinced in my own mind" while remaining humble so that I can learn from those who disagree with me?   

Feel free to check out more about Biblical Counseling at the following site: Am I way off base here?

http://ccef.org/home.htm

 


Saturday, November 12, 2005

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.  They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.  Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Heb. 13:22

Check out:  http://leypeople.org/content/2005/11/04/worm-training-401/

Here's my response to the above entry writen by Doug Ley (my mentor this past year):

I've been thinking a lot about authority recently. As you know, my new church has a higher view of church leadership than I've been used to since it is not a congregationalist ecclesiology but more a presbytery, in other words, elder rule.  This doctrine is not only a reality on paper but is lived out in the daily functioning of the church. For example, the leadership is very careful to screen all of the books in the bookstore to ensure that they reflect their understanding of sound doctrine.  At first, this freaked me out! Such control seemed to hint of cultic brainwashing where people lose their capacity to think for themselves. Upon second thought, I've been wondering if I'm reacting to this model because it is unbiblical or just "unJonathan." After all, maybe the brainwashing has been happening for the last 28 years.  I have a number of strikes against me when it comes to accurately understanding what is biblical and what is not in this area: 1) I am an American with an over developed sense of individuality and autonomy. As Americans, we simply like to think the way want to think, and authority, well, authorities are for us to decide. After all, this is a democracy, right?  2)  I am a post-modernist i.e. skeptical, relativistic with a distaste for propositional statements of absolute truth.  If truth is hard to determine, I certainly don't won't someone else determining it for me.  3)  I am an evangelical protestant who has spent the majority of my life in congregational churches where the direction of the church is determined by a vote in which the doctrine of a new convert (determined by a 24 hr. read through of John) is sometimes as valued as the doctrine of a white-haired couple who have spent their lives pouring over scripture and seeking to apply it to their lives (after all, their views are a little too traditional and may prevent the church from reaching the younger generation).  As an evangelical, I've grown up attending bible studies where we sit around in a circle and share our interesting interpretations of a verse. We pray. We go home patting ourselves on the back for our creative (original?) contribution to the discussion or despairing because everyone else' seemed better. But either way, we determine the success of the discussion based upon how many people shared their perspectives, not upon the accuracy of these interpretations.  Heaven forbid that anyone have the audacity to say that their interpretation is the right one. What arrogance!  4) I am proud. That is, I'd like to believe that my interpretations are the right ones rather than the elders of the church (though I would never claim this in a discussion group, that would be arrogant).  5)  I am a sinner, and therefore by nature, I am a rebel.  I naturally hate authority. My flesh cringes at the thought of having to submit (against my will) to the will of another.  So how do I know that I'm not the one in error rather than the church ecclesiology?

 

Since my church has a radical commitment to the authority of scripture as the supreme authority, I've decided to set aside my qualms (and independence) and recognize that submitting to earthly authority is probably an indication of whether I'm submitting to a heavenly One.  This has been a death of sorts, but I am finding an abundant life on the other side. It is unfortunate that I have spent so long without the fruit of the seed that falls into the ground and dies.  I wonder how much more fruit the western church would experience if we would set aside our western prejudice (and pride) and humble ourselves beneath the authorities God has placed in our lives.

 

Thanks, Doug, for making us stop and consider whether we are missing something (not to mention...you).

 

 


Saturday, October 15, 2005

It's been a while since I've blogged.  No surprise there.  My true colors as a procrastinator are showing. Often I simply don't feel like writing--so I don't, a habit that reveals more than the fact that I'm not an ideal blogger. It's a condition which afflicts many of us,  a tendency to base our decisions upon our feelings rather than on what we know to be best, in this case disciplining myself to write. How many of us are quick to indulge every whim of our hearts no matter how unhealthy?  In the midst of our emotionalism, tossed back and forth by the waves, Christ arrives on the scene and invites us to step out of our storm-tossed lives and into the faith-filled walk that allows us to stand upon the water and trust in him, rather than our emotions. 

This isn't the first time my attention has been directed to the story of Peter walking upon the water this week.

