September 2006 Archives

I'll be adding to this Weekly Meanderings, at the request of others, a brief on speaking engagements for the week. This week (Oct 2 and 3) we have Phyllis Tickle at North Park giving the Zarley Lectures. The lectures are free and you are more than welcome to come hear her talks: 3:30-5pm in the Anderson Chapel at North Park.

Who knows of a Christian college with a sophisticated worship leader training program — one that does a good job in both teaching the theology and leadership of contemporary worship and that introduces students to the ins and outs of technology (stage production/video production/music production) today?

New blog I discovered: Ken Schenck's site. Some very good stuff.

Just found this: Mark Albrecht and NorthBridge -- and others -- are continuing their missional ways.

What's so hard about marriage? Check out Jim Martin's post and the discussion.

Friend of Missional: those who are in the emerging conversation with missional focus have made a move. There is more to it than Spencer Burke's misguided book -- with more mistakes than a book should have -- but the ongoing silence over Spencer represents a concern of many. Jamie Arpin-Ricci weighed in on this issue, too, and also clarified his thoughts.
I hope every church reads and preaches this sermon by Fr. Rob. Adopt one of those college kids off at school. Send them some love in the mail. It'll make my job easier, too!

"I am all for questions, but my heart was grappling with where best to have them raised and with whom." This is from Dan Kimball, after deciding whether or not a church-sponsored art-decorated cafe should or should not have artistic nudity. Dan's a man of wisdom -- and the process of what happened is a revelation of artful pastoral decision-making.

If you follow the issue of the worldwide communion of Anglicans, the Kigali Statement could have world-wide impact.

Sorry for so many links up front, but Rumsfeld's interview (this weekend on CNN) needs to be watched.

1. Stephen Shields has a good post about distinguishing "emergent" and "emerging."
2. David Crowder with a problem, beside that fancy emergence at the bottom of his face, I've never had.
3. Bob Robinson has finished his excellent series on Greg Boyd's book. Thanks to Bob for leading us through it. Our prayers are with Bob.
4. Very nice article in Christian Century about Jacob's Well in Kansas City. (HT: Adam Cleaveland.)
5. Marko's got a nice, thoughtful post on the Achilles' heel of youth ministry. Drop him a line, asking him if he's afraid of the upper case letters!
6. John Frye's got some reports up about his ministry in the Ukraine.
7. Andrew Perriman has revisited the sense of "wrath" in the NT (here Rom 3:21-26) and he contends that it has to be understood historically (against Jerusalem, against Rome/Greece/enemies) and narrativally, rather than simply an ontic reaction to sin against humans as a whole. His site is not all that easy to use, but it is definitely worth looking at.
8. Erika Carney Haub's story -- must read.
9. Margaret Spellings, American czar of education, has a new, good idea: making college easier for families.
10. Do you think the Trinity is to be mirrored in husband-wife relations? Check out Susan Arnold's post.

Sports:

I'm less sanguine about the Bears after that lucky win up in Minnesota. I can't even pick them this weekend against Mike Holmgren (with Kathy -- NPU grad!), but I admit I'm hopeful.

Here's a great article by Bob LeGere about Lovie Smith's "coachspeak."

On the Ryder Cup. Those gentle, sportsmanlike, courteous Europeans invited our chaps over to play golf in weather that only those in Seattle have ever seen. There's some kind of plot against us. My theory is that our selection process is wrong: we need to pick folks who are from the State of Washington only. Our fellas from Florida and Texas and Arizona don't know how to play in the rain where they hop from bog to bog to get to their next shot.

I want to begin a new tradition for our Saturday blog. I encourage you to post your prayer requests, speak up of your answers to prayers, or simply record some prayers for others. So many have written about such matters of late, that we sense it is something that could be beneficial for many of us.

There was a day when maintaining friendships meant typing a letter, sealing it in an envelope, stamping it, and dropping it in the mail. It took some time, and such "snail mail" has become a lost art for most of us. Why?

E-mail. I wonder how technology has affected your friendships? Any changes? Do you have e-mail friends? I sure do. (Sure, weigh in if you think this e-mail business is a bad thing.)

Joseph Epstein's next chp in Friendship: An Expose deals with "techno-friendships," about which many of us already know. Epstein canvasses phone friends, mentioning the value of caller ID (I agree) and voice mail (I agree), and then he speaks of e-mail friendships.

