What is the purpose of wealth?

Earlier last week I heard a sermon from a visiting speaker at church. It was about wealth and prosperity and how God wants to financially bless those who are His people. 

He used many verses to talk about how God provides wealth for His people, or more accurately, provides us with the ability to produce wealth. He seemed to think that Christians had a poverty mindset, where it is more holy to be poor and that the rich tended to be looked down upon.

He said some things that I agreed with, especially on the latter point. Like him, I don't believe we were called to be poor, but more to be without need or to have sufficient income to live on (depending on our context). However I felt that the sermon was heavily one sided. Maybe because he was swimming upstream against some Christians who tend to reject prosperity teaching - to be rich is bad and to be poor good? I take it that he was well meaning, but simply was too one-sided.

In this write up I would like to share a few verses that I find pertinent to how we should be handling the issue of money. Later on, I will raise some questions about the validity of leverage, passive income and 'blind' giving for the purpose of assisting the needy. I will also share a question that I have found helpful to ask myself when giving to others.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25136083@N08/2632759591

The visiting preacher's leaning tendency was pretty much that Christians should be seeking to make money to be wealthy. To give him credit he at least 'mentioned' that if we have more, then we are able to give more. However, here are a few verses that I think challenge his tendency to focus on the value of wealth:

Matthew 6: 19-21 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

The preacher made it clear that he did not think Christians should make wealth their primary goal, but that it should still be a goal in life. However, here in Matthew, Jesus is making it very clear that we should not be seeking wealth here on earth but that we should be focusing on the rewards heaven has to offer. 2 Corinthians talks about the purpose of having plenty:

2 Corinthians 8:8-15 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

10 And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; 11 but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. 12 For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.

13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. 15 As it is written,“He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”

In the beginning of the sermon, the speaker made reference to people having 'dreams' of material goods, but that as we moved through life we realised that those dreams were too large. He claimed that we tend to drop those dreams, not because they are necessarily misguided but because they are out of our reach. He also emphasised verse 9 where Jesus came to make us rich. However, verses 13-15 qualify the purpose for gaining riches. It is not so that we can spend the riches on ourselves but to create fairness and equality between us and those around us. Don't get me wrong, I believe in enjoying the work of our hands, but it needs to be done in balance and not at the expense of others. There is no rule per se when it comes to how much money we can have or spend, because for each person it would be different in our infinitely diverse contexts. 

The biggest struggle that I had with some of what he said, was that he promoted concepts of leverage and passive gain for personal gain. They are both intelligent ways of making money, but at whose cost?

I am no economist, but it doesn't take much imagination to wonder where the extra money earned has actually come from. If I am not working for a "day's" money or earning more than a "day's" labour, then where is the money coming from?

Ultimately using leverage and passive income means that we are actually using or exploiting someone else's labour for our own pocket. Being a little bit controversial here, but what is 'profit' really? Money gained after our expenses seems to me, to be the very definition of exploiting someone else somewhere down the line. It is the people with power who eventually win and those who do not that lose. Money gained up the top of the stratification ladder would come from down below, would it not?

This is part of the reason why the majority of the money in western cultures is in the hands of a few.

Should we as Christians be promoting this behaviour for our own gain? If we do it for the good of others, then that's awesome. However, maybe this could be done by leveraging the rich somehow to assist the poor, instead of oppressing them? What needs to be taken into consideration is that the people we are trying to help, may be the very people we are exploiting.

I felt that possibly the sermon actually discouraged and alienated people rather than encouraged them. How many people have chased money before and only failed? This sermon may have indirectly caused these people to feel like they had failed God or had sinned somewhere in their lives. Not all of us want to make more money than what is sufficient for us.

There was an article I read recently that was talking about empowerment - how we could be seeking to assist the powerless to become powerful themselves. It raised the concept of charity and how it actually encouraged the power imbalances within the stratification in society. Even though charity can be done with good intentions, we must ask ourselves whether it is actually benefiting the people we are trying to help. What I mean by that, is that each time we who have abundance give to those who have need, it potentially creates a situation where they feel like they owe the rich one and the rich feel like they are owed one. It doesn't necessarily close the gap between the rich and poor, but actually confirms it. Instead of giving blindly to the poor, maybe the rich could give a little more strategically, if they really are wanting to assist the poor to empower themselves and get back up on their feet.

