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
Does God Know?
Posted by Felter David J. on January 15th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post1 Comment »
This morning I noted that my good friend Thomas Jay Oord shared this comment on his Facebook status:
“Is wondering: With the latest events in Haiti, the Katrina disaster, and the
tsunami in the Indian Ocean, is it time for Christians to say that God can’t
totally control the weather and the geological structures of our planet?
Should we be willing to admit God CAN’T do some things?”
Tom’s query is certainly provocative. He raises some very important questions that have teased the minds of humankind since the beginning. Clearly every believer has posed a “why” question at least once. Indeed, the two, being a believer and asking questions, are inseparable. There is little need to ask why if there is nothing larger than one’s self behind the screen of reality. It is the premise that God exists that prompts our questions.
My question is a simple one: What is the nature of the God who exists? And my next question is, from where does the information come that supports the definition associated with the claimed nature of God?
As I grow older, I am trying to simplify. My university experience ingrained in me a penchant for precision in speech. Admittedly, all that precision can obfuscate a declaration in a fog of multi-syllabic words, jargon, and obscurity.
While I accept the desperation that comes with wishing one could find a simple explanation for why things happen as they do, I am experienced enough to know that behind any explanation lies a multitude of variables that probably deserve exploration and consideration. To simply assert that because we’ve witnessed horrific tragedy that beggars both description and explanation, it might be time to admit that God doesn’t know as much as we once thought, seems to miss a critical point.
Dr. Oord suggests that we consider whether there indeed things God can’t do. We all know the challenges of pursuing that line of thought. For example, could God create a rock so large, even God couldn’t move it? Isn’t it funny how fast we can move from the sublime to the ridiculous!
Tom Oord is a great Christian, a wonderful friend, and beloved scholar. I would suggest however, that now is the time to reflect on the whole story of God that includes a terrifying range of truths. God created. God blessed. Humankind experienced relationship, with each other, the larger creation, and most importantly, with God. Unfortunately, the critical vestige of God’s likeness within humankind, the will to choose, offered a venue of supposed freedom and liberation through which the incalculable effects of broken relationships has been witnessed in creation, relationship with God, and with our fellow beings.
The story, thankfully and gratefully, does not end there. The love that God expressed in creation, was expressed once more in the death and resurrection of God’s son, Jesus Christ. In the agony of a parent watching a child die, we see the great heart of God breaking so that his creation could be restored to fellowship with him. The work of redemption is incomplete. Creation groans, so said St. Paul, as it awaits redemption. Humans suffer as they await glorification.
Christians serve because the greatest force in the world is love. Compassion gives love its features and expression. In the sadness of this hour, love works, because love comes from God. Love overcomes. It serves the broken. It rebuilds ruins. It heals the sick and feeds the hungry…because it is Love and love comes from God. In the end, God is still love. God can still do!
Grace and peace,
Dave Felter
Will They Be Remembered
Posted by Felter David J. on January 14th, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges PostComment now »
Watching Anderson Cooper tonight describe the horrors at a cemetery in Port-au-Prince was really heart-rending. He spoke of those who brought bodies to the cemetery looking for places to bury or dispose of the bodies of the dead. In some cases, bodies were being shoved into any available space with no markers to indicate who they were burying. Cooper remarked that with the passage of time, there would be no way of knowing who was buried where.
I’ve visited some of the cemeteries where my ancestors are buried. I walked through the woods in upstate New York to touch the stones and markers of my father’s ancestors, stretching back almost 200 years. I’ve walked among the stones and markers of Christ Church cemetery in St. Michaels, MD to touch the stones of my mother’s people.
Not too long ago, I visited the perpetual care cemetery in Florida where my parents are buried. While their markers are only bronze plaques in the ground, the record of their lives is available to be seen by those who visit that site.
This tragedy reminds us that God’s eye is on the most forgotten among us. The Bible says that God sees even the sparrow that falls in flight. The people of Haiti have not been forgotten by God. Though the names of a whole generation may be obliterated by the crushing weight of ruble and dust, God knows who they are. We can only trust in the beneficent grace of God and leave our questions at the foot of the cross. It is only by looking at the cross that see the incomparable love of God who endured the tragedy of the death of his only begotten son.
