These things

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things (Phil 4:8).

What Calvinists don't want you to know

Many people labor under assumptions that are simply incorrect when it comes to identifying alleged distinctives of Calvinist theology. I wish I could say that this were true only for the younger Calvinists, but even many Calvinist scholars falsely identify concepts that they believe to be uniquely Calvinistic. Well, allow me to educate you:

1) You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in divine sovereignty. That is, unless one mistakenly equates sovereignty with determinism, a philosophical construct that one must superimpose upon the biblical text. Arminians believe very strongly in sovereignty; we believe that God reigns, that He is in control, and that absolutely nothing can come to pass without God's permissive or directive will. But what sovereign has ever ruled by micromanaging his kingdom? In fact, sovereignty loses its incredible majesty if it is reduced to God's causal determination of all things, a notion that I discuss here. The Calvinist interpretation of sovereignty annihilates genuine human freedom and thereby makes God the author of sin, thus Arminians refuse to accept such an idiosyncratic, and ultimately unbiblical, understanding of sovereignty. God can be sovereign without determining all things. Novel, isn't it?

2) You don't have to be a Calvinist to be serious about Scripture, theology and doctrine (including predestination, total depravity, grace, sovereignty, and election). Many young people today are becoming Calvinists because there is simply no other option for those who want to treat the Bible seriously and systematically as the ultimate norm of our lives. When they have to choose between the Calvinist system or no system, naturally they elect the former. But did you know that Arminians also believe in predestination, total depravity, the necessity of grace for salvation to be even possible, God's sovereignty, and election? Arminians may not buy what we consider to be the unbiblical Calvinistic interpretations of these biblical concepts, but nevertheless we realize that the Scriptures clearly teach these doctrines, and thus we affirm them and their biblical import. There are many Arminians throughout history that have been serious about the Bible, theology, and doctrine. Pick up some John Wesley, John Fletcher, Jacob Arminius, or for that matter any early church father before Augustine (they were all basically non-Calvinist). One need not be a Calvinist to treat these matters as utterly vital.

3) You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that salvation is wholly by grace, nor, more particularly, to believe that justification is by grace through faith alone. The best Arminian theology out there from Arminius to John Wesley affirms that justification is by grace through faith alone. We repudiate all self-salvation, all Pelagianism, all semi-Pelagianism, all works-righteousness, and all man-centered approaches to salvation. All we bring to the table as sinners is faith, and even that faith is impossible without prevenient grace. We are not justified on the basis of the merit of works whatsoever. Arminian doctrines are Doctrines of Grace from the beginning of salvation to the end. Through faith God works in and through us to love God and our neighbors. It's all of God; we simply open our hands in faith to receive and respond, and even that opening of faith requires grace to occur.

4) You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe man is utterly depraved. Theologically and Biblically astute Arminians like John Wesley affirm the bleak and pride-destroying biblical teaching of utter, total depravity. The Fall was total, and without grace we would not even be able to make any steps toward God for salvation at all. If God left mankind to itself after the Fall, it would have simply sunk further and further away from God and further and further into depravity with no hope of redemption whatsoever. The message of the cross is a message of human inability to make any steps toward salvation without ongoing dependence upon the grace of God from the beginning of salvation all the way to and through eternity. Wesley went so far as to imply that the only way holiness could ever belong to His human creatures is if it were communicated continually by grace, which means that grace was needed even before the Fall in Wesleyan thought! Without grace, mankind would be a mass of sin, so God must hold us up from drowning if we are even to exercise faith at all, never mind the wonderful work of grace God does in us through the Holy Spirit when we do place our faith in Christ.