I heard someone raise an important issue regarding giving that I found extremely helpful to check my motives about giving. Do I give because I want to feel like I am helping people, or, do I give because I want to actually help people?

So, in conclusion regarding these thoughts:

1. Seeking wealth primarily should be for the good of others. Though, in balance, I still believe in enjoying the work of our hands.
2. Is leverage and passive income really helpful to those in need?
3. Sermons inspiring people to become rich could potentially be alienating or discouraging to those who have not done so well in the business arena.
4. Is 'blind' charity the most helpful form of assistance for those in need?

     

Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems - Part 2

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems
Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism

Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Photo by Darren Tunnicliff

Previously I discussed what an Arminian narrative or paradigm generally looked like. Ultimately, it emphasizes the concept of Freewill and denies the hand of God in ultimately choosing whom to save. God’s choice is a response to man’s choice.

Even though I do consider Arminianism still workable and honourable in many aspects, I still find it uncompelling concerning its ability to explain the scriptural revelation given to us by God. It also struggles to explain Biblical concepts in a philosophically coherent manner. In this next section, I will firstly take scripture as an example, and then cover some of the philosophical difficulties that Arminianism has with dealing with these scriptures. Many aspects of scripture come against the Arminian idea of Freewill and suggest that God through our surroundings determines who we are and what choices we make. The Bible contains many, many scriptures pertaining to God predestining and determining people’s lives. Aspects of our lives being determined can be a frightening concept, but is an idea that will be further addressed throughout this series.

For the mean time, here are some examples in the Bible suggesting that at least some parts of our lives are determined:

• Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”
• Proverbs 16:4 “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” 
• Proverbs 16:9 “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.” 
• Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.” 
• Proverbs 20:24 “A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?” 
• Proverbs 21:1-3 “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” 
• Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” 
• John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” 
• Acts 4:28 “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” 
• Acts 13:48 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
• Romans 9:11 “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” 
• Romans 8: 29-30 “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” 
• Romans 9: 14 – 24 “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” 
• Romans 12:3 “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.” 
• Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will… In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” 
• 2 Thessalonians 2:13 “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” 
• Revelation 17:8 “The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.” 

In Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:11 the Greek word for “predestine” is “proorizó”, which according to Strong’s concordance means “I foreordain, predetermine or mark out before-hand”. In verses like these, God gives a strong impression that He decides an outcome beforehand and makes it happen. Could it be that our destiny is decided before we have any say in the matter?

Not only does the Bible talk about predestination, but it also talks about God giving a measure of faith to people (Romans 12:3). However, strangely, in many other places God seems to attribute us the responsibility of generating faith, but as already mentioned, Romans suggests that our faith actually comes from God.

Proverbs is often clear about the outcomes of our plans actually being determined by God, even people’s hearts! Proverbs 22:6 says to “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” It suggests that our surroundings (parents, in this instance) have a heavy influence on who we become. Conclusively, scripture expresses ideas that suggest that our wills are not as free as some would suppose.

Foreknowledge

Faced with these verses that threaten Freewill, Arminians sometimes try to get around the idea of predestination by attributing His choice of individuals to His foreknowledge, as found in the five points of Arminianism mentioned in the last section. Romans 8:29 is a key verse that provides us with a concept of foreknowledge along with predestination. If God merely knew beforehand (rather than predestined) who would choose to be saved and who would choose not to be, then this seems to enable our Freewill. That is, God supposedly predestines people’s salvation after His foreknowledge of their choice of outcome. However, there still seems to be several difficulties with placing foreknowledge before predestination in this manner, which will be my focus in the remainder of this section.

Arminian concept of God’s foreknowledge attempts to provide us with an ability to choose God before He chooses us. Yet, concerning this explanation, it falls apart when looked at more closely. Let me explain. I see that comprehensibly God can know the future by three possible ways:

1. God foreknows the future because He is outside of time as we know it. God could view reality like a video and zip back and forward as He wills. Alternatively, He could see all time periods at once. Either way, from His perspective, the future is as if it has already happened.
2. God set creation in motion like a wound up clock and can predict what will happen by observing everything according to a cause and effect (domino effect) scenario. Thus, God determines man’s “Freewill” through cause and effect.
3. The future is predictable not because of cause and effect but because God creates and plans (in the present) every aspect, and does as He wishes. Thus, man’s will would be determined by God’s active involvement in the present moment.