The thousands who are lost in this incredible tragedy join the incalculable numbers of others lost in other tragedies who are known to God. Only God knows the communications that occur in the final fleeting seconds of life, when time stands still on the threshold of eternity. We can only believe that they are remembered by the One who breathed the breath of life into their beings and gave his only son for their redemption.
Grace and peace!
Dave Felter
Boutique Christianity
Posted by Felter David J. on December 20th, 2009 filed in IdeaBridges Post1 Comment »
There is something very interesting happening in the evangelical pulpit these days. We’re increasingly hearing a new packaging of the Gospel that sounds very similar regardless of where you hear the message preached. I am talking about the packaging of the Gospel in those formats that emphasize social justice. Before anyone suggests that I am opposed to the essence of Jesus’ message, allow me to share a few thoughts about my perceptions.
About 20 years ago (give or take) Tony Campolo launched the evangelical church into a period of self-analysis and serious scrutiny. He wasn’t the first obviously, but his charismatic presence, witticisms, and inimitable style gave him center-stage in the evangelical world. He challenged the evangelicals at several levels.
First, he challenged the church to change the world. He focused his message on re-traditioning and re-purposing the traditional message so that the growing emphasis on moving away from “privatized piety” could find a way to reinterpret Christian holiness as compassion and social justice.
Second, his message often seemed to encourage a sense of embarrassment among evangelicals who were experiencing the “lift” that so often accompanies spiritual transformation. This message induced a sense of shame among those evangelicals that had access to abundant resources by reminding them that so many of the rest of the world’s population had so little.
Simultaneously, a sociological shift was occurring that would produce what some people enjoy calling “post-modernity.” The children of the boomer generation, many of whom were satiated with the excess of success generated by their parents’ upward mobility, sought new ways of finding authenticity through altruism. While the significance and substance of the converging factors cannot be adequately covered in one blog, I believe there is something here that deserves our consideration.
For about the last 20 years, we have heard a new presentation of the Gospel that builds on the descriptions offered above. Students have been discouraged from seeking entrance into those professions or jobs where financial security, material acquisition, and upward mobility might be the result. Instead, there has been an interesting migration of students into “callings” that enable them to go out into the world to “make a difference.” The evangelical church has not only celebrated this, it has encouraged this trajectory.
The result is an exploding motif within the evangelical church wherein the faithful are discouraged from thinking about acquisition, material wealth, and personal success. The faithful have been reminded that the message of Jesus was radical; that it discouraged entrepreneurial behaviors, and had more in common with socialism than capitalism, free enterprise, and democracy.
As a result, there are people who attend evangelical churches listening for a word from the Lord that would affirm discipleship, the values of industry, thrift, and generosity which were derivatives of the lift of the Gospel. Instead of hearing such words, they hear messages about “radical obedience” which is seldom defined, but rather, cast in generalities peppered with liberation themes and jargon.
Admittedly, I am left with more questions than answers. One cannot deny that the early holiness movement interpreted Jesus’ call to radical discipleship as a response to the message of the cross. Such response was preferentially seen to be best expressed an in amphibious life-style; in but not of the world. The unfortunate consequence was a preoccupation with a quantification of holiness that missed the heart of the message, leaving good people who “thought” their way out of fanaticism, with few options. That there was a “brain drain” in the holiness movements is inarguable.
Once again, the evangelical church, and the holiness churches (I’m not sure there is such a thing as “the holiness movement”) are facing an artificial and contrived segmentation of the message of Jesus. Once again, lines are being drawn with the intent to provide a means of quantification of Christian holiness. This time, it’s not “worldliness” but the contrasting of people who believe in the potential for lift, success, and significance that allows generated wealth to be the engine of vision and mission, against those who live in monastic communities, emphasize their resistance to materialism, and manifest selfless altruism.
One preacher I heard extolled the action of Elisha, who upon meeting Elijah, killed all 24 of the oxen with which he was plowing a field, and burned the wooden yokes in order to sacrifice the animals and cook the meat. This action was celebrated as a model for all who would take the Gospel seriously, recognizing, that one must burn all connections with their present lifestyle in order to “go forward” with God. I believe the metaphor of 12 yoke of oxen must be understood like the number 12 in other biblical contexts, e.g. the number of completeness. Whether Elisha was plowing with 2 or 24 oxen simply means that he is being used by the scripture writer to express the idea that he was receiving a unique call in the midst of a satisfying existence, surrounded with a surplus from which his needs were met. And, while I don’t dispute the reality that one may receive such a call, no mention is ever made of the impact of Elisha’s decision. For example, what impact did it have on those who depended on what Elisha was doing?
