More Weekend Fodder

Two weeks in a row - say it aint so! Two Saturdays in a row with something to say (other than Boomer Sooner). I'll use this post as some sort of confession, if you don't mind.

I learn best in dialogue - conversation with those around a table (literal or proverbial), some who may agree and those who may not. I've always been intrigued by attempting to understand what people believe and why. For example, almost a year ago, God allowed me to meet a man who was a pastor of a church just a few miles from the congregation I pastored. The pastor and I began having lunch and praying for one another. From time to time, we'd discuss theology. We agreed on much. We disagreed on a few things. The friendship during the previous year has blessed me in many ways.

One of the disagreements the pastor and I had was one of election - specifically how Scripture defines the Elect. Although I was sure of what I believed, our discussions led me to begin a deeper study on the subject. Reading some of his recent posts, I know we continue to disagree; however, we're still friends.

All that, to say this. There are blogs I've run across where the purpose seems to be arguing for one view over the other - even to the detriment of relationships. That was never the case with As The Crow Flies and will never be this blogs intent. Again, everyone should be allowed at the "table" to discuss the issues as they see them. Each one should bring coffee, beer, or whatever drink of choice, pull up a chair at the table, and share their opinion. The older I get, the more I realize I need to learn.

Recently, the Thursday posts have concerned election while reviewing Perspectives on Election. I've attempted to present two sides (Calvinism and Arminian). As I recently mentioned, there will be times that I also have a comment about the articles written. The debate between Calvinism and Arminians, the question of who and who is not elect, and how those elect are determined, is often somewhat heated. For that reason, some believe these are discussions that might be avoided. In other words, "There has always been disagreement and there will always be, why throw fuel to the fire?" My respectful response is: If we don't study (even the hard things in Scripture) then we've relegated our responsibility as believers to something that it should't be.

My attempt is not to convince anyone of my opinion. I'd really like to hear the opposing view. Again, that's the way I learn and that's how my faith is strengthened. I'll attempt to complete the study, without making it too tedious.

Thanks for hearing my "confession" and for listening. And if the study is something you're even remotely interested in, please join the discussion on Thursdays. If not, the table is open Tuesday-Friday as well.

Blessings!
Mike

Friday Fodder

One of the things I really appreciate about our corporate worship time is the time we speak about prayer concerns. If facilitated well, those sharing won't preach or see this opportunity as a time for "open mic". However, we've had our challenges.

For those of you who are unaware, we take 5-10 minutes during worship to mention any new requests and then pray about those things. Prayer is not just talked about. We actually do it. I've had those visiting tell me that was something that really "stood out" for them.

After facilitating the time for several weeks, I was convicted stronger and stronger each day about the time becoming a laundry list of wants, needs, and desires. I've attempted to refocus our attention on how blessed we are. I begin with the question, "How has God blessed you this morning? This week?"

It seems when we focus our attention on how God has blessed, the needs, wants, and desires are not as numerous. God has blessed us in so many ways! So what about it? Are you more concerned with your wants, needs, and desires? Or do you recognize God's gracious hand upon your life?

The Purpose of Election?

Today, we continue our study through Perspectives on Election. We've reached the point where we need to discuss texts from the Pauline corpus.

Again, we'll begin with Dr. Ware. "One of the clearest and strongest assertions of the unconditional nature of God's election is given by Paul in Romans 9:10-16" (Ware 9). Maintaining that some scholars believe that this particular passage is in regards to calling for service rather than salvation, Ware points to the beginning of the chapter and then 10:1-4 to make a stand for Paul speaking of salvation. He makes mention of God's concern for Israel's salvation (ibid). However, Ware then somehow moves to an individualistic idea of salvation (for those loved enough to be chosen). "As Paul explains, before the two had been born, and before either had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob over his older brother Esau" (Ware 10).

Ware then moves to Romans 11:5-7. Interestingly enough, Dr. Ware returns now to a nationalistic view of salvation (the nation of Israel). Based on this passage, Ware argues the Apostle is referring to a gift of election and not salvation (12, emphasis mine). In other words, although the nation of Israel was chosen by God, only a select "remnant" from the nation was elected. Again, Dr. Ware states, "Here God's grace is not only grace (unmerited favor) that saves but grace (unmerited favor) that elects. Those who otherwise would be hardened in their rebellion are instead saved, and this has happened only because God's grace has elected them to be saved. Election then is unconditional" (12-13).

Cottrell begins his statements in regards to Romans 9:10-16. "As I argue in my own essay in this book, the point is unconditional election to service, not to salvation" (Cottrell 60, emphasis his). According to Cottrell, where Dr. Ware errs is using the beginning of Chapter 9 and 10:1-4 to make his argument in regards to the type of election. "This argument [election to salvation] is fallacious, however, because the issue is not whether the passage is about salvation but whether the election to which the passage refers is about salvation..."(ibid., emphasis his).

As to Romans 11:5-7, Cottrell distinguishes the "election" in this passage from that in Chapter 9 - this being for the purpose of salvation and the previous for service. Cottrell makes the point "The error here is to equate unconditional and undeserved" (60-61).