The last two views violate Arminian Freewill because God would be the one who is micro managing processes and outcomes, even our wills. Arminians could go with the first explanation in order to keep man’s Freewill at the same time as God foreknowing who would be saved. The problem with this view is the emphasis on the future tense of “will be” or “would choose”. Arminianists say that God foreknows who would choose Him or who will choose Him, implying that the future has not happened yet. However, if God already knows the future, then surely it must have already happened, at least from His perspective. Otherwise, how could He know it? If that is true, then all of time must be knowledge to God – not foreknowledge.

In addition, if everything has already happened in the future, how then can God be involved within that future? If He did enter that timeline and intervened somehow, then the future must not yet have happened. However, if we accept that God can know the future without it already having happened, then we immediately enter one of the other two options mentioned earlier, where God creates or handles the very outcome of the future – ideas which go against the very grain of Arminianist thought.

Some people try to get around the idea of God being a deterministic sovereign Being, by saying that He does not know the future - the future is unpredictable. The future therefore is open to “possibilities”. This is called Open Theism. Arminianists could adopt this idea in order to “free up” Freewill as well as keeping God’s “choosing” abilities. However, I do not believe Open Theism is scriptural at all. The Bible is quite clear about God’s ability to know, predict or create the future. God’s predestining according to foreknowledge as expressed in Romans 8 would not be consistent in an Open Theist narrative, because He would have no knowledge of the future. The future is open to “possibilities” and cannot be foreknown.

Lastly, one could say that the people whom God chooses to be saved are not chosen on an individual basis but more on a hypothetical collective level. My question regarding this is where does God’s foreknowledge come into this perspective? If God had foreknowledge of the future people group who would choose Him, then surely He must have had foreknowledge of the individuals who would make up that people group that He predestined. Thus thinking of predestination as a hypothetical group of people does not answer how the people within that group actually become a part of that group, and in my opinion does not provide a leg for Freewill ideas to stand on (Romans 8:29).

Arminianism Freewill not only tries to 'free up' our choices, but ultimately tries to attribute the existence of evil to man. However, if God foreknows the future as well as allows man the freedom to choose good or evil, it still leaves God with the responsibility of allowing evil to happen. James 4:17 states that even the act of choosing not to do good and thus allowing evil to happen, is a form of sin. This implies that if God is able to change the future and does not do so, then He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

This then leads to questions that we can ask of God as to why He actively allowed evil to happen, especially when He had foreknowledge of it. If God knows who will be saved and who will not be, then why bother creating people in the first place who will suffer eternity without Him? Does their existence simply suggest that God values Freewill, by providing an example of evil that the rest are saved from? These questions lead to concepts that some Calvinists have, such as God directly creating people for heaven and for hell. However, Arminianist thought opposes these ideas, because it would mean that God chose to create a situation for evil to exist (even though they still say that He had foreknowledge that evil would definitely exist). Thus, foreknowledge does not truly get God “off the hook” when it comes to creating evil - God actively allows evil to happen, especially because He foresaw it.

In conclusion, the Arminian concept of Freewill does not have a monopoly on scriptural verses that point towards it. Many contradict it, in fact. In addition, the concept of God’s foreknowledge enabling man’s Freewill does not actually work. It fails on multiple levels, such as failing to attribute the author of sin to us, failing to provide a way for God to choose us after we chose Him and therefore failing to provide an answer as to how humankind chooses redemption or not.

NEXT...

Part 3:'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

    

Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative - Part 1

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Photo by Stuart Anthony

Introduction

This series is about a search for a coherent scriptural narrative of our lives in relation to God and the world that we live in. Looking at reality, we all create some sort of narrative or way of understanding the world around us - sometimes realised and sometimes not. Within Christian circles today, two grand narratives go head to head. They are the narratives of Arminianism and Calvinism. These two narratives are not synonymous with each other even though they both fall under Christian belief. At first glance, they seem to be a dichotomy, but I do not see them as necessarily being so. This series will seek to draw a sought after unity between concepts within Arminianism and Calvinism with regards to their inherent difficulties. The first analysis will cover the key concepts of Arminianism - what it is, why it is attractive, and why I believe it does not work. The second analysis will cover Calvinism - what it is, why it is attractive, and why I believe it doesn’t work. The third analysis will provide a potential solution to the inherent difficulties within the Arminian and Calvinistic narratives.

