Ready to Do Good
Posted by Felter David J. on May 18th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
In a polarized age, it is easy to miss the subtleties. We are so accustomed to broadsides that we miss the nuanced and the quiet, often poignant messages because they are covered over by the noise of the shrill.
I’ve often told my children, “Always be aware of your surroundings.” Obviously, that can be interpreted in many different ways. It’s pretty good advice when you are in unfamiliar settings. It’s also good advice when you find yourself sorting through the cacophony of opposing messages, free advice, and “woulda, shoulda, coulda” prescriptions.
On this Tuesday when the media will focus on the elections of a few officials, listen for the story that’s not being reported. You’ve already noticed that change is afoot. You’ve heard the pundits, the skeptics, and the soap-box orators. Many people are attempting to draw the lines in the sand for you. Take the stories that you’ll hear, see and read and ask: “If I were covering this story, what is the point I would wish to make?”
The terrible thing about today’s world is an ugly reality that doesn’t get enough coverage: while the opposing teams claim victory, tout their superiority, and slam the opposition, the real game continues. The oil is still spilling. Freedom is still challenged. And the future still awaits the sculpting hand of the optimist.
Be ready to do good today!
Peace!
Dave Felter
Sins, Sabbaticals, and Survivors
Posted by Felter David J. on March 30th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post1 Comment »
One of the most interesting preachers on the Web is John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN. He’s a full-bore, five-point, classical Calvinist. His positions are so extreme, one almost wonders at the credulity of his listeners. And yet, Piper, a Southerner, has the charm and charisma of a Southern story-teller that makes his preaching inimitable. To my surprise, many college and university students have resonated with his extreme message of predestination and determinism.
Christianity Today noted in their email notices that Piper is taking a sabbatical to deal with “issues” in his life and ministry. He offered the following to his congregation in Minneapolis:
“I see several species of pride in my soul that, while they may not rise to the level of disqualifying me for ministry, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with [my wife] Noël and others who are dear to me,” Piper wrote. “How do I apologize to you, not for a specific deed, but for ongoing character flaws, and their effects on everybody? I’ll say it now, and no doubt will say it again, I’m sorry. Since I don’t have just one deed to point to, I simply ask for a spirit of forgiveness; and I give you as much assurance as I can that I am not making peace, but war, with my own sins.”
We grieve that a brother in the Lord has exhausted himself in the pursuit of his calling, and in so doing, needs both rest, recovery, and our grace. I respect this decision and trust Piper will find recuperation and restoration in his time away.
What I am struck by, is the emptiness of Calvinism as a theological system that lacks the resources to deal with our most intimate need; cleansing of the heart from the fleshly nature that coddles human pride, nurtures unsupported notions of one’s own importance, and can lead to the weakening of spiritual defenses that lead to out-broken sin. That is not to say that the entirely-sanctified person will not be tempted to pride; that the entirely-sanctified will “run and not be weary.” It is to profess, however, that there is a Scriptural cure for the divided heart. Or as Wesley implied in his sermon On Sin in Believers, 13:
“And as this position, ‘There is no sin in a believer, no carnal mind, no bent to backsliding,” is thus contrary to the word of God, so it is to the experience of his children. These continually feel an heart bent to backsliding; a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. They are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, — pride, self-will, unbelief; and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. Yet at the same time they ‘know that they are of God;’ they cannot doubt of it for a moment. They feel his Spirit clearly ‘witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God.’ They ‘rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement.’ So that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that ‘Christ is in them the hope of glory.’ ”
Thankfully, neither Scripture nor Wesley leaves the believer in this position or state. Methodists from the South Georgia Confessing Association state:
“Wesley believed that Christ’s death on the cross made it possible not only for sinners to be saved by grace, but, indeed, for them to be saved to the uttermost. Entire sanctification was restoration to the image of God, being made perfect in love toward God and neighbor.
“It is thus that we wait for entire sanctification; for a full salvation from all our sins, from pride, self-will, anger, unbelief; or, as the Apostle expresses it, ‘go on unto perfection.’ But what is perfection? The word has various senses: Here it means perfect love. It is love excluding sin; love filling the heart, taking up the whole capacity of the soul. It is love ‘rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, in every thing giving thanks.’ [Sermon 43–The Scripture Way of Salvation]”
My prayer for John Piper is that during his months of self-imposed sabbatical, he will discover the rich treasure of heart holiness, entire sanctification, and return to his pulpit in the renewal of his nature in the image of Christ to preach holiness and full salvation!