5) You don't have to be a Calvinist to be zealous about God's glory and His rightful place at the center of our theology. Arminians believe that God is the center of our theology. We desire to do all things for the glory of God, which means we want to reflect Him in our lives and do actions that redound to His glory every day. We believe the best way to do this is to act like Him and make His desires ours, which is what Scripture commands us to do - and the Bible makes it clear that God loves the world and desires all to be saved. We are zealous that God's glory be displayed because only by showing forth God's resplendent glory will people be drawn to God and be saved! God's glory and character are the basis for everything; they are the grounds of worship, salvation, creation, the whole package. Because God's character is so worthy to be glorified, we feel compelled in our hearts to glorify and worship God! Only by being God-centered can we be happy, and only by being God-centered can we love God and the world as God commands. We are not being God-centered if we construct a man-made theology that is at odds with God's own desires and goals as revealed in Scripture. For this reason, we believe Calvinist theology is man-centered whereas Arminian theology is God-centered.

Calvinists do not own these concepts; far from it. They have far more glorious counterparts in Arminian theology. Now allow me to turn the tables and provide my readers with five things one must be an Arminian to believe, concepts that truly are distinctives to Arminian theology. My contention is that even if Calvinists believe in these points (which most Calvinists undoubtedly do), they have absolutely no theological justification for doing so whatsoever. So why don't you just ruminate whilst I illuminate the possibilities:

1) You must be an Arminian to believe the central biblical teaching that God is perfectly loving, holy, and just. There is no way around this; Calvinism destroys all of the biblical attributes of God. It makes Him less than perfectly loving, for He unconditionally damns much (most?) of mankind by determining them to sin and then refusing to give them the grace they need to be eternally saved. It makes Him less than perfectly holy, for He causally determines sin and perpetuates it for all eternity when on deterministic premises, He could determine all people to love Him and each other eternally with no sin at all. It makes Him less than perfectly just, for in Calvinism God condemns people for doing that which is literally impossible for them not to do. Despite hundreds of years of Calvinist apologetics to the contrary, these charges have never and will never be overturned. They are intractable, and one must be an Arminian to affirm the clear biblical teaching on these points.

2) You must be an Arminian to believe the biblical teaching that man is truly responsible for his own sin. Man cannot be responsible for sin that God causally determines, notwithstanding desperate attempts to redefine freedom out of meaningful existence by compatibilists. It's as simple as that. Unless it is due solely to man's choice, a choice that he has the power to avoid, God is the author of sin and man is not truly responsible for it. Any argument against the necessity of libertarian free will would contain premises that are less certain than the simple intuitive and biblical (1 Cor 10:13) fact that agents must be able to do avoid an action to be held responsible for it.

3) You must be an Arminian to believe in genuine foreknowledge of God. In Calvinism, God "foreknows" only what He plans to ordain and cause in the future. How is this foreknowledge? Calvinism effectively annihilates any meaningful or theologically significant account of foreknowledge. Arminianism has several kinds of genuine foreknowledge of future free choices, from simple foreknowledge, to eternalism, to middle knowledge.

4) You must be an Arminian to believe in assurance of salvation. This may be shocking to many Calvinists out there who believe assurance is a hallmark of Reformed theology due to its doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, but Calvinism offers no real basis for assurance of salvation. Calvinism has traditionally maintained that many people are victims of the "false hope" in which God temporally enlightens some people to have the fruit of salvation, only to draw away His temporary grace and damn the person ultimately. True, you could have the fruit of election now, but one must not confuse regeneration (or alleged regeneration) with election. If you are a Calvinist, how can you possibly know for sure that God loves you and will give you the grace you need to persevere? The only way to know that is to know you are elect, and that lies in the secret and unrevealed counsel of God. If you fall into sin or begin to doubt or get depressed, there is no support for you whatsoever. God may just be dangling salvation in front of you for a time only to withdraw it later for His "glory." Only if God's love is universal and His ways not capricious can we have assurance. In other words, only Arminianism can sustain the practical Christian life.