The Lord has been doing so much in my heart revealing massive quantities of self-reliance, pride, self-righteousness, performance-based thinking...all the typical religious sins that we Christians preach against but secretly (and not so secretly) indulge in.  I've spent a great deal of my Christian life evaluating myself, my sins, my victories, my performance in general. Yet recently the Lord has been kind to reveal to me just how deep the rabbit hole goes.  As many people know, but don't stop to consider, the essence of sin is an attempt to be like God. This is the sin for which Lucifer was thrown out of heaven, and it is the motive that resulted in Adam and Eve partaking of the apple.  I'm finding that nearly every sinful motive of my heart is linked with this impulse to usurp God's place on the throne.  Consider the above mentioned tendency to constantly evaluate myself. This is in essence a desire to judge the motives of my own heart. At first this may seem innocent but in reality it is an attempt at being judge (even of my own life), and we know that God alone is judge.  Don't get me wrong, there is a time for evaluation. But let me suggest that the Biblical emphasis is, "Search me, Oh God, see if there is any unrighteous way in me and lead me in the way everlasting" (Ps 139).  In other words, even our evaluation of ourselves is not primarily a self-evaluation but rather an openness to allow God to judge the motives of our heart and to bring conviction and cleansing.  Do you see the difference?  One approach is self-focused, our gaze turned inward as we position ourselves as judge, the other is God-focused as we turn our gaze to the righteous and merciful ruler who alone is worthy to be the judge of the universe and hence our hearts. Paul writes the same thing, "I do not judge myself" (I don't remember the Scripture off hand but can find it if someone would like it).  The desire to judge ourselves is the twin of our eagerness to judge others.  Do you see just how wicked this tendency truly is?  Judging others is not merely rude, it is an attempt to dethrone God and to set ourselves on his throne as the rightful judge of his creation.  Even as I write this I am immensely convicted. Oh, God, my pride seems limitless. It goes so deep, touching every motive of my heart.  I am so needy, grasping for power, pathetically crawling towards your throne, not for mercy but in an attempt to lead a one-man revolt and usurp your place...

"While we were still sinners (hating him because he is God and we are not), Christ died for us..."

What love is this, that takes this grasping fool and frees him from the enemy within.  That nails this scoundrel to the cross with Christ, crucifying him, that a new heart might be born in me that sings the song of humility, of worship, rather than self-glorification.  Lord, thank you for saving me from myself and taking my face in your hands and turning it towards you. Thank you for capturing my ever-distracted gaze in such a way that I can see faint glimpses of your glory. Oh, Lord, continue your work in me that my pride might be nullified that I might worship you in Spirit and in truth.

Let this ship of self-determination, of self-glorification and focus, of human effort and self-justification sink to the bottom of the sea. This floatation device is utterly defunct. Help me out of this sinking ship of human effort that I might walk upon the sea, my eyes fixed upon you and your all-sufficient righteousness.  


Friday, September 09, 2005

I recently got into a discussion with another blogger related to John Piper (a Calvinist) and Greg Boyd (an Armenian Open Theist).  Since it was such a lengthy dialogue, I thought I would post it here for any of you who have the time.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Open Theism is becoming a popular theology (embraced by well-known Christians including Boyd and Eldridge) that suggests that God does not know, nor preordain the future because the future does not exist for him to know or preordain.  In other words, God knows everything except the future because it doesn't exist for him to know.  This stands in stark contrast to the Calvinist position which believes that God knows the past, present and future, and also that he has predestined things to occur. I hope you find our brief dialogue thought provoking, regardless of your current position.
 
JP:  The last few years I've become increasingly more skeptical of debate as a means of transforming the mind and heart, so I'll try not to be argumentative, though it seems to be embedded in my nature =/ Let me ask you forgiveness before I even start.

TJ:  "Hey.  What have you determined is the fruit of Open Theism, and how is it weakening the evangelical church?  What did you think of Boyd when you heard him teach?" 
 
JP: "My brother recently went through a really nasty divorce. His wife up and left him because "happiness and my brother were no longer compatible." I guess she simply bought into the argument along with 60% of married Christians who have believed that divorce is a better option than experiencing covenant love the way God designed it.  Through this process my brother (who prior to the divorce was not experiencing much intimacy with Christ) reevaluating his spiritual life and began to grow spiritually in a dynamic way.  He grew in his confidence that God uses all things for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purposes. He began to believe that God would use the evil against him for good, and that all of the suffering that he was enduring did have a purpose and would be ultimately used for his good and God's glory.  Interestingly, two of his Open Theists friends were horrified at the concept that there was a purpose to the suffering my brother was enduring. They kept arguing that there was no purpose. His wife had simply made a stupid and sinful decision and my brother was reaping the consequences.  Now, my question is this, which theology offers more hope and encouragement? The belief that all events are under the sovereign control of God, that he will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, that he will not allow us to suffer for a milli-second beyond what he will use for our good, or the belief that we are simply the victims of others wrong decisions without reason or purpose because He has granted libertarian freedom to human beings, all that he can do is attempt to clean up the pieces (and that itself is quite a challenge for a God who will not interfere with human freedom)?   As my brothers friends tried to argue with my brother (who had been spiritually transformed by the event) that there was no purpose to it, I kept wondering what Joseph would have said if they had used the same theology on him.  I can just picture them saying, "Joseph, don't try to find any God ordained purpose or meaning to the wrongs you endured at the hands of your brothers, they simply made a sinful decision. Accept it and move on.  Don't waste your time looking for what God wanted to do through this event!"  I can just picture Joseph looking at them in disbelief.  He may have even laughed as he proclaimed to his brothers, "What you meant for evil, God meant for good, the saving of many lives" (Gen. 50:20).  Belief in God's sovereignty does not bring confusion to tragedy as much as it brings hope, that if God was sovereign over the events leading up to this event, he is also sovereign over the results and has promised to use all things for our good."   
 