In Him,
David Felter
McLaren’s New Book
Posted by Felter David J. on March 27th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post3 Comments »
I try not to spend too much time endorsing books from popular writers, but Brian McLaren’s latest work, “A New Kind of Christianity” has been the subject of strong negative reaction from Southern Baptists, particularly from the Southern Baptist Seminary. You can read McLaren’s defense of his book here.
I finished reading McLaren’s statements (some of which I read and re-read) and would offer the following:
1. McLaren is a gifted author. He is adept at writing and is no mean scholar. I respect his scholarship and the manner in which he plies the writing craft.
2. McLaren offers what seems to be a cogent, cohesive schematic for re-interpreting Jesus, His message, and the essence of the Gospel. Like John Calvin, hundreds of years before him, he offers a “system” that is defensible only if you buy all the assumptions.
3. McLaren taps the growing “angst” experienced by many younger evangelicals as they become more fully immersed in a diverse culture, influenced by pluralism, and exposed to a “zeitgeist” that is clearly more critical of the traditional biblical world view.
4. McLaren offers an option that transforms the “old time religion” into something more fully compatible with post-moderns who eschew authoritative narratives, specific, black-and-white positions, and are looking for a more inclusive religious experience.
So, how do I really feel about all this?
First, I am saddened by these developments. I am saddened for the following reasons:
1. Much of what post-modern critics of traditional, biblical religion rail against, are the caricatures unwittingly foisted off on society and the world by those of us who were reckless in our speech, careless in our exegesis, and rude in our application of biblical truths.
2. I am saddened by the fact that many religious people are so discontent with the traditional biblical message that they seek revisionist interpretations that water down the essence of the biblical message, more for the sake of making them feel comfortable in a pluralistic, diverse culture, than in reaching the lost.
3. I am saddened by the holiness church’s absorption into popular evangelicalism. Brian McLaren and those of his theological persuasion are the natural by-product of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism has been corrupted and co-opted by liberalizing forces that have been working since the early days of the fundamentalism debates, to reshape it according to the features of what was then called modernism. The holiness churches were truly never in complete harmony with the largely Calvinist/Reformed theological motifs. On the far right were the Dispensationalists with their prophetic/eschatological schematics. On the left were the neo-evangelical vanguard seeking to bridge between the older group and liberal Christanity. In the center, were those whose Calvinism endorsed similar themes as did the holiness churches, with the added elements of eternal security, one-dimensional emphasis on substitutionary atonement, and a modified three-point Calvinism.
4. I am saddened by the loss of vigor in traditional, biblical religion engendered by embarrassed proponents who are so willing to abandon its message for what is clearly a clever, articulate revision of the Gospel, cast in the language and vocabulary of those who seek conciliation with unbelievers.
5. Finally, I am saddened by the feeling that Jesus’ words to the disciples may be finding fulfillment in the discourse offered by those with whom I am supposed to be in Christian fellowship, e.g. evangelicals. Jesus said, “Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)
The Emergent Church seems to be playing fast and loose with the ancient paths. I applaud emerging churches as they seek to engage the culture. I grieve, however, when that is done at the expense of the precious Gospel of Jesus Christ!
In Him,
David Felter
A Fiery Sermon…
Posted by Felter David J. on March 12th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
A member of a certain church, who previously had been attending services regularly, stopped going. After a few weeks, the preacher decided to visit him. It was a chilly evening.. The preacher found the man at home alone, sitting before a blazing fire… Guessing the reason for his preachers visit, the man welcomed him, led him to a comfortable chair near the fireplace and waited.
The preacher made himself at home but said nothing. In the grave silence, he contemplated the dance of the flames around the burning logs. After some minutes, the preacher took the fire tongs, carefully picked up a brightly burning ember and placed it to one side of the hearth all alone then he sat back in his chair, still silent.
The host watched all this in quiet contemplation. As the one lone ember’s flame flickered and diminished, there was a momentary glow and then its fire was no more.. Soon it was cold and dead. Not a word had been spoken since the initial greeting. The preacher glanced at his watch and realized it was time to leave. He slowly stood up, picked up the cold, dead ember and placed it back in the middle of the fire. Immediately it began to glow, once more with the light and warmth of the burning coals around it.
As the preacher reached the door to leave, his host said with a tear running down his cheek, ‘Thank you so much for your visit and especially for the fiery sermon. I will be back in church next Sunday.’ We live in a world today, which tries to say too much with too little. Consequently, few listen. Sometimes the best sermons are the ones left unspoken.
Author Unknown…
The Challenge of Finding Good Leaders
Posted by Felter David J. on March 4th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
I don’t know which one is the most interesting in terms of political intrigue, entertainment, or just plain old baffling incredulity. Chicago has a long reputation for political intrigue, along with other cities like Kansas City and New York. Recently, however, the sheer volume of ethical lapses on the part of high government officials from the Empire State is truly impressive. One can look at the governor’s office, the state government, and top congressional personnel and see examples of ethical blight.