5) You must be an Arminian to live both consistently and happily within your theological worldview. Most Calvinists are wildly inconsistent in the outworking of their theology. Many slip over into Arminian terminology when talking about sin, hell, and unbelief. It's not uncommon to hear Calvinists use uniquely Arminian concepts that have no logical place in their system whatsoever, such as "permission" and even libertarian free will when they are backed into a theological corner. Consistent Calvinism must maintain that God is by all clear perceptions unloving, unholy, and unjust. It is utterly impossible to live both consistently and happily as a Calvinist. A Calvinist will either slip into inconsistency, or he will be profoundly miserable and unable to sustain a healthy and successful relationship with God. It is impossible to worship that which is unworthy of worship or to have any joy within such a worldview (and the Bible indicates that we are to worship gladly and joyfully - perhaps because the Christian message is actually good news?). The Calvinist can bite the bullet here and simply say that he serves God even though God appears horrible and evil to him, but frankly that is just a little short of insane. What possible motivation could there be for this, and why should anyone be obligated to love, worship, and serve a God who doesn't even come close to deserving it? Is this perhaps a subtle form of works-righteousness, a way to "achieve grace" by boasting in how self-sacrificial you are being in terms of your own happiness? Just a possibility.

Calvinism has far fewer theological copyrights than Calvinists would have you believe. Don't be fooled.

Hug a pillow

Okay, time for a long break from the polemics! =)

Ever just want to hug a pillow? It intrigues me how often I see people make light of serious emotional issues or topic areas that would display some vulnerability if one divulged how they felt. For some reason, we recoil at the idea of others knowing that we are needy. But we are needy; all of us. We long for so much, and we find ourselves insufficient for our own deep happiness and fulfillment. We desperately desire to love and be loved, a love that is perfect, a love that lasts forever. In our quiet moments we feel like something is missing. In our sad moments, we find ourselves grasping for the hand of another person or perhaps the hand of God.

But admitting our need is not easy. It means that we have to swallow our pride and humble ourselves. It means we have to be willing to let other people into our lives to take care of us, or perhaps let God in to heal us. The sinful self says, "I don't need God, I can do it on my own." This is the resistance that God must wear down before we finally open our hands to receive His grace. I think that deep down, we all know that we need to be loved and we want to be loved eternally. The question is whether or not we are responding to God's tender and gracious invitations for a relationship with us throughout our lives.

This resistance is still within me in small ways and manifests itself in ever-so-subtle attitudes of self-will, pride, and other unholy tempers and desires. But that old resistance is fading away, and more and more do I find myself just throwing myself before God and confessing my utter need and weakness. God's strength is made perfect in weakness because only in weakness are we ready to receive it.

So hug a pillow. That's only a type of the eternal union for which you were made.

Calvin's Theological Invention

Did you know that TULIP Calvinism was not in existence until John Calvin came on the scene in the 16th century? That's right, full-blown, 5-point Calvinism has absolutely no history in Christian theology until that time. Those who like to go to Augustine for an earlier date will be sorely disappointed, for while the later Augustine did affirm unconditional election and irresistible grace in response to the Pelagian controversy, he did not believe every believer who is truly regenerate would infallibly persevere! He taught that the gift of infallible perseverance was only given to some of the elect. Check the primary sources; thems the facts, and facts are stubborn things.

Now of course, this does not necessarily mean Calvinism is false. However, one wonders how men filled with the Holy Spirit interpreting God's revelation in Scripture could utterly miss such an important truth for 1500 years.

Is it perhaps because TULIP Calvinism is a theological invention not to be found on the pages of Scripture? One wonders...

What I think of myself

Here are some characteristics I see in myself:

passionate
intense
opinionated
nervous
self-conscious
anxious
nervous
insecure
emotional
sensitive
pensive
particular
hopeful
despairing
shy
bold
persistent
quirky
silly
serious
adamant
scrupulous
reserved
intuitive
analytical

Some of these characteristics are contradictory, but different circumstances prompt different sides of my character. Some of these qualities, or at least the degree to which I have them, I would like to change. But others are just part of who I am, and I'm not sure I should feel ashamed for any of them, both the more inordinate qualities and the more temperate ones. We are the sum of our past experiences, choices, and run-ins with God's grace. Some qualities will always be part of us, whether or not we were born with them or acquired them (or a little of both); other things will slowly fade out of existence as God reveals to us the need for them to go and provides for it over time. There are undoubtedly some "bent" aspects that need ironing out, but this should be done in response to God's leading, not the opinions of others.

