Parchment & Pen Blog

No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.

Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.

Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.

I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.

Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery,  rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.

If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification

If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification

Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation! Continue Reading »

It is hard for me, as a teacher of theology, to consider anything worse than bad doctrine in the church. When people’s views of God become distorted, their lives follow suit. When someone believes  it is always God’s will to heal their sickness, they are going to be left disillusioned and riddled with spiritual pain. When peripheral issues get elevated to the status of essentials (and this is bad doctrine too), the central message of the Gospel gets replaced or lost. I had a lady here at the Credo House the other day who said that God gave her a message. What was the message? That women do not inherit original sin, only men. She went through a long complicated argument. I could tell that this was incredibly important to her. She was insistent, assured, and demanding. She even wrote a book about it and gave it to me. It was the focus of her message! Was this sinful?

I suppose that I want bad doctrine to always be sin. That way, it is easy for me to explain why people don’t agree with me. If we are not on the same page theologically, the answer is simple: they are in sinful rebellion to the truth. Next…

But I am not sure this is always correct. I am pretty sure that bad doctrine is sinful, but I am not sure when it is sinful.

Let us talk about the polar extremes of this issue. It is easy to see that any rejection of Jesus is sinful. Now, one may do this with perfectly good doctrine. One may intellectually believe that Jesus is the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. They may believe in the Trinity, the hypostatic union, justification by faith alone, and the like. But they simply refuse to accept God’s sovereignty over their lives. This is obviously the sin of rebellion. I always think of King Saul when it comes to this type of person. However, there are those who don’t have good doctrine at all. There are polytheists, who believe there are many gods. There are those who believe God is a force, not a person. There are those who do not even believe in God. Is this sin? I believe it is. Ultimately, it is a rejection of God. It is a rejection of the truths God has plainly revealed about himself and his nature – truths which some people choose to turn away from, in favor of lies. In Romans 1 we see this very clearly. Continue Reading »

(Lisa Robinson)

In case you missed it, the internet has been abuzz the past few days over this article posted by Dr. Anthony Bradley. In it, Bradley’s asserts that ‘missional’ has become a means to aggrandize accomplishments for God and shame people who live ordinary existences because they feel they are not living up to being ‘missional’. He states;

I continue to be amazed by the number of youth and young adults who are stressed and burnt out from the regular shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not be doing something unique and special. Today’s millennial generation is being fed the message that if they don’t do something extraordinary in this life they are wasting their gifts and potential. The sad result is that many young adults feel ashamed if they “settle” into ordinary jobs, get married early and start families, live in small towns, or as 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] affairs, and to work with [their] hands.” For too many millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.

Now there is been a fair amount of push back over a lack of qualification of certain statements. But I do agree with the above referenced section. As I wrote here that celebrity Christianity has made the average Joe feel woefully inadequate. Even worse, when you add shame into the equation and tell people they aren’t measuring up unless there doing x, y, z notable accomplishment for the kingdom.

There are other points as well. But central to what I want to write about is Bradley’s premise of 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 (I added vs 12 as it is pertinent to this post), where Paul tells his audience

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you may not be dependent on anyone.

I want to focus on what Paul is telling the Thessalonians because I think it addresses a growing concern of mine. First, on leading a quiet life. The verb ἡσυχάζειν connotes a stillness; inner peace. It is a settled life with what has been given. Now I get that some people have been given responsibility for grander accomplishments. But others can be just as effective leading normal lives, loving God and neighbor, influencing in whatever circles they find themselves. Neither should be exclusively promoted or condemned.

Aside from living a quiet life, what Paul says next is pretty significant, “to mind your own business”. As I scan blogs, Facebook, twitter, sermons, and Christian circles in general, I think there is a unusual pre-occupation with the affairs of others. And by affairs, I mean concern for what others are or are not doing in the body of Christ. We are very quick to cite how others are not measuring up – how their not witnessing enough or giving enough or expending enough time or energy. Deficiencies abound! Continue Reading »

To “convert” someone, as most people use the word, means to get that person to change in some profound way, usually beginning with and centering on the person’s beliefs. Conversions, in this sense, are happening on a regular basis, some good and some not. This is the second part follow-up to my previous post on the subject of how not all conversions are equal. I argued that there are two main reasons for this. First, it makes all the difference what exactly is being embraced by the new “convert.” The actual substance of the message and worldview that will shape the convert’s thoughts and actions may be something true and good. But it may be a terrible deception that brings destruction to that person and others. If you want to read more about this, see the previous post.