Of course New York is not the only state with such problems. Illinois’ gubernatorial problems over the past few years have been legion. The slippery slope of ethics has been greased by layers of intellectual relativism over the years. We have reached a point where it appears that we are ruled by individuals whose guiding light is not an ethical beacon, but legal precedent. The question is not, “Is it ethical?” The question is too often, “Is there a legal loophole?”
Why is it suddenly so difficult to find ethical, courageous leaders who really do live by the code of their ethics, and not the polls of their pundits and handlers? Just when we believe we have heard the paragon of ethics raise a cry against the spiraling vortex of ethical shoddiness, we learn of an unpaid tax bill, or an egregious misstep. And our disappointment grows as we long for sterling character instead of stylish appearances.
Part of the problem is facing us in the mirror. We live in a time of expediency. Rationalizations for ethical imprecision are legion. The wise man said, “The little foxes spoil the vines.” The short-cuts and ethical lapses always operate on the principle of compound interest. A zig and a zag here and there, soon create a crooked line.
It is not my place to condemn anyone until proven guilty. Indeed, it is my place to accord innocence until such time judgment is declared. The horrible irony in all this is deep. The same appeal to relativity works for the crooked criminal as for the sinning saint.
The moral education of too many individuals has been premised on the belief that there are no absolutes. No absolute truth, no absolute values, and no absolute, Sovereign God to whom one is finally accountable. As a college student in the 1960s I read about “situational ethics” “moral relativity,” and that the concept of God was dead. Unfortunately, the pervasive, corrosive impact has eroded the foundations upon which true ethics rest. The casualties are to be seen everywhere.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
Open Theology - A Response to Dr. Thomas Oord
Posted by Felter David J. on March 1st, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post7 Comments »
Thomas Jay Oord writes frequently in his blog about process philosophy, process theology, and open theology. (www.thomasjayoord.com) Recently, he wrote a treatise on open theology and the Church of the Nazarene. In my blog, I will provide my response to his initiative.
Dr. Oord writes, “Open theology has gained wide attention since the 1990s. It enjoys growing influence in the Church of the Nazarene.
Reduced to its bare bones, Open theology affirms that 1) love is uniquely exemplified by God, 2) love is the human ethical imperative, 3) God and creatures enjoy free and mutually-influencing relations, 4) and the future is open and not settled.”
It is apparent from this point forward, that Tom’s bias is clear. Indeed, one gets the feeling that he is strongly advocating this theology. It is my intent to offer comments on selected passages of Tom’s paper. While it would be possible to critique every point, I have selected only those I believe are most obvious in terms of their challenging properties. Dr. Thomas Jay Oord is a wonderful individual and expresses many of the characteristics of a Spirit-filled brother in the Lord. It is my intention to simply point out disagreements between traditional Christian thought and open theology.
__________________________________________________
“The Church of the Nazarene takes the Bible as its primary source for issues pertaining to salvation. The denomination is part of a theological tradition that affirms central biblical affirmations about God as the almighty Lover who seeks, saves, and sanctifies. It emphasizes that God calls Christians to love God and others as themselves. The holiness message is rooted in love: God’s love for the world and God’s call for creatures to love.”
Response:
Dr. Oord says, “The holiness message is rooted in love: God’s love for the world and God’s call for creatures to love.”
While there is little disagreement with this statement, some Nazarene believers would suggest that it does not say enough. The holiness message is indeed rooted in love: Loving God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the heart of the holiness message. Nothing in that statement counters Dr. Oord’s statement, however, I believe that we must stick to the statements of Scripture in order base holiness doctrine on a sure foundation.
Oord: “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then … I will forgive their sins and heal their land…. But if you turn aside and forsake my statues and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will pluck you up from the land that I have given you…”(2 Chron. 7:14, 19-20a).
God apparently does not know what Solomon and the people of Israel will do when presented with these options. This passage loses significance if God already knows all future choices.”
Response:
Divinely-presented options do not mean that God does not know what we will do when given the opportunity to choose. I believe it may be better said that we do not know, but God does know. Further, Dr. Oord fails to support his claim concerning God’s apparent lack of foreknowledge. Is this an assumption he makes? It would appear that the basis for Dr. Oord’s claim is derived from his own presuppositions, not Scriptural evidence. In the discussion that follows below, it would seem that by Oord’s inclusion of the reference to Jesus and his advance knowledge of Peter’s denial, he undermines his earlier assumption regarding the absence of God’s foreknowledge.