Any that I missed or that I'm blind to?

Broken for brokenness

This weekend I flew home to go to the funeral of my grandmother on my father's side. I wasn't very close to her, so her passing wasn't particularly difficult for me personally. Yet I still found myself filled with tears to shed. Why?

First, death is ugly. Sitting in front of my grandmother's casket was the first thing to elicit tears. There's a reason that Jesus wept when He heard of Lazarus' death. The Scripture says that He was deeply moved twice, both for Lazarus' mourning family and Lazarus himself (John 11). Death is horrible, it's sad, it's wrenching. It shouldn't be. Death is an intrusion on God's good world of abundant life. Death is an enemy, the last enemy to be conquered by Jesus (1 Cor 15:54-57).

Then, I find myself crying profusely for my father. In many ways, he has had a hard life. He didn't seem to have warm and loving relationships with his parents or with his family as I did. I love my father; he has been so good to me in my life. To see him sad is utterly heartbreaking for me. He had to work hard in his life in order to provide for me and my family, and he always did.
Simply seeing him suffering was enough for me to lose it, something that I never used to feel with such intensity. I've always been a sensitive person, someone who easily yields to tugs on the heart strings. But now, something is different. Something hurts me more. Why?

Finally, I wept for a long time because of the brokenness I saw in my family, brokenness that I didn't notice as a child when everything seemed so simple and pure. Seeing this brokenness in contradistinction to God's immense love, compassion, and goodness just broke me to pieces. I just thought, "Why, oh Lord? Why can't they see what they are doing to themselves? Why won't they receive your healing and transformative love? I love them so much, you love them so much, it's just too much for my heart to bear. The suffering that is the result of a world separated from You is just so awful, even when those who are in rebellion to you suffer." It's a feeling that is impossible to describe, a feeling of immense sadness, protest, and brokenness.

I was asked to speak during the service by my father, and this is what I said:

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words" (1 Thess 4:13-18).

The Resurrection of Jesus is not some dusty piece of ancient dogma that has no relevance for our lives today. It's the only hope that mankind has for life beyond the grave. For those who know Christ, as St Paul says, "death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15:54). Those who place their faith in Christ and die with Him in repentance will also rise with Him unto new life through the power of His death and resurrection. This invitation God extends to all people, an invitation that we believe _______ opened her hands to receive. Nothing less than the miraculous inbreaking of God through Jesus Christ will suffice for the healing of a world so desperately broken as our own. For those who have tasted the power of Christ's Resurrection, death is but a door to eternal life.

I did not know what the state of my grandmother's heart was, but I do know that Jesus is our only hope. The two minutes that it took for me to read this was probably the longest span of time I was dry the entire time. I even cried a few times while writing this blog post. Why does my heart break so desperately? Why are you laying this upon my heart, God?

Taking a break

I'm going to take a break from blogging for a while because of some things I need to accomplish before the semester begins. But I was wondering if all of my avid readers could sign my blog so I know what kind of readership I have (both friend and foe!) =) . Let's hope I don't get "0 comments" on this one!

Yours in Christ,

Kyle

An even simpler challenge to Calvinists everywhere

I challenge any Calvinist anywhere to show that the following two statements are not contradictions:

1) God is good (Psalm 34:8, Psalm 25:8, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 145:9, 1 Peter 2:3, Mark 10:18, and more - this is a central Biblical teaching)

2) Calvinism is true

This simple challenge has eluded Calvinists for centuries. Good luck.