Personal Thoughts

1. I recognize some see this study as somewhat tedious. More about that in another post.
2. I've attempted to and will continue to provide "both sides" of the issue as described in Perspectives on Election. From time to time, I will point out what I perceive to be strengths or weaknesses with both sides.
3. I've pointed out above that I think it strange for Dr. Ware to choose his text, make the argument (in this case seeing the salvation of Israel as a nation) and then changing the argument (to a more individual salvation), before returning again to his previous thought of Israel. If Paul is writing with any coherence, wouldn't it make sense for him to continue the previous thought (God's relationship with Israel as a nation)? For those interested, the pizza man has a good post here in regards to Romans 9.
4. Next week: Election in Ephesians 1

Review of McKnight's Blue Parakeet #1

Recently, I was blessed to be able to receive an Advance Reader Copy of Scot Mcknight's the Blue Parakeet. The book hits the shelves in November. Based upon his blog and other books, I was looking forward to receiving this book to review.

McKnight begins by asking how one determines how to read Scripture. He then introduces us to a concept known as a "blue parakeet" - ways in which we read the Bible and attempt to "tame" those various passages. McKnight argues it shouldn't be attempted and can't be done. His foundation for his work is completed in the introduction (Chapters 1 and 2).

Section 1 (Chapters 3-5) then takes the reader into how McKnight teaches the Bible should be read, specifically, as Story. According to McKnight, too many go to the Bible and read snipets of a story, believing them to stand alone. For example, many choose to focus on God's promises or God's blessings, as they read. However, when one reads the Bible in it's entireity, one sees God's Story in 66 books.

I appreciated McKnight's example of wikipedia. After pointing out that wikipedia is a site of ongoing definitions, McKnight perceives the compiling of Scripture in that way. In other words, several authors describing one Story with their individual story. In the Story, McKnight points out 1) Oneness (the way God created); 2) Otherness (the result of the Fall and mankind's pride); and 3) Oneness (restoration of relationships including God, man, self, and others).

A review of sections 2 and 3 will follow next week.

What's With the #s?

Advertising and marketing firms have always used numbers for the purpose of "knowing their target audience". For example, when one goes to the supermarket and makes a purchase, the bar codes on the items are recorded. Although there are various reasons, some include 1) minimizing the work at the time of inventory; and 2) determining who is purchasing what items for the purpose of marketing those items in creative/better ways.

I worked in radio for sometime. Part of the job included calling people at random and determining what radio station they listened to, at what times of the day, for what reason, etc. The radio stations would then compare their findings with that of a national survey company and then provide the #s to those in sells positions. After all, those buying advertising could then determine where, when, and how often to advertise.

One might think the church is immune to some of the #s. However, they would be wrong. Consider the work of George Barna, Christian researcher. Every few months, Barna provides those in ministry with #s, in an attempt to better equip them for their ministries. Ed Stetzer, church growth "guru", also has something to say about Christian research. Although the post is lengthy, you might benefit from reading what Stetzer has to say about Christian research. The link is here.

I've always been a bit skeptical about the validity of #s. In other words, who's doing the survey, what's their motive, and who are they talking to? For example, I could do a survey on the importance of dairy in one's life and use the Dairy Farmers of America to provide my data. Chances are, the farmers would assure me they have "happy cows" and dairy is a necessity in one's diet. Those reading the compiled #s might not question the farmer's integrity or honesty, but would do well to learn why I chose to survey 1000 farmers in Wisconsin.

So what are your thoughts? Should we rely on #s? After all, it's an election year. And I've been told, "The numbers don't lie." Should we do away with surveys altogether? Anyone else a bit skeptical?

Weekend Fodder

Typically, I attempt to provide some chewing material on Fridays. However, I ran across the phrase below on a blog and wanted to get your thoughts. The context is in regards to Christianity and healthcare; more specifically, "How would God want us to deal with healthcare?". The post was written by Neale Donald Walsch. You can find it here.

Now here's the quote. The question is asked (bold type) and then Walsch's response.

What does God will in this question?
God's Will is our will. God wills for us what we will for ourselves. God is not some being separate from us, "willing" something that He cannot make us do, but wishes that He could. God is the Life that is flowing through us. We are God, physicalized. We are the physical manifestation of the Divine. And because we are Divine, we can create life any way that we want it on this earth. We have the collective power to do so. We can solve any problem that we face -- including the problem of health care. It is simply a matter of Will.

Any objections to what Walsch says? Any applause? Other thoughts?

Friday Fodder

Yaaaaaaaaaahooooooooooooooooooo!

Mcknight's The Blue Parakeet came in the mail yesterday. I look forward to reading the book and reviewing it here. Because of the responsibility I feel towards Scot and Zondervan, other books have been pushed aside for a short time. You'll note what I've read this year. I continue to reread A Community Called Atonement and N.T. Wright's Surprised By Hope among others.

On deck, I plan to read Frank Viola's Reimagining Church and Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book. Although I'm unaware of any patterns, you can see what I read and attempt to take in. Any suggestions?