Well, it would be foolish of me to go any further in summing up what he says: this blog has generated friendships for me. Some I have met (I began mentioning some names, but there are too many), most I have not. I have renewed friendships with old students (like Bob Robinson and Ken White and David Reeves and I'm just beginning), and have formed new "students" (at least that's what some of you say to me). I've met colleagues at other schools -- and again I can't start mentioning names.

Kris and I now meet readers wherever we go -- in Rochester a couple of folks came up from Iowa and it was delightful for me to meet them. Ben and Lisa Pennington at the bookstore ... I could go on. In Grand Rapids numerous folks said they were reading the blog -- some only lurking. It was very nice to see Ted Gossard again.

There is a kindred spirit between us when we read and converse with one another, even if only electronically. It kind of staggers me at times to hear so many say they read this blog every day, but it has been as much joy for me (and Kris) as it has for you, of that I'm quite sure.

Myth #2: a hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible. Instead, Olson argues, the two systems are incommensurable systems of theology.

Many think they are "Calminians" but there is no such possibility -- according to Olson. Now the truth of the matter is that lots think they are; Olson suggests they are being inconsistent.
The heart and soul of Calvinism is a distinctive emphasis on the sovereignty of God, especially in the outworking of salvation. God is the all-determining reality; monergism is the driving force of the system. It is all about God, not us.

Arminianism, on the other hand, denies Calvinistic monergism and opts instead for a "self-limiting God who grants free will to people by means of the gift of prevenient grace" (63). Arminianism confronts Calvinism with "an evangelical synergism that affirms a necessary cooperation between divine and human agencies in salvation" (63).

Three areas where the two systems cannot agree: unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.

Arminians teach conditional election: it is general in scope rather than particular in application. God elects those in Christ. The scope of atonement is universal; Christ has saved all from original sin; God's grace is prevenient but humans can resist it.

For Arminians, the "unconditional and irresistible nature of grace ... seems arbitrary if not capricious" (66). Arminians believe God, in prevenient grace, creates free will and free agency, and humans can freely resist.

Olson lays his cards on the table: he thinks Calvinists and Arminians believe what they do, not simply because of exegesis, but because of perspective. What some philosophers call "blik." This "seeing as" (perspective) does not circumvent Scripture but reveals perceived patterns in it (70).

Both systems have insurmountable problems. Edwin Palmer, a defender of Calvinism, says this: "He [the Calvinist] realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous" (71). Palmer appeals to God's secret counsel. And Arminians stumble over how free agency can be an ability to do other than what one in fact does.

Jerry Walls: "The free will theologian cannot fully explain why some choose Christ while others do not. The Calvinist cannot tell us why or on what basis God chooses some for salvation and passes others by" (72).

The dividing line between the two systems is that God is viewed "as either (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful" (73). This leads to the Arminian contention that "it is unthinkable that so much evil would abound if God has determined all human choices" (74).

We are back to Augustine: if God is good, he is not all-powerful; if he is all-powerful, he is not good. For many of us, the only thing that makes sense is that God gave, in his grace, humans the capacity of free agency -- and that explains the chaos of the world. For many of us, we'd rather blame humans than be caught on Augustine's horns.

Arminians believe in libertarian free will; Calvinists in some form of compatibilism. This is not an absolute free will.

Thus, the point of the chp is that you can't be a Calminian. Those who make that claim are inevitably Arminian. Which means there are a lot more of "us" than "them."

Romans 13:5 is a near echo of a saying of Jesus: "Therefore, it is necessary to submit [live within the order] to the authorities ... because of conscience." Here's what Jesus said in Matthew 17:26-27: "Then the sons are exempt [from Temple tax] ... but so that we may not offend them, go to the lake... give it to them for my tax and yours."

If Paul brings in conscience after his argument from pragmatics -- they've got the sword (Rom 13:1-4), does that mean conscience is secondary?

That is, the ultimate reason Christians submit to the authorities is because they live before God. Christians know God is Sovereign; they know God is ordering the world; and they want to live within God's order. It is the same argument we find in 1 Peter 2:11--3:12, esp enunciated in 2:13-17. Paul (and Peter) urge the Christians to be good citizens, not rebellious and seditious -- why? Because government is part of God's good orderliness in this world.

Always? Obviously not. In general? Obviously.