"God is not obligated to love anybody"

...so says the Calvinist every time you point out that their view makes God into an utter moral monster by refusing to give many (most?) people precisely those graces they need to be saved. In other words, it is literally impossible for these people to be saved. "But they could be saved if they wanted to, and they simply don't want to!" But they cannot want to, so stand up loud and proud all you Calvinists out there and preach the good news: From eternity past, God has chosen some people to damn unconditionally for His good pleasure, people that literally have no possibility of redemption from the state they were born into. But this is supposed to be "okay" because "God is not obligated to love anybody" anyways, so if He happens to save some, so the argument goes, that's out of His grace, a grace that He can dispense as He well pleases. He does you no injustice if He refrains from giving it to you.

Well first of all, I question this assumption. Granted, perhaps technically God's not "obligated" to do anything, since obligation implies duty, and duty implies being responsible to a Law giver - and God is Himself the Law Giver. God's not obligated in this sense even to give us justice, since justice itself (as well as love, holiness, and so forth) flows out of His own perfectly good nature. But when most Calvinist say this phrase, they tend to mean something like "God is obligated to give justice, but grace is given freely." In other words, He must give justice, but He need not give grace. He does you no wrong or injustice by giving you no grace. Well this understanding is quite mistaken in its simplistic understanding of justice and grace. Why? Well first of all, it is impossible to avoid sin without grace of some kind (1 Cor 10:13, which also clearly teaches libertarian freedom, by the way). Were God to give you no empowerment, sin would be literally unavoidable for you, and to damn you for doing that which is unavoidable is not only ungracious, but unjust as well. Grace is not just juridical (unmerited favor in the sense of forgiveness and gifts), it is also enabling (empowering), as most Christian theologians recognize.

Second, I think God is obligated to take care of his creation if He is to be a good God, just as a father is obligated to care for his child if He wants to merit the title "good." Imagine a father who begets a child and then drops it off a cliff. He then blames gravity for the fall and claims passionately that he was not obligated to love his child. One might think the analogy is inapt because the child is not a guilty sinner, but actually it lines up quite nicely with what we have already said: without grace, sinning is as necessary and causally determined as gravity. It is literally unavoidable, and Calvinists usually affirm this. What would we think of such a father? We would call him not only unloving, but also unjust. God has a responsibility to His creation, and He must exercise His sovereignty in a benevolent way if He is to merit being called benevolent. In the Bible, God often calls us to examine His character and worship-worthiness in light of other, non-worthy gods. I call all Calvinists to do the same with the dark picture of God that their theology lamentably paints.

If you are going to claim that God is perfectly good although He unconditionally damns much (most?) of mankind, you have to show us how unconditional damnation is compatible with the love (and the justice) of God. A perfectly loving, good, just, and holy God must act in accordance with love, goodness, justice, and holiness, or else He has no claim to such great making properties. This touches back to a former post (see: "A Challenge to Calvinists Everywhere"). God cannot give "love" to some and "justice" to others; such talk is nonsense. If He is truly and perfectly loving in His nature, He would be necessarily loving to all persons. If you dispute this, be my guest to prove otherwise.

Oh but I suppose God needs to damn some people unconditionally in order to "glorify" His "justice," right (by the way, it doesn't glorify His justice if it's not actually just)? I suppose the cross wasn't enough to vindicate God's holiness and justice against sin. This line of thought is as abominable as it is unbiblical. Why won't the Calvinists just preach the truth about their view, namely, that God delights in the death of the wicked, since He makes it absolutely impossible for so many wicked to be saved? He must be pleased by it, for He could have elected them to salvation. We should be pleased by it too then. No, I'd rather be more loving and more moral than the Calvinistic perversion of god. I'd rather share the heart of God Himself as revealed in Jesus Christ.