TJ: "What I love about Open Theism are the possibilities.  Open Theists live with questions.  Open Theists can freely mourn in the suffering of others, without having to defend God... Calvinists remind me of Job's friends, so defensive and so wrong about the big picture.  :>)"
 
JP: "Let me take a little different angle, I don't believe Open Theists are living with questions. I think they have in fact been unwilling to accept the logical questions generated by Scripture.  It seems to me that Open Theists are taking a slice of scripture which focuses exclusively on God as love (specifically a lover who places the preservation of human freedom as his highest value) while disregarding passages that paint a much more nuanced and perplexing portrait of God.  I view Open Theism as a way of bypassing the hard questions in order to create a more simplistic theology that is relatively easy to wrap our minds around.  Consider the following passages:
 
Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”

 

Lamentations 3:37-38 “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”

Proverbs 21:1 “The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”

Psalm 33:10-11 The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. 11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.”

These passages create questions, not easy answers. Yet it is the Open Theists that works to minimize the tensions in an effort to defend God of the accusation of willing that sin exist.  But I don't believe God needs our defense. We are not the judge in the court case of history, he is.  Ironically, when I think of Job's friends, I believe they are the ones attempting to defend God and therefore more closely resemble Open Theists. They keep insisting that Job must have done something wrong, otherwise Job would not be suffering. In other words, human sin is responsible for this calamity, not God. They were attempting to get God off the hook by blaming Job. It is Job that is willing to accept the tension that a loving God would allow Satan to destroy his life. He is the one that is willing to say, God is ultimately responsible for this, and yet worship Him. "Shall I accept blessing and not calamity?"  All kinds of questions are created by accepting what Scripture says. I want to embrace these tensions even if I don't understand them. Unfortunately, while Open Theists believe they are embracing a bigger God, their God seems much smaller to me, a God who is created in the likeness of American ideals of individuality, human rights, democracy and romanticized love. I'm not suggesting that these ideals are bad, just that they are not representative of the sum of Scripture. How do God's sovereignty and human responsibility relate?  A moderate Calvinist must simply say that this is a heavenly mystery and that we must accept both realities, even if we don't understand.  "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling (human responsibility), for it is God who wills and works within you (God's sovereignty)." Phil. 2:12
 
TJ:  "It seems that Calvinists measure God's glory quantitatively, I think it is a subtle error.  If we have nothing or everything to do with our own salvation it does not diminish the power and authority of God, nor does it detract from his glory."
 
JP: I like to think of "glory" as also meaning "credit."  Who gets the credit for our salvation?  Do we share the credit with God?  Do we share the glory?  Scripture seems to make it clear that salvation is a completely free gift, specifically "so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2). I take this to mean, so that no one gets the credit except for the One to whom it belongs. 
 
TJ: "God's identity exists completely apart from us.  Calvinism seems to define the attributes of God contingent upon their understanding of men.  Even if we were able to pull ourselves up by our own boot straps (which I do not believe) but even if it were possible, God is still who he is."  
 
JP: "This is a really great point. I fully agree with you that God's glory is not contingent upon our recognizing it. It is like a sunrise. I person my choose to open the shades and enjoy it, or close the shades and act like it doesn't exist, but this doesn't change the fact that the glorious sunrise still exists irregardless of whether they are appreciating it or not.  So in this sense, I fully agree with you." 
 
TJ: "I will not argue, though others have, that belief in predestination lends itself to a lack of missionary zeal... however, I do wonder how Calvinists can support missionary efforts,"
 
JP: "I see John Piper as example of how a biblical understanding of God's sovereignty does not minimize evangelistic zeal but only gives us confidence that as we boldly proclaim the gospel, some will respond."  
 
TJ: "if cooperating with our own salvation could detract from God's glory, than wouldn't it also be true that cooperating with someone else's would also detract from the glory of God?  Wouldn't it be best to leave things be, and just let God take all the glory?" 
 
JP: "Not only does God invite us to cooperate with his grace in our lives, he uses us as conduits for his message and grace to flow to others.  We become the conduits and he the electricity which flows through us and into others.  It is amazing that he nearly always chooses to work through us.
 
On the flip side, I have never understood why Armenians are not completely panic-ridden upon recognizing that the eternity of the unreached depends solely upon their efforts.  In other words, if you miss an evangelistic opportunity, you may damn someone to hell by your disobedience.  The belief that God is sovereign over the souls of men frees us to share the gospel not out of guilt but out of love.
 
