Opportunities missed

I was chatting with Beki this morning about an article that I read in YouthWork Magazine which really challenged me in the way that I was doing youth work. It was basically about radical living, and it got us talking about when we were younger, and how ashamed we were of being Christians when we were younger (if you want to know: Beki not at all, and me very much so... Shameful, I know!).

A few months ago, a lot of my friends from when I was in 4ème and 3ème added me on Facebook, and we chatted about what was up in our respective lives. As I told them that I was planning to become a pastor, and that all this time I was a Christian but never really spoke about it or even admitted to it, a lot of them told me that they were in fact devote catholics as well and still are involved in their churches (which is just awesome!). And I was thinking this morning: what an opportunity missed! This school that I went to was a catholic school, not a public school, and so there may well have been the possibility to start a Bible study group or some kind of Christian union, if any of us had had the guts to do it. And then think of the chance to reach out and really make a difference in the lives of the other kids around us!! The school was maybe 200 people strong, and if 10 or 15 of us had met up to pray and talk about God together, the sky really could have been the limit. It would have had a big impact on the world around us, especially as the people who were Christians were fairly high-profile, quite popular people in the school. We would have had the two best basket-ball players (and basket-ball was big in my school), two italian twins who were the first to grow beards (at age 14! Insane! I'm still struggling to put together a half-decent goatie at age 21!), and the best artist in the school, whom everybody found hilarious... We really could have made a difference, but we snuffed it. 

We snuffed it because of shame, because of self-image, because of a desire to conform and a refusal to suffer for the cause of Christ. And I will have to account for that on the last day. I know it. 

Guys, we have a limitted amount of time on this earth. Do you know that, despite what church gatherings seem to suggest, Christianity isn't for the sissies?! It's not for the wimps! You want to follow Christ? You've got to ask God to give you the courage that goes with that calling! Because Jesus promised us that we would suffer, be mocked, rejected and jeered because we follow him and not all that this world holds dear. 

We've got to redeem Christianity in order to redeem this world! Bring on the warriors, the people who aren't scared to stand up, fight and die for the Lord that they swear allegiance to. The Bible asks for no less. We live in a world where courage is totally forgotten. Instead of it being a reason for us to feel depressed concerning our need to reach our world, let's count it a blessing: the current state of affairs, with the serious lack of courage in our fellow men, means that as Christians we will really stick out if we demonstrate courage and guts. And that is the best opportunity we have to make a difference. We have the chance to really grab people's attention if we live the life that Jesus wants us to live. It's now or never: you won't always be in this world. We've got to re-ignite a passion for missions, on our home soil, in France, and in nations, tribes and tongues that are unreached by the gospel.

What do you suggest we do? Are you ready to live and die for the Lord that you swear allegiance to? 

God's Providence

Yeah, I know, I can't resist a challenge. It's awful. 

I've been thinking for a while about doing this, so the answer by "anonymous" to my previous blog on predestination has spurred me to go for it.

In it, he stated that we can't be as black and white as I was when it comes to free-will and predestination. A more nuanced approach would be closer to the truth. Now first of all, let me say that I am a strong proponent of the happy medium. I think that it is healthy, and most often the closest answer in complexity to difficult questions. However, I believe that the tension between man's will and God's is not a tension between God's will being totally free and sovereign and ours being totally free and independant rather than one between God's will being totally sovereign - the prinicple cause behind every effect in this universe - and the fact that we humans have a responsibility for our actions. I won't go into trying to tie up the knots of the tension between Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. I'll leave such a task for Donald A. Carson, in his book called (fitingly) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. 

What I want to do is simply show that man can't determine himself if God is sovereign. 

Let's get one thing clear first: the Bible displays tension in many areas. God is three persons in one being, Jesus-Christ is a sinless God come into a decaying human world, born of a woman. The Bible is both human and divine in authorship. These are tensions but they are never contradictions. God is not three and one in the same way. He is not three persons and yet one person at the same time. When it comes to his being, he is one. There is only one God. When it comes to his personhood he is three (not the forms which he takes on, not the different characteristics that he has but rather the physical - or metaphysical - entities in which he exists). The greek word hypostasis (that which stands under) is helpful to understand the concept of personhood. So God is three and God is one. But not on the same level. If God were both three and one in being or both three and one in personhood, it would be a contradiction. It just can't happen!