But most importantly, it is irrelevant whether or not God is "obligated" to love us in any sense. It is frankly beside the point. The issue is not what God is "obligated" to do; rather the issue is what He actually does and what such actions say about His character. Does God owe us love? Of course not! (What does it even mean to "owe" someone love? Is that even possible?) Love is not some wage or some earning, it is simply who God is. God loves all people because He is a God of perfect love, and consequently He naturally desires to promote the happiness of all of His creatures. Only that God is biblical, and only that God is worthy of worship. Does He only love His friends (the elect)? Then He is no better than the tax collectors and the sinners, according to Jesus Himself. This oft given answer is no answer at all. God is still a monster in your system. Sorry Calvinists.

God does not make the provision of salvation for all because He "owes" us salvation or grace. No Arminian has ever made such a claim. Strictly speaking, God owes us nothing. Rather, God gives us all grace because He is a gracious God.

When God kills

When unbelievers (and some Christians) read the Bible, they are often struck by some of the violence of the Old Testament done by God's command (although they often pass over acts of judgment on God's part in the New Testament) - "How can God commit such atrocities as the genocides in the Old Testament?! I thought the Christian God was loving and good?" And indeed, these stories do shock us, jar against our surface moral intuitions, and make us scratch our heads. Why would God command such things? Why would He rain down fire and brimstone? Why would He command the Israelites to raze Canaan to the ground, women, children and all? Why would He strike Ananias and Sapphira dead simply for lying? What's going on here?

I don't plan to deal with every single problematic story in the Bible, but I do want to offer a few thoughts. First of all, God is holy. Holiness is a dangerous thing - like a gigantic generator with loose wires, and sinful human beings are like grounded metal drenched in water. Get too close and you will get zapped. Holiness is utter ethical purity. In His holiness, God completely hates sin. And what else should a loving God do? Should not a God who is truly loving absolutely hate that which destroys the wellbeing of His creatures? A loving God must be holy, for the loving thing to do is to hate sin and desire it to be destroyed. God is not some fuzzy bunny that indulges His creatures' destructive and evil behavior just so they can "have a good time." God is a consuming fire, and His love is anything but sentimental. It is serious, it is cruciform, it is holy. He sees through our delusions and knows our sinful deeds for what they are: putrid, filthy, and evil.

This fact alone explains much of God's behavior in the Bible. For instance, the Canaanites were a ferociously wicked people by the time God judged them (not to mention the fact that He stayed His judgment 400 years as His own people languished in the slavery of Egypt - as well as the fact that God's own people also bore His judgment when they fell into Paganism as well!). God never judges a nation until its cup of iniquity is full, or until they are past the point of no return. When they are ripe for judgment, judgment comes swiftly and painfully. Moreover, as unfortunate as it is, we need such concrete reminders and object lesson from God to keep God's holiness squarely in focus. Be holy, for I am holy. God's actions may shock us, but maybe they're supposed to shock us sometimes?

To those unbelievers who balk at God commanding war: are you saying that there are no justifying circumstances for war at any time? That war is never necessary for the sake of a greater good in a broken world such as our own? I think it's clear that sometimes war is a necessary evil. And in a world in which God designs us to be in relationship with others so we may bless them, unfortunately innocents sometimes have to pay in temporal ways for our sins when we forfeit that duty. How else could we perceive the gravity of our sin if it had no consequences? These are very difficult issues no doubt, and I don't pretend to take the edge off of them completely (nor should the edge be entirely taken off). But to say that God could have no justifying reason for commanding war or taking lives directly is extremely implausible. If one were to take the time to examine all of these cases, one would see that God remains just, good, holy, and loving in all of them.

I should hasten to add that God's commandments are relational, and these stories are not meant to be morality plays. They are God's dealing with a wicked human race in the best way He can as He accommodates to their level of understanding. Perhaps if we weren't so dense, God wouldn't have to be so drastic. What God has to do is often far less than ideal, but that is a function of human wickedness rather than a lack of goodness in God. The clearest revelation of who God is in Jesus (see Heb 1), who exegetes the Father Himself. Everything in the Bible must be interpreted through the perfect revelation in Jesus. But even Jesus warned people of the damnation of Hell and flipped over tables. Holiness is radical. It's untamed. It shakes things up! But the Bible needs to be read in its total context; we cannot just pluck out problematic passages and then decry the morality we find there. The Bible is not a list of ethical precepts, but rather an account of God dealing and relating to a fallen world. Would we want someone to pluck out a small part of what we say that unfavorably skews our overall character if not put in context? Clearly not.