There are many ramifications behind the assumption that, “God apparently does not know what Solomon and the people of Israel will do when presented with these options.” God has stated in the Scripture that he has plans for his people (Jer. 29:11). If God does not know what we will ultimately do, then of what value are his plans for us since there might be the strong possibility that those plans will be dismissed by us? And, if these plans are dismissed, can we really call them “plans?”
I am not arguing here for determinism. I am convinced, however, that when we align our lives with God and his purpose and plan for our lives, he will intercede in our behalf just as it is described in Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
To suggest, as does Dr. Oord, that, “This passage loses significance if God already knows all future choices” seems unfounded. After all, God is indeed God. He states, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to com, the Almighty.”(Rev. 1:8) Open theology insists that God is co-temporal in and with time. Traditional theologians using passages like the above preserve both God’s immanence and his transcendence, refusing to lock him into the contingent-ness of time’s continuum. Thus the choices that will be made, including those out in the future can be known by God and his foreknowledge of them does not diminish his message to us in any way.
Oord: “Both advocates and critics of Open theology sometimes cite the same biblical passage to support their different views. For instance, both claim the passage, “’I know the plans I have for you,’ says the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (Jer. 29:11), supports their view of God’s knowledge.
Critics of Open theology cite the passage to support their view that God knows in advance all of the details of what will happen in our future. For them, God talking about such plans implies the future is settled.”
Response:
I believe it is important to distinguish between the perspectives of Hyper-Calvinism and Wesleyan-Arminian theologies. For those fearful of divine determinism, even considering the possibility that the future may indeed by foreknown is traumatic. Wesleyan-Arminian believers have long accepted the fact that the future is truly known only to God. Further, we actually do believe there is a future that exists “out there.” We join Christians everywhere as we pray the Lord’s Prayer and say, “your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:10) While we do not believe that humankind is not free, we believe that the future is not capricious, and that our choice-making is real, affecting many dimensions of our future. Thus, we accept a balance between a fixed future, and one that is malleable contingent upon our choices made within the framework of our limited freedom. Finally, we believe that everything is fully known by God in his infinite foreknowledge.
Oord: “Prominent voices in the Christian tradition – e.g., Ireneus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther – believed that God both foreknows all that will occur and foreordains all that will occur. A sovereign God causes all events, say these theologians.
The doctrine of predestination emerges from this set of beliefs. For these Christians, the idea that God alone determines all events and the idea that God foreknows all that will happen are linked. If God predestines all things, God knows exhaustively and inerrantly what will occur.
Theologians such as James Arminius and John Wesley, however, differ in important ways from prominent Christian voices of yesteryear. They claim to have a stronger biblical basis for their perspective. They champion love as God’s “reigning” or “darling” attribute.”
Response:
Once again, I believe Dr. Oord correctly notes the Scriptural definition offered in 1 John 4:8 and 4:16b: “God is love.” However, we must be balanced in our rehearsal of the attributes of God. The Scriptures indicate that God is light, a consuming fire, etc. To say that God’s attributes are most perfectly expressed in love, however does not diminish the fact that God is also holy and calls his people to holiness.
Oord: “Although Arminius and Wesley were adamant that God did not foreordain creaturely actions, most of their writings suggest that God foreknows creaturely actions. One can find statements here and there implying God does not know the future exhaustively, but the majority of their writings suggest God does foreknow.”[v]
Response:
The paragraph immediately above is an interesting example of how the notion that Wesleyan theology is compatible with open theology can be made. Only by looking for the exception, rather than the rule, may one even remotely think that Wesley may have had the remotest belief in God’s lack of foreknowledge. We concur that Wesleyan-Arminian theology rejects, “foreordaination of creaturely actions.” We cannot see the link, however, between Wesleyan thought and open theology. More on this later.
Oord: “Most early Church of the Nazarene theologians, such as H. Orton Wiley, affirmed divine foreknowledge. For Wiley, God did not predestine. But God foreknew all future actual occurrences.”
Response:
H. Orton Wiley’s conviction that, “God foreknew all future actual occurrences” has been the bedrock of Nazarene belief. One can argue the fine point of whether God can know the unknowable. One can argue what indeed is “knowable.” This is a futile exercise, similar to the theologian in the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. We presume much when begin to decide what God cannot know.