It's the same with free-will and divine sovereignty. You can't say: "man can determin himself freely and God has control over him". It just doesn't work. It's a contradiction! Either man is totally free or God is totally determining. I'll try to show this with the help of pictures, trying to put the doctrine into practise: 

The common position that I meet in anglican church (who just love to compromise, sometimes at the expense of reason) is that God has a general movement to history that he wants to give. And he will make history come to a point where Christ reigns and the whole earth is under his dominion. And this reign is going to come in with the assistance of free, self-determining agents. 

But that can't work. Because this is what happens in a totally free universe (the "universe" that I'm depicting is the universe on its historical level, not its spacial level - obviously, as men can't go everywhere in the unvierse. It is the universe as far as man's ideas go and as far as history goes. There is a historical point which needs to be atteigned through the ideas, wills, movements and actions of men. This is what I've tried to depict here. It is a kind of "metaphysical" universe if you will. I am not quite happy with the word "metaphysical" but it comes close enough): 

If man is free, God can't do anything with man whatsoever. Because man's freedom and God's freedom are on the same level (in the same way that God being 1 person and yet 3 persons would be on the same level), they can't both coexist. If man is free, self-determining, ultimate, then God can't make sure that history will lead towards a specific conclusion at all because he is not the determining factor: man is. This is black and white because shades of grey can't be allowed lest we be contradictory, like saying "oh, there's got to be a way to make a square circle. Just take a circle and make it a little more angular... That's not a circle any more! OK then well take a square and just curve the edges round a bit... That's not a square any more!

Now what most common theologians hold is that, OK, God restricts man's free-will and directs it in a way that will ultimately lead to the conclusion of history.

This, first of all, means that man isn't in fact free. He is simply given the illusion of freedom. Because this is now what the universe looks like: 

If God starts determining man in any way whatsoever, man no longer has free-will. He can't have a little bit of free will, because with this little bit of free will he could will to have more free-will. And more. And more. Like Aladdin wishing for more wishes if Aladdin was ultimate and determining and the Genie was relative and determined. Man doesn't in fact have free-will at all: if he had free-will, he could just by-pass God's vortex and get out of it, because he would be self-determining. What God is saying is this: "you may move around as much as you want, but you can't go out of the vortex. Because you're not free to. I don't allow it". So already, we've erased the possibility of free-will, if God is sovereign. Because they are on the same level, man can't determine himself and also have God determine him. It does not compute! It is a contradiction!!

Now the next problem, as is illustrated on this graph is that even if God allows man to move around only within the limitations of the vortex, leaving man totally free within this vortex, how can he be sure that man will head towards the point where Christ is ready to let his reign break in? It doesn't make sense of the certitude of God's promises.

So how about God reduces man's will a bit more, letting him go "freely" inside a square inside the vortex and slowly edging him towards the point of Christ's reign? Basically, concretely, saying: your day to day decisions are free, but I am actually taking you on a ride, taking you slowly into different regions of the vortex which will ultimately lead you to the end of times where my full will is done". Something like this: 

Now again, the issue for God is: "so that I can move on to the next section, I need man to go to point "x", with things like, for example, the death of Christ". And so God creates a smaller section in the vortex that man moves around in. And then a smaller one because still that one doesn't fit. And then a smaller one, until every one of man's details and minutes is predestined in every which way possible.

It is common sense that every action, however small has mass consequences, given time. I really enjoyed the film "Stranger than fiction" in which Will Ferrell, playing the role of Harold Crick, had unwittingly put his watch back by three minutes, which meant that he was a bit late for his bus, which made him cross the road at the exact right time to save a boy and get knocked over by a bus. And of course if the boy on the bike was there at that exact time it was because of the hug that he had given his dad before leaving his home. And if the bus arrived at that exact time it was because of all the minute details of the bus driver's morning leading up to her driving the bus. Everything has consequences, and leads to mass events, some of them dramatic. Think of the thousands of factors that must have been put together that meant that Christ would be crucified when he went up to Jerusalem around 27 a.d. It is just mind boggling. And then think of the millions of reasons why these things were the way they were. And the gazillion reasons why those previous things happened the way they happened. It is all too intricate for it to be the fruit of randomness, as far as God is concerned. There must be a sovereign ruler, designer, God up there making things happen.