Before I begin, I will share a little of my background surrounding these issues to shed some light on where I am coming from. I grew up in a dedicated Christian family who taught me to search for truth. Ever since I was young, I enjoyed mulling over idealistic views about life. I relished the challenge of explaining reality in a way that others could understand. My journey ventured into trying to provide an answer that tied together the disparities between Arminianism’s “man’s free will” and Calvinism’s “God’s free will”. I originally held to Arminian thought but became more and more unsettled by it. I valued human choice. To me, if we were without choice, then questions like these arise - how can one have love for God? Or – How can one be loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? I understood love to be a choice and therefore not compelled. Not only that, but as I read the Bible it seemed to me that man’s free will was evident, especially considering that God required and expected certain actions and outcomes from people. However, emphasizing man’s responsibility meant that I read over many of the passages that talked about predestination and the role that God played in choosing who would be His chosen people (the elect) and who would not be. I tried many a time to get around these passages. This disparity left me perplexed - how God could expect actions and outcomes from people contrary to what He had already predestined them to do? For a good while, I simply saw this inconsistency as a paradox and trusted in God’s love and grace to bring about the best outcome for individuals and humankind. However, I have since studied these disparities more closely and discovered an idea that I believe provides a possible resolution to these otherwise opposing narratives.

To further explore Arminianism and Calvinism, I will first give an overview of the KEY components of each respectively. At the end of each overview, I will raise in more detail the scriptural, philosophical, and moral struggles of each that I have found inherent in their thought. Now I realise there are multiple variants of Arminianism and Calvinism, such as the difference between Moderate Calvinism and High Calvinism. However, I believe they all fundamentally have the same core issues. It is predominantly these core issues that I will address.

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

The key components of an Arminian worldview are found in the five points of Arminianism, which is given in a little more detail here (http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/). A key concept in the Arminian thought is the very common idea of Freewill. (For the purpose of this series, in order to help distinguish what I mean by Freewill, I will use a capital “F” for Freewill when referring to Arminian Freewill.) Here is my brief summary of the five points of Arminianism:

Freewill or Human Ability. This understanding of man’s relationship to sin and God consists of a Freewill that is not bound. Man can freely choose to have faith in God but can also choose not to. Man’s will is not entirely subject to the sin nature. Once a man freely accepts God and puts faith in Him, then that is when the Spirit provides the needed assistance and intervenes in a person’s life.

Conditional Election. This is a reference to the process of how God choses those whom He will save. “Conditional Election” is where God chooses based on foreknowledge of the future as to who would place their faith in Him and who would not. Therefore, humankind ultimately chooses whom God chooses to be saved. God’s choice for salvation is a reply to man’s faith in Him.

Universal Redemption or Universal Atonement. This covers the scope of atonement provided by Christ on the cross. “Universal Atonement” says that Christ died for everyone’s sins, but that redemption will only come into effect if a person accepts what He has done for them on the cross. If a person rejects Christ, then there remains no atonement for their sins and therefore no forgiveness.

God’s Holy Spirit can be resisted. Similar to the above notions, this concept emphasises man’s Freewill. The Holy Spirit will work in people’s lives by calling them to Himself, but only will have effect for salvation when He is not resisted by them.

Falling from Grace. Some Arminians (not all) consider that those who are truly part of God’s people can still turn away from God. Some others believe that once a person has turned to God they cannot then turn away, thus creating division on this thought.

Taking all these key ideas together, they create a narrative or “worldview”. This narrative goes something like this: In the beginning, God created humankind. He created us like Himself so that we have Freewill to determine our own outcomes. We are ultimately our own sovereign over the outcome of our lives. Some say the reason for this is that God wanted a people who would be able to love Him freely and without compulsion. It would be impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal. God gave Adam and Eve this Freewill, but they used it to turn against God and put all of humanity in a state of separation from God. This grieved God. It grieved Him so much that He wanted to restore mankind to Himself. Yet God must keep justice by punishing evil. If He merely let Adam and Eve do as they wish with no consequences, He would be unjust as the Sovereign Creator. Therefore, He separated mankind from Himself because dark could not dwell with light. His grand plan was to send a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) who was to pay for the evil done by mankind, thus fulfilling the justice due. At the same time as this desire to draw mankind to Himself, He still values man’s Freewill and wants to draw them to Himself according to their choosing. If He forces mankind to choose Him then it would defeat one of the purposes of creating them in the first place – to have a people who would love Him freely and without compulsion. It would violate their Freewill. Thus God is divided – He wants good to reign and yet at the same time have Freewill. God values Freewill over all other desires of His, including the salvation of all people. Being a righteous judge, He must punish those who chose evil while still respecting their Freewill, and thus sends them to an eternal separation from Himself. Evil and light will not forever dwell together. In conclusion, sin is the result of mankind’s choice. However, mankind can seek after salvation and then form a partnership with God that will ultimately restore them into the image of God.