The second reason not all conversions are equal has to do with the process by which a convert is won. If the first reason involves the message, the second involves the method. There’s more than one way to get someone to see things from your side.  Consider the tools you might employ to get people to profess what you want them to:  you could frighten, threaten or terrify them; you could brow-beat or manipulate them; you could lure them, bribe them, make them great promises; you could use subtle mind-games or clever tricks known to the best advertisers; if you have the power to do so, you might institute a program of heavy propaganda; you might make use of the potent pressure of peers or forces of pop culture; you could play to their emotions, toy with their feelings, confuse or bewilder them; if you want more assurance of success, maybe you could turn to the most direct empirical methods available – mind control, brain manipulation, the use of drugs.  The fact is that if the result is all that matters to you, and if any means will justify the end you seek, then any number of these methods might get the job done.

I’m sure you’re aware that everything listed in the previous paragraph has in fact been used to get people to think and do what other people wanted them to think and do. And the reason is simple.  It’s easier to use these kinds of tactics than it is to convince people by the legitimate method of making a good case. Advertisers and politicians know this all too well. Today’s world is image-driven, we’re told. Making a good impression is all that matters for a brand or politician. In fact, politicians running for office today are marketed as brands themselves. The goal is a good impression, creating a positive vibe that reverberates across social media and gets people to like the candidate, even if it’s only because his voice sounds authentic or he has caring eyes or some other shallow reason.

Our culture has shown that it can be swayed in record numbers and in a surprisingly short amount of time on major moral issues without thinking all that critically about them. Not long ago I heard an interview with a sociologist on NPR about the change in public opinion on gay marriage.  In an accent that was hard to nail down, he described a research project he had spear-headed among people under 30 that made it pretty clear to the researchers that the majority of those in that age category who have become supporters of that particular cause over the last five years have done so for personal and emotional reasons. People cited personal relationships with gay friends or family members, as well as the influence of likeable gay public figures or fictional gay characters depicted in movies and TV shows. Few of those surveyed, the researchers found, had come to their position because of arguments on behalf of gay marriage. The sociologists was quick to add that this is characteristic of the American public today, in fact. If you want to change people’s minds, the old fashioned approach of giving them a well thought-out list of reasons is probably not the best way to do it.  You’d have much more success with a simple repetition of your message and perspective in the lyrics of the music on their iPods, in the voices of the characters on their favorite shows, and in the social circles populated by their peers.

While it grieves and frustrates me to admit it, I can’t argue against that. More outlandish examples of groups of people being persuaded to believe something bear out this same principle. There’s all the more reason, in fact, to use means other than direct argument if the thing you’re trying to get people to believe seems intuitively problematic and would not fare well under scrutiny. Ask yourself: could the Nazi party have persuaded so many German citizens to go so far down the pathway of the “final solution” using plain arguments in a fair and open forum? Would North Koreans really fall all over themselves worshipping the “Great Leader” if they hadn’t been subjected to a lifetime of isolation, state mind control and fear? Would prosperity televangelists be hailed as ‘anointed’ teachers and have such large followings if they weren’t playing upon the greed and desperation of people looking for a quick miracle fix or a ticket to sudden wealth?

Note that the more striking cases have in common something of the religious element.  There is truth to the well-worn proverbial wisdom about what a powerful tool for manipulation religion can be. If you keep up with world affairs to any extent, you’ve heard about Christians being imprisoned in places like Iran due to accusations that they dared to persuade/convert someone. Pastors like Youcef Nadarkhani and Saeed Abedini (look them up) have been sent to hellish prisons where they receive torture and the repeated pressure to renounce their beliefs and convert to Islam in order to save their skin.  How’s that for a missionary strategy? I’ve often wondered just how truly devoted to Islam the people of [take your choice – Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, etc.] would be if those societies allowed genuine religious freedom.  In other words, if the playing field were leveled in those places such that for a few generations people enjoyed the liberty to discuss, debate, disagree, and attempt to convert by legitimate means, what overall religious landscape would take shape as a result?