Two last statements: the first one concerning randomness. Steven, in your very interesting answer to my blog post, you said that because man is rational, the fact that he is free to do what he wants won't lead to randomness and the order that we can see in this world is explained by the ordering virtues that man's mind has. Agreed. I just didn't express myself well enough when talking about randomness. I meant total "out of controlness" from God's point of view. I was speaking about God answering prayers. If man has free-will, he is totally out of God's control. Most christians will agree that God can intervene in history to make certain things happen. However, if God has no control over things in the first place, if he is to bring about a certain event, with, as a starting point, a world of mass complexity that he has no control over, there is no way, apart from through very weird and suspect turns of events (such as teleportation or the breaking in of freak randomness in someone's situation leading up to an answer to prayer) that God could answer our prayers. Our world is too complex to allow that, unless God has control and is the one intricately designing this complexity within the total control of his good will.

The second one concerns my first diagram. I know some people who will want to hold on hard as can be to the fact that man has free-will and that the first diagram must therefore be correct. This means that if God's will for this universe is to be done, and if we are to reach that point in history where man brings in the reign of Christ, that means that man is good enough, by himself, to make that happen. And I've been reading Genesis in my devotional time lately. And it depicts man's foolishness in such graphic terms: Adam and Eve, Cain, the population of the world before Noah, Ham, the people building the tower of Babel, Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's daughters... It just never stops!!! it is just a whirlwind or man rebelling against God and God being gracious and working out his perfect plan for the salvation of mankind through the election of certain people, leading up to Christ, a Christ who is announced and proclaimed in typological imagery pretty much everywhere, from the creation of the earth, to the clothing of Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Melchizedek, to the Lamb slain in the place of Isaac. This is the main message of Genesis as far as I can see it so far: man is bad and God is in control, making things right. And man doesn't choose good. If history is to go anywhere positive (and it is: the cross tells me so, the promises of the second coming tell me so) then it has to be because God is in the business of determining history, not man! 

So voilà. What do you think?

What's wrong with me??

I've been reading a book called "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee and Gordon Stuart lately, and they say that to read the Bible well, you have to ask the question, constantly: "what's the point?". I think that I've never struggled with this, because that's what I do with everything. And one of my greatest wonderings has been: "What's the point of the church service? What's its focal point and what is to be sought through it?". I started by believing for a long time that it was all about oly Communion. Holy Communion was to be the central point of the service, and everything should lead up to it. We shouldn't have a service without Holy Communion, because it defeats the object. That was mainly taken from the fact that "church gatherings" in the New Testament were based around communities "breaking bread together". But that was much more a "bring and share" meal than Holy Communion, when one reads the texts properly (Paul reprimands the Corinthians for not sharing with the poor, and just eating what each person had taken along). And the idea of Holy Communion as the focus of the service has slowly slipped away, and I now think that whenever Christians are eating together and that bread ond wine are at the table, they should eat and drink in rememberance that Christ died for them. I try to do that, but often forget.

Next, I thought that it must be "worship" that is the center of a church service. Thankfully, very shortly after that, I came to a deeper understanding of worship, as being a constant attitude of reverance to God, and a constant desire to make his name high in everything that we do. Songs at church are just a moment to especially focus on that, like Sunday is a moment to especially focus on God, and only God, when our whole lives should be focussed on God in all that we do. So in a sense, the end of a service is to worship God, as should everything else in our lives. But the songs aren't the focal point of the service. They aren't the main reason why we "do church".