Another scenario that may help to explain the saving relationship between God and people is the drowning man (borrowed from David Pawson, http://davidpawson.org/). To an Arminian, salvation is like a man drowning in a river. God sees the man and throws him a rope to pull him ashore. The man then chooses whether he will grab hold of the rope or not. Many will reject it but some will accept it. As the man is pulled to shore, it would be incorrect to say that he saved himself. Yes, he did choose to grab hold of the rope, but God is the One who ultimately pulls him to shore.

The reasons behind accepting this paradigm are potentially many. The key ones that I see as the most relevant are:

- Arminianism takes the responsibility for sin away from God and places it on the individual. The alternative would state that since God is the Creator of all then that also makes Him the Creator of sin. If we were not responsible for our sins (that is, if God was responsible for sin) then that would seem to make God unfair – it paints Him as having unreasonable expectations of people, especially if He then sentences them to eternal conscious torment for acts of sin that they had no choice in. However, the Bible requires us to love God. Some Arminians believe that if God is the Creator of all and we are to love Him, then he must be lovable. Arminianism gets around the problem of a God who does “evil” (through directly creating sin) by attributing the existence of sin to mankind’s Freewill, thus letting God off the hook.

- Arminianists believe that people ultimately do not have a predisposition to choose God or not. When God judges people, He judges us according to our Freewill deeds. God would be unjust to judge us according to predisposition, because He created our predisposition.

-  If man’s Freewill did not exist, then love or loyalty would not exist because it would not be free. How can one be loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? We would be robots, mere play figures in the Creator’s world of evil and good.

-  Much of scripture supports the Arminian belief. The general message of the Bible is that man is responsible for our sins and that God holds us accountable for our every action and thought.

NEXT...

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Mental Illness

I have an interest in mental illness and how it relates to God, free will / sovereignty, biological disease, sin, and the 'normal' experience of life.

These posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) by Brad Hambrick are very insightful! All he writes is a list of questions that get you thinking.

I like the following questions in particular. Any thoughts from people?

1. In the modern psychological proverb, “The genes load the gun, and the environment pulls the trigger,” where is the person? Why do we think of genetic influences as if they negate the role of the will or personal choice? Substance abuse can have a clear genetic predisposition, but every addiction program – even those most committed to a disease model – appeal to the will as a key component to sobriety.
2. Can we have a “weak” brain—one given to problematic emotions or difficulty discerning reality—and a “strong” soul—one with a deep and genuine love for God? If we say “yes” to this question in areas like intelligence (e.g., low IQ and strong faith), would there be any reason to say “no” about those things described as mental illness?
3. How much should we expect conversion and normal sanctification (spiritual maturity) to impact mental illness? Outside of medical interventions, most secular treatments for mental illness focus on healthy-thinking, healthy-choices, and healthy-relationships; so how much should Christians expect sound-doctrine, righteous-living, and biblical-community to impact their struggle with mental illness?
4. Would we want to eradicate all anxiety and depression if we were medically capable of doing so? What would we lose, that was good about life and relationships, if these unpleasant emotions were eradicated from human experience? Would that be heaven-on-earth or have unintended consequences that are greater than our current dilemma?
5. Can we have a collective disease? Is mental illness always personal or can it be cultural? Cultural changes necessarily add to or detract from the kind of stresses that influence mental illness. How should we understand this influence and when might an “epidemic” require a collective solution as much as personal choices?
6. Are we trying to medically create an idyllic sanguine personality? Is “normal” becoming too emotionally narrow? If not in the medical establishment, then are societal norms pushing people in this direction and the service-oriented medical profession trying to accommodate its well-intended, but misguided clientele?
7. How do we best assess when the relief of medication would decrease the motivation to change versus when that same relief would increase the possibility of change? Pain can both motivate and overwhelm; is this simply about personal thresholds or should mental anguish be evaluated by a different set of criteria?