Oord: “A good number of 21st century Church of the Nazarene laity, pastors, and professional scholars explicitly deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. They are Open theists. Their denial that God knows the future exhaustively fits the fundamental Wesleyan belief that humans – and perhaps all creatures – have a degree of freedom.”[viii]
Response:
I agree with Dr. Oord that God the Creator has give us a “degree of freedom.” Our freedom, however, is not absolute. I also believe we must distinguish between the God-given freedom of humankind as a whole, and individual freed at the personal or individual level. Open theists do not seem to engage this difference. There is room for spontaneity and novelty within the parameters of individual freedom. God does indeed, however, know all the ranges of possibility inherent in such spontaneity or novelty possible within the confines of limited human freedoms. Additionally, God knows the terminus and trajectory of every element of his creation.
Oord: “H. Orton Wiley affirmed Calvin’s view on this issue. He said, “[God] stands superior to time, free from the temporal distinctions of past and future, and in whose life there can be no succession.”[ix]
The idea that God is nontemporal, however, does not square well with the broad biblical witness. Biblical authors often suggest or assume that God is a living God. To be living implies that God experiences time in sequential moments. We might say that a living God is in all times – pantemporal – or everlasting.”
Response:
Clearly, God is both immanent and transcendent. To understand God’s relationship to time we begin with the Creation story in Genesis where we recognize God’s approving relationship to the critical elements of time, evening and day. Time is the product of creation. As the planet orbits in the universe, seasons are marked, day and night succeed each other, and we mark time. To say that, “The idea that God is nontemporal, however, does not square well with the broad biblical witness,” is another challenging statement. God knows the future in all its mystery and complexity exactly because he is not the prisoner of time, but rather, transcendent and always in the “now,” just as he identified himself as the “I Am.”
Further, we cannot understand God’s relationship to time without speaking of the incarnation. In God’s son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, God has stepped into time without abandoning his transcendence. Philosophy cannot answer all our questions at this point. We affirm, however, that God remains both immanent (the incarnation of Jesus – Immanuel) and transcendent, unfettered by the temporal with its unrelenting change and decay. The argument below does not succeed in reordering these facts.
Oord: “The question of God’s future knowledge affects some aspects of the Christian life. I will briefly mention several.”
Response:
In the statement above, I believe it should be modified to indicate that all aspects of the Christian life are affected by whether or not God truly knows the future.
Oord: - “Petionary Prayer
Open theists believe their view makes better sense of petitionary prayer. Most Christians truly believe their requests at least sometimes directly affect how God decides to act. Prayer for the sick, for instance, makes a difference in how God chooses to heal.
If God knows the future exhaustively because the future is settled, however, petitionary prayer seems pointless. God already knows the outcomes. Prayers to affect an already settled future are futile.”
Response:
How could petitionary prayer ever seem pointless? What if God really does know the outcome of the future, does that mean that we too share in that knowledge? Absolutely not. We have finite knowledge even of the present, let alone the future. We pray that God’s will may be done because we know that prayer changes us. It prepares us to receive and participate in God’s full disclosure of his perfect will. (See Romans 12:1-2 as an indication of presenting ourselves for the experience of God’s perfect will.
Oord: “Open theists typically point out in response that a) the vast majority of prophetic statements in the Bible are not predictive, b) God can know with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events, and c) sometimes predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions. The issue of predictive prophecy does not undermine Open theology.”
Response:
The assumption that: “the vast majority of prophetic statements in the Bible are not predictive, b) God can know with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events, and c) sometimes predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions” is troubling. While we agree that not all prophecy is predictive in that it is best described as “forth-telling,” it is difficult to see how God could know “with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events.” The last part of that statement is really challenging. If predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions, how could they have any credibility as the servants and spokespersons of God with a divinely inspired message?
Oord: “Open theists say that their view helps Christian gain a sense that their lives really matter. Our lives can really make a difference in a yet to be settled history.
If God knows the future because it is already settled, what we decide and do today ultimately makes no difference. Things will be as they have already been determined to be.”
Response:
I believe the argument of those holding open theology as their primary theological perspective is more with the absolute determinism of hyper Calvinism than with the theology held by most Nazarenes. We do not believe that just because God knows the future in every detail, means that he has fixed all possibilities so that no intervention to change any outcome is possible. If you really examine the heart and soul of open theology, it is a rejection of absolute determinism. Admittedly there are more nuanced themes within its purview, which are beyond the scope of my response here.
Oord: -” We Are Genuinely Free”
Response:
It must continuously be emphasized that we also believe in the genuine freedom of humankind. However, we continue to emphasize the fact that our freedom is not absolute, but conditioned upon the grace of God.
Oord: “We should not be held morally accountable if our future has already been settled prior to any choice we might make. This “choice” does not seem genuinely open.”