Regardless of what Islam (or any other worldview, religious or secular) does, Christians simply cannot allow themselves to revert to illegitimate tactics of persuasion.  All of these prohibited strategies– and I am referring again to anything other than the free profession of a person who has genuinely come to believe – are categorically outside the parameters of missions and evangelism for Christians. There is simply no ground for using any of the alternative methods of persuasion, regardless of how enticing they are due to being easier and getting better ‘results’ (which I put in quotes because I will argue that the ‘results’ are actually not better even if numbers are high).
Continue Reading »

Although I don’t normally use the blog for this, please give me a bit of your time to make a request as Credo House Ministries is in significant need.

Credo House Ministries, as you may already know, does much more than write blogs. . . Ah, heck . . . I am going to skip the spiel. Let me just give you the skinny: We just finished our general local spring fundraiser and have not gotten what we need so I thought I would ask my blog audience. We are running short $12,000. We need these funds ASAP.

If you could help in any way, there are a few things you can do:

• Give a one time gift: http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/donate.asp
• Become a Credo House Member: https://www.reclaimingthemind.org/members/
• Donate monthly: http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/donate.asp

If you believe in what we are doing, please prayerfully consider supporting us. If you have any questions, you can contact me at michael p at reclaimingthemind dot org.

Thanks so much.

Michael Patton

Mr. Patton,

I have been a believer for quite some time – since I was eight. It’s a miracle, however, that I believe at all. I grew up in a Oneness Pentecostal home that was very legalistic and rigid. Since then I have changed a great deal in regard to my beliefs. I very much believe in the Trinity, justification by faith, etc. So you could say I’m pretty much orthodox now. But with all that said, I have been having a bit of trouble with my faith. I’m kind of having a hard time believing in God or praying to him because I just don’t see the point in it anymore because I feel like he doesn’t answer. In fact I feel as if it pointless because he isn’t here – right here, spatially – to speak with me. I dunno I just feel like with all that I have happening in my life a face to face relationship – a person to person conversation – is what I need from him. And I can’t have that. I mean it is as if God is a distant uncle to whom I send letters (prayers), and he sends a postcard. Is it enough to just say that God has spoken through his word so he doesn’t need to speak now? I don’t feel like it. Why couldn’t Jesus have just stayed here, albeit in a ubiquitous form? That way I could talk to him. I know he is the Father’s representative to man and for man so why not stay here where he can be physically accessible?

__________________________________

My friend,

Thanks so much for writing and for your honesty. It might comfort you to know that your thoughts are not uncommon. In theological circles, the problem you speak of is called the “hiddenness of God.”  Why is God so hidden? It is hard to know exactly why, but the fact of his hiddenness is something the Bible speaks to very clearly. In Acts 1 the angels say, “Why do you stare into heaven? . . . He will come back just as you have seen him go.” In other words, you will not “see” him again until he comes back. Christ told his disciples in the upper room before his death that it is “better for you if I go because I will send the Comforter.” I often think “it is NOT better for you to go because I cannot see or hear the Holy Spirit.”

I believe that naked belief (i.e., without empirical experience) is what God calls on us to have right now. We do have to “limp” through this life without having seen God or Jesus, yet believe in him. I don’t have any perfectly sound theological reason why God is not more empirically evident in our lives (though I will give some thoughts below). My more charismatic friends would disagree, as you probably know. However, I have called and called to God to show himself to me. In my darkest times (and against my better theological judgement), I have groped for a sign of his presence, love, even his very existence! Angels, Jesus, a sound, or some type of miracle would be sufficient. I remember two years ago when I was going through my depression. I stayed up all night crying, sitting in my car in the garage yelling at God, asking him to just do something – anything! The silence at that time was deafening. It was painful. It hurt my feelings at a very deep level that the all-powerful God would not perform the simplest of tasks. I thought, “God, if you are so great and love me so much why are you so silent? Why now? Why when I am this depressed? Just do something!” Continue Reading »

Most people hate arguments. I do. Though she may think otherwise, I especially hate arguments with Kristie, my wife. “I got into an argument today . . .” is usually not the first line of a happy story. But I am going to urge you to argue with God. No, I don’t mean an antagonistic venture where the emotions are fierce and the tension is high. What I mean is that I want you to present your case to God about things. Actually, it is God who wants you to make this case. An argument here means that you are coming to God, expressing your desire, and explaining why you think he should respond according to your desires.