EMERGENT CHURCH

The 'emergent church' is essentially the postmodern church. It simply challenges modernistic assumptions found in today's global Church, and attempts to allow Christianity to function in a more 'organic' way - free from these assumptions (but they don't tend to define or limit what this might mean). It is not primarily about defining any new mind sets or ways of looking at things. It doesn't even necessarily condemn the modernism (or bondage-to-modernism) that it challenges. Many emergent churches begin to function and express themselves in a way which appears totally foreign to us modernistic Christians - it can seem jarring, bizarre, and divisive. But their insistence of questioning (rather than answering) makes it impossible to decide on a definition of what the emergent church thinks or does (such defining is, after all, a modernistic aim!)

I've read lots about the 'emergent church' and have wholeheartedly rejected it (for lots of 'good reasons') in the past. But I've never seriously listened to any of its proponents, which is all they want us to do. The other day I started doing just that, and I now have mixed feelings, having asked some novel questions about my belief system. This article will not attempt the impossible task of defining the 'emergent church' and what's right/wrong with it! Instead I'll just describe the conclusions I have arrived at about my own belief system. Most of it has been helpfully influenced by the emergent thinking, but the last two paragraphs in particular describe the conflict I have with their excess focus on their own novel questions.

I'm really interested in other people's experiences and opinions of the 'emergent church' or post-modern concepts. We have talked about it lots in previous posts but I think it would be worth summarising your views in the comments below, as well as any new insights :)

Christianity is primarily about a heart-resounding with God's glory.

The Holy Spirit gives rebirth which frees our hearts to experience its greatest enjoyment in the expression of God's glory. We begin to focus on Christ as a personal embodiment of all-important beauty. We submit the importance of our own identity (worldview, meaning, purpose, worth, validity, definition, etc), to the importance of God's glory being expressed and enjoyed. The mind of Christ is that He Himself did all this, emptied Himself for the sake of God's glory - and so this is what union with Christ means (death to self, rising to God). But the full implications of our new heart desires and union with Christ are only realised as the heart perceives the glory of God so that it CAN enjoy it - and this glory is not fully expressed in this life, and is certainly not accurately or fully perceived by us.

This heart-resounding God focus minimises the importance of modernistic 'pillars'.

First, we can be honest about the insecurities of our identity - admit doubts and failings, accept challenges that shake the foundation of what holds us together. We won't react with emotion or avoidance or aggression to the things (or the people) that expose our insecurities or the flaws in our worldview. Instead we will embrace all of this! At worst, these things do not threaten what is of ultimate importance to us (the expression and enjoyment of God's glory), and the deep cracks in our identity and worldview - our doubts and weakness and confusion - actually identify us with Christ more (who went through the same in His sufferings). Also such deep honesty about ourselves frees us to truly empathise with others, including how they see us (in all our flaws). And often it will enable us to work toward a better perception and enjoyment of God's glory together.

Second, we will be able to escape the 'death drive' of having distant goals that are meant to fulfil us, but which require sacrificing too much in order to have any chance of attaining it. The world is rife with the problems caused when people sacrifice holiness, relationship with others, or peace with God for these aims. And extra problems are created merely by the unattainment of these goals - unhappiness, inability to enjoy the present, and lying to ourselves and/or others (either keeping this goal secret, or keeping the ongoing failure secret). Even good goals - holiness, spirituality, good works, closeness to God - can be wrongly persued as a 'death drive', leading to these problems. We can avoid the sacrifice required, AND avoid the problems associated with wanting but never attaining to such goals, because what is of ultimate importance to us is the enjoyment of the expression of God's glory. This glory is both present AND future, and besides the death-drive's self-focussed fulfilment has been submitted to God's glory as part of our identity. We are free to admit our failings and confusion over our goals because these are not primary.