Then I moved on to another conception: the traditional evangelical conception, which says that the point of a church service is to edify God's people. The focal point of the service is the sermon, and everything should serve the purpose of building up people's knowledge of God. When the early churches met up, they were taught by the apostles. Could that be the main focus of the service? I have always struggled with the idea that songs are made to edify people. Of course, they musn't carry false theology and lead people into error, but they are made to bring people to an expression of a heartfelt love and admiration of God rather than for edification. For myself, it is the more "wordy" songs that do that most (In Christ Alone, Before the Throne of God Above, Crown Him with Many Crowns etc. have just extraordinary lyrics). But sometimes, just a simple: "Oh how I love you Lord, you've won my heart" (that's the pre-chorus from Paul Oakley's "Majesty", a song that I don't sing enough. It's just great!) carries me into unequaled adoration for God. I just don't see edification as the main purpose of the church service. There should be edification, but t isn't the main purpose.

So what's left? Well right now, I think that the community side of it is so important. It is one of the two focusses of church as far as I can see, for now. We need to be united in singing when we come to church, and that is what needs to give it an extra dimension, otherwise, you might as well stay at home and sing on your own. There is power in all declaring together: "Our God Saves!!" over and over again, as in the chorus of Paul Baloche's great song. It is the together that makes it different. There is greatness in all being together and shouting out Amen in our hearts or aloud when the preacher faithfully exposes God's word. Otherwise, why not just use podcasts and be content with listening to sermons on the train? And I'm not saying that one shouldn't do that! I myself am a sermon podcast junkie! I've listened to a great proportion of John Piper's sermons, available at DesiringGod.com and I recommend them to you. But that can't replace corporate teaching. And there is something about being taught and lead by the spirit-inspired sermons which are specific to each church. And then Holy Communion: I've already tried Holy Communion in places where I wasn't in communion with the people, and was pretty convinced of the absence of true faith in a lot of the people receiving the bread and wine (how judgemental of me, I know...). And I hated it so much that I stopped taking communion there. Since moving to St Mark's, where community is so strong, and where the value of saving faith is an essential part of church membership, communion has just put on a whole new meaning for me. It is just spine-tingling stuff to be with this band of brothers and sisters who all love the Lord and all share in his salvation, and to share in the bread and wine together. So community is something that is the essential part of a church service. One of the two main focal points.

The second thing is so obvious and in front of my eyes that I forgot to see it for so long: why is church on a Sunday? Because Sunday commemorates Christ's resurrection, our salvation from sin, our reconciliation with the Father, our hope of life everlasting. Sunday is PARTY-TIME!!! We've been saved from our sins. We were slaves to the enemy of our souls, and Christ died to grab us out of the grasp of darkness, and bring us into his glorious light! Church services are supposed to be parties. Birthday parties are yearly, because they a bit of a little deal. Christ's cross and resurrection is a MASSIVE deal, so we celebrate it every week. Church service are supposed to be the weekly gathering of the saved, redeemed, overflowing-with-joy, party animalesque community! We're coming here to party. In the words of Kool and the Gang, "We're gonna celebrate and have a good time!"

And so as I said in my title: "what's wrong with me??" Because over the past few weeks, I'd been planning last Sunday evening's service at St. Mark's. And I'd decided to have it as a chilled, relaxed, mellow service, with candles and calm music. I mean what kind of a party is that?? That's the kind of party where people go out saying: "well that sucked!!" It was beautiful, and very awe-inspiring, but it was just another ritual. A service for the sake of having a service. It wasn't a celebration of the all-singing-all-dancing comunity of the redeemed. And I'm just annoyed at myself for having done that, because as far as I'm concerned, church shouldn't be like that. It is remainders of paganism that have introduced icons, candles, choirs etc. into the church. That is not what heaven will be like. It is not what the New Testament church was like. 

So next time I lead worship, I'm comitted to start with this remix of Kool and the Gang's classic: 

There's a party going on right here:

A celebration that's been going throughout the years

So bring your good times, and your laughter too,

We're gonna celebrate salvation anew!

(Come on now!) Celebration! We're gonna celebrate and have a good time!

Celebration! We're going to celebrate and have a good time!

It's time to come together, And dance along, that's our pleasure!

Everyone around the world, Come on!

Celebrate the Christ, come on!

Celebrate the Christ, come on!

It's time to come together, and shout to God, our great treasure:

"Our Lord reigns and our Lord saves!" Come on!

Celebrate the Christ, come on!

Celebrate the Christ, come on!

That's what church should be all about, in my opinion.