I often encourage people to argue with God. I don’t think many of us do it enough. Of course, when we think “argument,” we think of uncomfortable conversations that usually don’t go anywhere, because we are too emotionally invested to see things clearly. We think in terms of those encounters that create tension and drive wedges between the people involved. This is not the type of argument I am talking about here, though some of these elements are definitely present.

Whatever arguments bring about, at least they cause people to think more deeply about the subject about which they are arguing. We should not ever get into arguments casually. Right now, my wife is arguing that I should get her a new car. This is not a fun argument for me. I finally got her Expedition paid off; I was so excited to not have to worry about making payments on it anymore. When she approached me with talk of a new car, I wanted to hear reasoning that went beyond, “Your sister just got a new car and it is so pretty,” or “I am just sick of my old car.” Since this post is not about whether or not to get my wife a new car, let’s just say her reasoning was not too bad, especially when she tossed in the coup de grace, “You just got a new car.” The point is that arguments get us more fully engaged in the subject beyond the casual mindlessness of blindly groping for what we want.

I think God wants us to argue with him in this way. He is not looking for rebellious “know-it-alls” who think they know more than him. He is not looking for someone to correct his thinking on any subject. He is looking for people who are so engaged in prayer and conversation with him that they can actually make a good sustainable argument for their requests. Continue Reading »

There was a funny scene in an otherwise forgettable movie (and that’s not so much a criticism as a confession that I actually can’t remember what it was) in which a couple of average white Americans pretending to be renowned Japanese scientists – complete with Japanese name tags –  introduced themselves to someone who asked them the obvious question: “Aren’t you guys supposed to be Japanese?” Their immediate response was, “We converted.”

The idea of people “converting” is seen by most today as either comical in this sense (remember also the Seinfeld episode where a comedian converted to Judaism just so he could do Jew-related material?) or it is seen as distasteful.  References to conversion, unless by genuinely religious followers, are either lighthearted in nature or negative and coming from a secular or left-leaning point of view. Critics suggest that attempts to “convert” people are somehow oppressive, and cynics maintain suspicion about people’s professed conversions. Today a prison inmate who has a religious conversion is as likely be scoffed at as he is applauded for his professed change of heart.

And whether you play the scoffer or the encourager may have a lot to do with where you stand. People tend to believe and appreciate conversions TO their way of thinking, while looking distastefully down their noses at conversions AWAY from their way of thinking. If you want to be a media darling today, then convert away from your conservative religious upbringing for some professed reason having to do with how your thinking ‘evolved’. But don’t go the other direction. When the late Oxford philosopher Antony Flew, after spending his illustrious scholarly career as a leading voice for academic atheism, changed his mind and decided that God most likely exists, the response from his former camp, according to Roy Varghese in the preface to Flew’s final book, “verged on hysteria. … Inane insults and juvenile caricatures were common in the freethinking blogosphere.”

Christians have always seen conversion as more than just a change of mind, more than the acceptance of a few key beliefs and a switching of allegiances, more even than the moral alteration that causes someone to behave differently. It involves all of this but more still. Because Christians believe that God is involved (to summarize the theology of conversion in the barest of terms), there is a decidedly supernatural element.  Nevertheless conversion for Christians certainly includes a profession of belief that is specified such that it affirms some things to the exclusion of others. In the case of Flew, his was not a Christian conversion but a conversion in the looser sense of the term as people often use it; he changed positions on a very key issue that has far-reaching implications.

If we zero in on this important and obvious component of what conversion means, something will likely become obvious to us the more we think about it – namely that changing one’s mind, or professing x to be true (and, whether overtly or by logical implication, not x to be untrue), is a regular experience of life hardly unique one specific group of people. In fact it is completely non-controversial. Doesn’t everyone believe and profess certain things to be true? Hasn’t everyone at different times in life rejected beliefs or accepted beliefs, changed his or her thinking from belief that x is true to the belief that x is not true?
Continue Reading »