Response:
Those who argue for open theology seem interested in developing a theodicy that accommodates the problem of a just God and the presence of evil. By limiting the knowledge of God, and by eliminating a fixed future, the problem of evil seems to have been addressed in a way that leaves the justice of God intact, while not charging him with either the creation of, or complicity with evil.
Once again, we believe that God’s foreknowledge does not make God culpable for evil or its attendant consequences. By drifting away from the heart of the Genesis account, many theologians miss the point that evil is not the product of God’s action or even his failure to act. It is the product of subversion. God’s perfect will was contested by creatures in whom he vested elements of his own nature, e.g. the ability to choose and make decisions.
The idea that a proper theodicy can be constructed on the basis that God does not know the future, is a failure before it even gets out of the gate. The possibility of evil is a reality because God took a risk by investing his creation with elements of his own nature. Our first parents chose to disobey the loving limitations imposed by God and in seeking their own sovereignty they succeeded only in alienating themselves from immediate fellowship with God. In the wake of their rebellion against God, all of creation was marred as well, so that what theologians call the “fall” resulted in every facet of the environment being misaligned with the perfect will of God.
God truly knows the future. He does not will bad things to happen to good people. His will is perfect and because God has stepped into this world, taking upon himself the nature of humankind in the incarnation of his son, Jesus Christ, God has effected redemption from the train wreck of sin. By the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, we too can learn alignment with God’s way and will. Thus petitionary prayer is important to aid us in learning increased conformity to the call, character, and consequence of God’s perfect will.
Oord: “Open theists believe that their view of God makes better sense of relational and covenantal passages of scripture. A God outside time who sees all history in one moment should not be considered responsive to creatures.”
Response:
There is not evidence to support the bald claim that, “A God outside time who sees all history in one moment should not be considered responsive to creatures.” There is strong support through out the Scriptures to infer that God is indeed sovereign and absolute, beyond the temporal grasp of time. Indeed, this is what makes the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ so significant: he entered time and we could say, “Emmanuel: God is with us!”
Oord: “We cannot fathom what a relationship would be like if one party was entirely unresponsive and unmoved. An unaffected being cannot engage in a give-and-receive relationship. ”
Response:
This is a curious argument. Because God is sovereign, is both immanent and transcendent, is beyond the grasp of temporality, yet the eternal incarnate One does not mean he is “unresponsive and unmoved.” Again, we must reiterate that open theology seems preoccupied with arguing against theism and absolute determinism.
Oord: “-God Doesn’t Foreordain or Foreknow All Evil”
Response:
I must continue to affirm that God does indeed foreknow the future. We have confidence because God has acted to redeem us from the consequences of sin and alienation from him. God judges and convicts those who reject his gracious call to salvation. To say that God inhabits eternity is to believe that he is present yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He remains, the eternal “I Am” who has acted for us, and will continue to do so in the future known only to him.
Oord: “Recommendations for the Church of the Nazarene
Given the preceding, it seems wise for leaders of the Church of the Nazarene to allow discussion of and accept diverse views pertaining to God’s knowledge of the future. The discussion is important on biblical and theological grounds.”
Response:
No one has yet demonstrated the importance of any discussion of open theology based on demonstrable evidence from Scripture. A proper theodicy does not depend on limiting the scope and extent of God’s knowledge. A fidelity to Scripture will offer the truth that may not explain every detail in those unfortunate scenarios where bad things happen to the people of God, but will offer us a more reliable perspective. Diminishing the scope and content of God’s knowledge, and making him exclusively co-temporal in time with humankind will not help. A Scriptural precision that acknowledges God’s foreknowledge, with the humility to acknowledge that God has not disclosed to humankind the fullest extent of his majestic ways is sorely needed. The subtle danger of diminishing God in any way is the elevation of man to an unwarranted position.
Open theology may or may not (it depends on whom one is talking to) acknowledge the reality of original sin. Original sin leaves humankind with spiritual and intellectual deficiencies. Humankind has a spiritual dependency that is never eclipsed by its intellectual acumen. Creating the best possible future is most possible when we have supreme confidence in God’s sovereignty, a heart cleansed from the pollution of sin and depravity, and a surrendered obedience to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Oord: “The Church of the Nazarene’s Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness history leads many of its members to being sympathetic to Open theology. At the same time, this history supports the view that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with creaturely freedom.”
Response:
Once again, if “history supports the view that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with creaturely freedom,” then what is the point of introducing a variant theology that has no compatibility with traditional Wesleyan-holiness theological perspectives? Clearly, this admission must be taken at face value, which in my opinion, seriously undermines the credibility of this discussion.