Third, we will not insist on any particular cognitive knowledge of God as necessary or important in a blanket sense (such as a creed). What is important is the heart change that God brings, and the subsequent heart-resounding and enjoyment of the holistic expression of the glory of God. We will direct our attention to whatever that is required to woo the heart, and to satisfy the heart with the expression of God's glory - trusting God to use our efforts as He sees fit, and to cover our flawed perception and expression of Him. We will find unity in this common heart-resounding faith (which is often expressed in different doctrine, because no one has found the perfect full cognitive expression of it), rather than demanding exact doctrinal sameness. And we will accept that disagreement is part of the process of working together to improve our perception of the expression of God's glory.

There is danger in focussing on this minimisation, instead of God's glory.

Identity, goals, and cognitive knowledge are all still very important to God! While they do not define our ultimate aim or enjoyment, they are very helpful, and God mandates their use in the service of His glory and our enjoyment of it. Heart change is not defined by perception of God's glory, but by enjoyment of His glory - nevertheless, such enjoyment IS revealed as perception occurs. Likewise, perception is not defined as cognitive knowledge, but cognitive knowledge is one way to perceive - and it is required in some measure to talk about God, which is one of the main ways God intends us to woo hearts and help OTHERS to perceive! So, we will continue with cognitive beliefs and expressions, and attempt to improve them together, and use them as accurately as possible for the goal of enjoying God's glory, trusting God's grace to cover our flaws and fill the message with spiritual life. We will submit it all to God through union with Christ, and seek deep honesty about our flaws and doubts and insecurities, focussing on corporate love and enjoyment of God's glory together even when cognitive experience of this isn't the same, and encourage true empathy with others (which includes seeing ourselves as they see us, with all our flaws).

We also need to be careful to continue to aim for the right things - union and love of Christ, NOT merely being shocked out of our faulty modernistic thought system. If this is all that happens, we have failed drastically. We need to remember that everything needs tailoring to context - we do whatever is required to help each other progress in our perception and enjoyment of God's glory. Sometimes our faulty cognitive expression is NOT helpful to that person at that time. Often, in the process of communication, our perception of God's glory is lost on the person, and their disagreement is actually an unwitting affirmation that they have the same faith as us and are looking for true perception of God's glory. Sometimes non-cognitive perception is most helpful, which may require being shocked out of a modernistic approach to God. One cannot mandate a particular approach, and I believe often the division caused by the drastic and new questions of the 'emergent church' are simply not worth the benefit (just like modernistic arguments about correct doctrine are often not worth the benefit).

Finally, we need to be vigilant and not let the current OR emerging pagan culture corrupt the Church's pure and contrasting message. This contrast is just as much against secular modernism as it is against secular post-modernism. We need to maintain a delight in old and fixed things (such as God), rather than undue fascination with what is new and novel and 'relevant'. And we need to be careful not to paint another false veneer of 'happy relevant honest challenge-resistant post-modernism' instead of 'happy secure cognitively-sound modernism'. Both are hypocrisy.

May God help us keep the ultimate aim of enjoying His glory in sight, and may He help us communicate clearly with others!

Is Islam a religion of peace? - Debate

Off topic a bit from what we have been discussing lately, but here is a very interesting debate about whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. I found it quite insightful around several issues including:

- How Muslims interpret the Quran
- How should paradigms be judged
- The effects of social contexts on beliefs
- Contextualising versus plain reading
- Social change

It is long, but a good watch. I started out as unsure, but for me the opposition to the motion won this debate. It sounds like (though I have never read it) the Quran can easily be misinterpreted. The ones putting forward the motion seemed to suggest that you need to be a scholar to interpret the Quran correctly and that plain reading could lead to violence. However, an important point made by both sides is that it is possible to be a peaceful Muslim, but as pointed out evidence suggests that the Quran is not easily interpreted in a peaceful manner.

Motion to Ignore the Reply Format

Yes, that is right. Due to the confusing nature of the pattern of comments in this excellent post by Josh http://thebenevolenthecklers.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/human-nature.html, I would like to recommend that commenters no longer use the reply function. Why? Because many different threads of conversation are currently being discussed, which means different areas of the comment thread grow rapidly. This makes it difficult to discuss with people, because it is hard to find exactly where they replied to one of your comments, as in finding which "reply" thread within the main comment thread.

I propose making an agreement between each other just to comment in the main thread, which would mean that it is easier to see exactly what the latest comment was, and thus make it easier to find where that reply would be, i.e. at the bottom of the page.

What do you guys think?

If we agree, I will put a note on the side of the blog stating that we request people to comment in the main thread, rather than creating little offshoots.