There is a certain fear we should have of God. He is Almighty God, perfectly holy. To be sinful and in His presence is a dangerous thing indeed, a thing that may in the end result in destruction. True love requires holiness. True love must be serious enough to take sin seriously and judge it when it is irrevocable. God delights in mercy, and He relents judgment. He would rather people come to repentance, but if they refuse, judgment will be forthcoming. And it should be forthcoming. God is not wanton in His ways; He is not arbitrary. He does not judge because He delights in seeing people perish; He judges because that's what a just God must do. He must remove the person from those who love God, and He must give them what they deserve.

Aslan is not a tame lion, but He is good. We are dealing with a wild animal, and you can't domesticate God. God is holiness and love, and that holiness often rightly evokes fear in us. It is precisely because God is so loving that He must judge sinners. The atheologian who claims that a good God could never have commanded or done such things shoulders a pretty big burden of proof. It seems to me that a good God could and should do such things, for only a God who takes sin seriously is a truly loving and trustworthy God. I wouldn't want it any other way. Such a thought may initially strike you as crazy or even immoral, but look deeper. Reflect upon evil. Should not God hate it? Should not He make it clear to the world that it is wrong in whatever way possible? Do you not hate it? And is that not a reflection of the moral nature of God in us all?

When God kills, there are always good reasons. Rest assured that He is good, even if He is not entirely safe.

Painful love

I think it's something of a holy mystery how God's love is, well, painful. It hurts. It hurts when it calls us to legal repentance for actual sin, and it hurts when it peels away each layer of brokenness in our lives through evangelical repentance for inbred sin. In communion, I find myself reflecting upon two things: the beauty of God's love and the Christian story, and the pervasiveness of human rebellion and wreckage. I feel joy on the one hand, yet mourning on the other. I rejoice in the presence of God, but I am also broken because of the needs of myself and the world.

I often respond to the Holy Spirit with tears. I can't explain why; I simply do. I feel overwhelmingly grateful, but also incredibly broken. How this is possible I don't know, but I feel such complex emotions when God is near. It hurts, but it's actually a therapeutic kind of pain. Maybe a rough analogy would be the experience of going to a massage therapist. There is cracking, twisting, and kneading, but after each wave of pain comes relief and release. God's love hurts, but the believer seems to perceive intuitively that this pain is necessary in order for healing and redemption to be complete. We must be reminded of our weakness and our need so we continue to seek to be filled with the gifts of God's grace rather than the empty things of the world.

We need to know of our need. We also need to know of the needs of others. The cross is how we are reminded of both, and the cross is how we are changed from glory to glory into the very likeness of the divine nature. When I find myself with tears in my eyes because of a special movement of the Spirit, I often try to hide it, perhaps due to my own pride in not wanting others to know of my weakness. As people walked back up to their seats from taking communion, many people saw me crying - I know because I am self-conscious, a negative trait that prompts me to look for such things. Yet even though I tried to hide it for a time today, eventually I simply embraced it. I closed my eyes and just focused upon God, knowing that He was healing me and that it was His will for me to be "okay" with expressing my great weakness before others. I am finding that as I grow closer to Christ, I become more aware of my utter need for His presence each moment. But weakness is where we need to be. Weakness is where God can reach us as we kneel down and open our hands to receive the God of holy love by faith. This is the posture we were made for; it's the only place where we can be truly and eternally happy.

We have to embrace this pain if we want to know God's love forever. Close your eyes and let it crash over you. God's love hurts because it's true love, and true love is a refining fire.

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." -- 2 Corinthians 12:7-10