Likewise, I have never understood why true Armenians pray for the souls of others when they believe that God will not undermine absolute human freedom.  In other words, stop praying for that prodigal child, or unfaithful spouse, or unbelieving neighbor for God will not decisively change them.
 
TJ: "Also, post-salvation, it seems Calvinists still embrace the idea of Total depravity.  I am not sure if that idea is supported doctrinally, but I have seen a lot of "wormy" theology; Christians saying I am nothing apart from God... like the brother who stayed home in the parable of the prodigal son.  When we are saved, we are also transformed, we are new creatures.  We are heirs, and should walk in the confidence that we act on God's behalf, as sons and daughters of the king.  It is our Faith in God that makes us righteous, and living like "sinners saved by grace" does not seem to mobilize that faith.  It also doesn't reflect the confidence Paul had in the transforming work of the cross.  This is not a doctrinal argument against Calvinism, necessarily, it may be a reaction to my fundamentalist upbringing.  :>)"
 
JP: "I agree, I've met a lot of "wormy" Christians too, of all theological persuasions.  It seems that a right understanding of our weakness must be coupled with a right understanding of God's power (which he places within us). I don't see "self-pity" and "false humility" as being a result of a belief in God's sovereignty. David and his buddy Jonathan were astonishingly pro-active and confident individuals not because they believed they were anything special, but because of their belief in God's sovereignty over their enemies.  It's not us against life. It's us and Jesus against life--what place does the "worm" have in this picture.  I do, however, believes that God chooses the foolish things of the world to reveal his greatness. You know, the whole "before and after" concept.  The greater the contrast, the greater the (re)creator!"
 
TJ: "I also think Calvinism does not reflect the kindness and compassion of God, or rather, that is the fruit I see." 
 
JP: "I think you're right about this, it does appear to be a balancing act. If Armenians fall off the horse by emphasizing God's love of man above all other qualities, the Calvinist can fall off the horse on the other side and emphasize God's sovereignty at the expense of other qualities such as compassion.  Here again, scripture doesn't seem to error on either side.  Jesus weeps for the loss of Lazarus even though he intentionally stayed away for a number of days so that his glory might be seen in raising him from the dead.  Was Jesus' faking tears?  Apparently he could empathize in an amazing way while valuing something over human comfort--His glory.  If Jesus is our example, it would seem that an individual who knows the heart of God will also possess a heart of compassion.  Calvinists can be as hard-hearted (and prideful) as they come.
 
TJ: "When the bible refers to predestination, as in Ephesians, I read it that the way of salvation has been predetermined; Jesus was the intended all along, and not individuals who would be saved.  It was that passage in Ephesians that started it all for me... examining what is really true of God."
 
JP: "I want to give more thought to this, but my initial thought is to see how this passage fits in with many other texts including Romans 8-9 and many other passages which speak of predestination."
 
TJ: "In the end, I don't know if Boyd or Piper is correct, but I know they both passionately Love Jesus, and both completely rely on God's grace for salvation."
 
JP: "Does Boyd's theology promote complete reliance on God's grace? Even when it emphasizes that man can choose salvation apart from grace?"
 
TJ: "The final note though, and this is why I have hesitated in reading Piper until very recently, besides his view of women... is that he has the boldness to call Boyd a heretic, and has cut off all relationship with him, despite Boyd's attempts to continue talking.  Boyd is clearly a man who loves Jesus, and in humility is searching for truth... it is wrong to condemn a Godly man who happens to disagree.  That devastated my respect for Piper for quite some time."
 
JP: "I don't know all the details of the event, but I trust Piper's character enough to believe that he did not make such a decision lightly, but probably with weeping.  Without necessarily defending his position (for I have many friends whom I disagree with theologically), I wonder if we as American Christians we don't take issues like truth, holiness, love etc. very seriously.  For example, when is the last time you heard of a church implementing church discipline because of divorce.  The thought is horrifying to us. Kick someone out of the church for making a bad decision?  Where is the compassion in that? Where is the God of second chances?  Yet I recently met a young man who finds it difficult to go to church because his mother, who abandoned her husband and children a few years ago, still sings happily (and "worshipfully") in the choir.  If the church had followed NT guidelines and disassociated themselves from her, this young man would have many fewer obstacles to overcome in his walk with God.  My point is this. I think we take "holiness" very lightly. We are so concerned about being "seeker sensitive" that we have thrown true love (as experienced by this young man) out the window.  Have we become soft on theological "truth" as well?  Before we can consider whether it was legitimate for Piper to cut off a relationship with Boyd, we must consider whether it is legitimate to cut off relationship with anyone because of their behavior or beliefs (for aren't the two interwoven?).  Piper evidently decided that "heresy" is a legitimate reason to break communion with another. I think Paul would have agreed, though I am uncertain of how Paul would have addressed Open Theism."
 
To be continued...



Next 5 >>