Concluding response:
Open theology with its insistence on diminishing the scope and content of God’s knowledge really has no support from the Scriptures. Neither does it enjoy support from Nazarene theologian, H. Orton Wiley. Indeed, Dr. Oord suggests that even the late Dr. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop was ambiguous as was her colleague Dr. H. Ray Dunning.
Open theology is a collection of opinions, some of which are alien to Scripture, and at best, represent a revisionism of traditional Wesleyan thought and theology.
One may ask the question, “What would acceptance or the embrace of open theology mean for the Church of the Nazarene?” This discussion may be meaningful for theologians, academicians and those interested in debate. It will do nothing for the thousands of Nazarene lay persons who look to the Scriptures for both their authority and illumination in dealing with the challenges of everyday life.
Finally, if the question, “Does God know the future,” permits answers that, “should not be considered essential for good standing in the Church of the Nazarene,” it may reveal how far we have already drifted from traditional, Wesleyan-holiness theology.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
Blackberry Church
Posted by Felter David J. on February 5th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post1 Comment »
The online news story read:
“President Obama doesn’t need to step foot in a church to find spiritual inspiration — it comes directly to his BlackBerry.
Every day, the president receives ‘devotionals,’ or passages meant to bring one closer to God, from Joshua DuBois, the head of his Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
‘Whether it’s a passage of scripture or a piece out of a book that I think he might be interested in or a prayer, it’s something to start his day off on the right note,’ DuBois told Fox News.
When he took office, Obama fought vehemently with his security staff to keep that BlackBerry, a highly-secure version of the standard store-bought phone and messaging device that has now become something of a spiritual lifeline.”
I too receive several devotionals every morning on my Blackberry. I get one from the Church of the Nazarene and one from a Catholic devotional group. Both are very rich. One is topical, very brief, (Nazarene) and the other is deep, tied to the Lectionary, and rich with tradition.
Receiving these devotionals, however, is no substitute for assembling myself in community with the people of God. In fact, this example from our president’s life, points out a terrible fallacy; the idea of privatized piety, or the equivalent of Lone Ranger spirituality. It is a shame that he doesn’t have an advisor who could speak truth to power in his life, encouraging him to assemble with the faithful! I admire his continued testimony and that he as recently as this week in the national prayer breakfast testified to his faith as a Christian. I am sorry, however, that he is succumbing to the heresy of our age: one doesn’t need to in communal fellowship with other believers to be a follower of Jesus.
In the meantime, I pray that a true, spiritual friend will step forward and encourage President Obama to find a place with his family in the communion of faith with the people of God.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
So, I Might as Well Own Up To It
Posted by Felter David J. on February 4th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
Most of you have figured out that I am pretty conservative in my perspective. While I am not a fundamentalist, I appreciate respect for the Scriptures as the Church’s authority. I appreciate freedom and value those who serve the country, protecting us and preserving our freedoms. I prefer traditional values while appreciating the progress of civilization. I have more in common with some Roman Catholics than I do with ultra liberal Protestants.
Which leads me to this: I found this on one of the conservative Catholic sites I read…I thought it was worth passing along. If you disagree, I will still be your friend!
What Will Your Child Learn In School?
To feel good - even though he can’t read,
write or calculate?
That’s called “Self Esteem.”
That he should not try to achieve
excellence because he must stick with the
mediocrity of his class?
That’s called “Outcome-Based Education”
or “Cooperative Learning.”
That every behavior or lifestyle is acceptable
and must not be criticized?
That’s called “Diversity” and “Tolerance.”
That America is a bad and oppressive nation?
That’s called “Multiculturalism” or
“National History Standards.”
To make his own decisions, without adult
direction, about which kinds of sex and drugs
to do?
That’s called “Values Clarification”
or “Decision Making.”
To criticize his parents’ morals and religion as
out-of-date?
That’s called “Critical Thinking.”
To guess at words (instead of sounding them
out) and skip over words he doesn’t know?
That’s called “Whole Language.”
That it’s OK to spell words any way he
wants?
That’s called “Inventive Spelling.”
To look to the school to provide all his
medical care?
That’s called “School-Based Clinics.”
To confide in school counselors instead of in parents?
That’s called “Guidance.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
Presentation of Our Lord
Posted by Felter David J. on February 2nd, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
Today is Candlemas day. And what is the significance of this day? In Roman Catholic tradition it is associated with two themes. First, is the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, 40 days after his birth. Second, in some Roman Catholic parishes, this is the day when all the candles used in religious service are blessed, along with those candles that might be used in homes during storms, power outages, etc.