My point is simply this: preaching the Gospel is always a humbling experience. Somewhere, there has to be a middle way, the ” via media.” Some people are called to kill their oxen and burn their resources. Others are called to manage their resources, invest their talents, and earn the income that can finance the mission of the church so that others who have burnt their bridges may go in God’s name.
Boutique Christianity is always trendy, sounds intriguing, and grabs attention. The question is: Will it stand the test of time?
So, what’s your opinion?
What are the Issues?
Posted by Felter David J. on December 4th, 2009 filed in IdeaBridges Post6 Comments »
Every so often, I get inquiries from people wondering if the Nazarene church is experiencing theological division that could have serious consequences. Let me ask you–how would you answer that question?
It seems “normal” that in the kind of times in which we are living, one sign of a healthy, growing church would be vibrant diversity that would challenge the status quo. Clearly, the culture in which the church exists, has moved beyond automatic acceptance of tradition. Change is the order of the day. And, while change is the order of the day, depending your location on the age spectrum, such change is either the anticipated order of the day, or it is painfully difficult.
I think we’re observing a major shift that will have long term impact on the church. Here’s what I see:
1. The locus of authority is shifting from the Bible to philosophy.
Few voices are saying it out loud right now, but there appears to be a growing segment in the church who have cheerfully discarded both inerrancy and the infallibility of Scripture. There is a growing segment of people who believe the Bible is inspired but not necessarily infallible. In fact some reject even the argument that the claims for the infallibility of the original autographs, that such an argument proves nothing. Others are intent on dispelling any confusion that might suggest we (the Nazarenes) are remotely fundamentalist in our thinking.
So what does God say about his word? Is his word truly accurate, trustworthy, reliable, and infallible, or is it tentative, contingent, and subject to changing preferences? What did Jesus imply regarding both God’s word and written Scripture?
We need to understand that God’s last word is none other than Jesus Christ, his son and our Messiah.(See Hebrews 1:1-4) The Scriptures (the written word) attest to the living word of God through their accurate and inspired description of him, his ministry and his message. Beyond that, the written word of Scripture reveals the character and compassion of God as well as the creation of human community and God’s initiatives to relate, redeem, and restore his creation to its intended purpose.
Most Christians would accept all I’ve said to this point. The rub comes when we begin to look specifically at the nature of the written word, Scripture. I have noticed that many people are willing to grant “authority” to the written word, Scripture. What I am not clear on, is how they define what they mean by “authority.”
Open theism is defined by Thomas Jay Oord in the following manner:
**God’s primary characteristic is love.
**Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does.
**Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation.
**God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others.
**Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships.
**God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging.
**God created all nondivine things.
**God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling.
**Creatures are called to act in loving ways that please God and make the world a better place.
**The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God.
**God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions.
**Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time.
If one listens carefully, one will discover that these philosophical categories are used by many Nazarenes to describe their faith. Granted, the rank-and-file are still quite conservative and believe that God does indeed know and understand the future. They also believe that he transcends time which in no way impairs his ability to understand the creaturely experience of time. Additionally, many rank-and-file Nazarenes, while acknowledging the necessity for humility when it comes to theological speculation, readily admit their belief that what we can know for sure about God is and has been revealed in the Scriptures.
What seems clear to me is the migration away from our dependence on Scripture as the bedrock of both authority and infallible source for crafting beliefs, theological statements, and doctrines. The description Dr. Oord presents is clearly one-sided. No mention of God’s holiness or his wrath is mentioned. God is posited as a being whose only nature is loving. If this is the extent of one’s perception of God, it will be revealed in other issues, e.g. the challenge of gay and lesbian behavior, same-sex marriage and/or unions, and abortion.
More topics next time!
The prophet once said, “To the law and to the testimony!” (Isaiah 8:20) These are not good times in which to minimize the importance, reliability, and trustworthiness of the Scripture. “Faint praise” of the Scriptures quietly erodes their authority just as much as those who blatantly chuck them from the shelves of libraries. Will the church awaken to tragedy only to find it has lost its message and can no longer speak prophetically to the world?