We Protestants pretty much ignore many of the special days on the Religious calendar, and in some cases, that’s a pity. Reading more about the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, we learn that there were five things that Jewish father must do for his son. I found these on the Internet, so here they are as found:
Joseph and Mary had five obligations to their first-born son:
“The father is required to circumcise his son; to redeem him [referring to the first-born son, as per the Biblical passages in Numbers 18:15-16]; to teach him Torah; to assure that he marries; and to teach him a trade. Some say he must also teach him to swim.”
Every time I see a young couple present their child for Christian baptism or dedication, I think of the presentation of Jesus and the wonderful story of both Simeon and and the prophetess Anna. Simeon knew that he had seen the Salvation of Israel and was content to depart this life in peace.
In the baby dedications and baptisms that I have performed as a pastor, never once did I note these five things in my charge to parents. Perhaps I should have. Too often the Church waits for some fortuitous occasion to arise for the salvation of our children when everything is just right. My mother was raised in the Methodist church in which the church’s expectation was that from her baptism as an infant, her catechism as a child, and her confirmation were more than just rites of passage. The Church, on behalf of our Lord, exercised its claim upon the children of its families in intentional ways marked unmistakeably by events witnessed by the whole church.
In my opinion, we Protestants still have a lot to learn after all these years. The American church, particularly, with its marketing techniques, emphasis on entertainment, and laissez-faire approach can only blame itself if there is an exodus of our young adults from the church. Obviously, there are no guarantees that either intentionality or laissez-faire approaches will promise intentional discipleship as opposed to nominalism. We must inculcate in the lives of our families, the important assistance the Church plays in partnership with parents when it comes to fulfilling a proper role related to spiritual nurture.
May this day remind you of your commitment to Christ, enriched by your familial and ecclesial experiences, and may it encourage you to partner with young parents as a godly influence to help them present their children to our Lord.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
God, Creation, and Tomorrow
Posted by Felter David J. on January 24th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post2 Comments »
My good friend Thomas Jay Oord recently suggested that the idea of creation ex nihlo has outlived its usefulness as a construct by which to understand God and creation. Instead, Oord suggests God creates out of what he has created in love.
It has long been the position of many theologians that the essence of God’s nature is love. Out of this eternal love, suggests Oord, God continuously creates out of that which he has already created. As a philosopher and theologian, Oord builds his case in that gray zone where both proof and dispute are far from definitive. Oord rightly suggests that his theory does not defy the logic with which he proposes it. By the same token, however, a reading of his commentary in this regard, does not completely abolish the creation ex nihlo.
As one who is neither a philosopher nor a theologian, I think of myself as one who enjoys thinking theologically. In thinking about the nature of God, the meaning of creation, and the everyday life of people like myself who have to be at work tomorrow morning, I have a few offhand comments.
When we affirm that God created all things, I do not believe this implies that nothing existed prior to Genesis 1. We simply do not know! We are so accustomed to thinking from materialistic categories, we are hard pressed to think about “something” out of nothing, and that there might have been a moment when nothing as we know it from our materialist perspective, existed.
The nature of the Triune God is fellowship-in-love. We do not fully understand the ultimate potential of this divine fellowship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without sacrilege, I would speculate that as the Triune God has always existed, “something” has always existed. Just as Hebrews 11:1 states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”, (KJV), who is to say that the holy community existing in a fellowship of love did not provide from its own self, all that is needed to create multiple universes.
The “nothing” that existed prior to creation was really what appeared to the Scripture writer as the “chaos” out from which God created. To say God created out of nothing is true for us, because chaos is “nothingness” to us. It is unintelligible, without form, lacking description. Remember this: it is formless, void, chaos to us because it is alien to us. To argue that the chaos that existed in the pre-creation era represents something malevolent is to suggest a dualism that is not true. It is to argue that evil and good are co-existent. There is simply no evidence that is true.
God creates, in my opinion, out of God’s self, not out of his creation as Dr. Oord suggests. Clearly, Oord right when he suggests the primary nature of God is love. (Although I wonder if Dr. Oord fully explores the spectrum of divine love.) Because God is love, God creates. Because God imparts his love to us, we too create, even from the “chaos” that we face everyday.
So, God created…from the “chaos” of possibility and potential because God is love without condition or coercion. We, the children of God, have been given his love and it has changed us. We are not “little gods” but we are being sanctified by which we believe we are being restored in the image of God by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Tomorrow, we will engage the “chaos” and we have the possibility of “contributing to the well-being” of the world because “In this way, love is made complete among us…because in this world, we are like him.”(1 John 4:17) What appears to be chaos to us is often the raw material from which miracles are made.
From the deluge of Katrina and a broken Superdome, the New Orleans Saints found a new reality out of the chaos and in a few weeks they will play in Super Bowl 44. May we all be saints in the chaos of tomorrow.
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter