What produces change?

What produces change?

Well, from a Christian perspective, a number of things come to mind. For instance . . .

God can change us.

Exposure to the truth can change us.

Contact with solid, wholesome people can change us.

An awareness of the consequences of improper behavior can change us.

Understanding the benefits of right thinking and living can change us.

The consideration of eternity can change us.

A cognizance of how our poor choices affect others can change us.

Hard times can change us.

Good times can change us.

Bathing our minds in the beauty of God's world can change us.

An attraction to God-designed ways and purposes can change us.

A sense of purpose can change us.

An awestruck awareness of the wonder of it all can change us.

Love can change us.

Hope can change us.

Faith can change us.

Contact with “the holy other” (as, I believe Rudolph Otto, described it) can change us.

Reading can change us.

Talking can change us.

Listening can change us.

Spending time with children can change us.

Playing sports can change us.

Watching a movie can change us.

Being a part of a valid cause can change us.

Thinking can change us.

Symbols can change us.

An awareness of history can change us.

Sacrifice can change us.

Appreciating good things can change us.

(To that end) a good steak or an ice cream cone can change us. :-)

Music can change us.

These and many, many other things can change us (hopefully) for the better. “Lord, be merciful and gracious . . . and change us.”

Postmodernism and Beyond: A Forward-Looking Apologetic

The world around us is changing rapidly, and the church is, as usual, unsure of which way to go. Should we resist the prevalent postmodern tendencies of our day? Should we embrace them? Furthermore, how as believers ought we go about attracting people to the good news? Or, to put it another way, what should an apologetic look like today?

It seems to me–for what it’s worth–that we tend to go to extremes when it comes to almost everything. Thus, some believers are committed to what might be termed a modern scheme, an apologetic of logic. Lay out the facts, plug in the evidence, weigh the options, and–all things being considered–faith is likely to occur. The weaknesses of this approaches are numerous, and I will only mention a few. For one, the plain fact is that many people today are not logic-driven. This doesn't mean they are necessarily illogical but rather not guided primarily by those impulses. Second, the tendency among those who provide “answers” is to come across in a manner that appears (though not necessarily is) arrogant. After all, if we spend a lot of our time elucidating what we (think we) know, we will eventually come across as if just about all answers are available. Real life, I would argue, demonstrates how fallacious such a view can be. Third, a modern apologetic often seems, shall we say, impersonal in focus. Some apologists expend so much energy trying to organize facts that the object of those facts (i.e., God) is sometimes left out of the picture. While some of these remarks are surely generalizations, I think they are true enough to warrant a careful reconsideration of the modern apologetic program.

Next, there are those who might be termed postmodern apologists. These are individuals who recognize the weaknesses just mentioned (and there are others) and who, therefore, desire to go beyond the modern agenda to a postmodern-sensitive apologetic. Among many features, a postmodern apologetic would include a humbler approach to knowledge, evidence, and just about everything else, combined with a concomitant emphasis on the mystery of faith (and many facets of life in general). Likewise, a postmodern apologetic recognizes the community-oriented heartbeat of human beings, highlighting the relational, seeking avenues of connection with others and with God himself. One of the great challenges (and potential blessings) for postmodern apologists is to locate ways to facilitate these experiences. Another potentially helpful avenue would be an image-oriented application of the truth. Leonard Sweet writes about this fact in general; it is up to apologists to think of creative ways to utilize the visual element in a way that prompts faith without promoting idolatry. All this being said–and there's much more that might be added–what elements might a contemporary and forward-leaning apologetic consist?

A Philosophy of History and Culture

One thing I would argue for is that we need to become much more cognizant of our situatedness, our place in history. We are not simply objective observers in an easy-to-interpret universe. This fact ought to produce humility in us, and it is often mentioned in that context. But I think there is more to our historical locatedness that the recognition that we don’t have all the answers. We must also realize that the God of the Bible, if he is indeed the true God, has been, is, and always will be active in human affairs. This means that it is likely that God does somewhat different things throughout time. A quick survey of Scripture supports this claim, for the unchangeable God (unchangeable so far as his nature and character) often does change in the ways he interacts with his creatures. I have often wondered how differently we would approach theology, philosophy, apologetics, and life if we were able to grasp the reality that God seems to highlight distinct truths at different phases of history. Can’t we learn the lessons of the past, the good and the bad of what preceded us? For instance might we figure out how to resist (and even oppose) the harmful apologetic tendencies without rejecting the good ones? Likewise, is it not possible to notice positive new trends without being dupes of every politically correct agenda? Furthermore, can we not look to the future in informed and creative ways, allowing history to assist us in the task of apologetics? We need a kind of proper attitude toward or a philosophy of history, which is ultimately God’s story. By God’s grace and with his guidance, we must remain aware of the past, alert to the present, and open to what is yet come.

A Balanced (or Both/And) Approach

In keeping with the previous point, I think it is helpful to integrate as many positive features as we can. To the degree that we learn the lessons of history and appreciate the best features of the various “schools” of apologetics, it is feasible to take an integrative approach. This being said, here are a few suggestions as to the apologetic direction we might take.

A Cognitive-Existential Apologetic

Postmoderns emphasize the experiential. This is why we must seeks ways of encouraging this connection between human beings and the ultimate being, God. At the end of the day, people must encounter him. That being said, some postmoderns fail to recognize the need for cognitive content. Our apologetic, therefore, while encouraging an experience with God should also seek to delineate what sort of God he is. One fear of mine is that postmoderns will go so far in their efforts to share more than abstract, theoretical knowledge that they neglect the fact that some postmoderns still demand reasonable answers to their questions. As we move into postmodern terrain, I think that the overly “touchy feely” approach will be seen an over-reaction to modern abuses. To avoid this, I think we should fully embrace the postmodern turn but not with a naivete that would think that we are the only legitimate apologetic practitioners. Somehow, we must combine the cognitive or intellectual with the experiential.

Framework Apologetics

By this I mean that we need to provide an atmosphere, an intellectual and practical place, where men and women, whatever their spiritual status, can explore the faith. While there are certain aspects of the truth that must be argued for vigorously and in some detail, other things are not so neatly categorized. When it comes to many of the mysteries of life, what many people want most is simply a place where they can contemplate the unknown or uncertain. Obviously, this includes the type of people we are. Do we make not-yet-Christians feel comfortable, or do we stress them out with our overly confrontational ways? But, I actually have more in mind than our personal contact with others. What I’m referring to is the manner in which we approach life in general. If we convey the idea that all the “T’s” must be crossed and all the “i’s” must be dotted, we will lose people for a number of reasons. For one, most people already know that life is not so easily grasped. Thus, to force feed certainty where it is inappropriate comes across as arrogant or at least naive. What’s more, it by-passes the avenue by which people can truly encounter the truth. If we provide every opinion of our own, especially when our theories are less-than-certain, we hinder people from exploring the truth for themselves. A framework, then, is just that. It includes broad ideas, drawn from Scripture and life, which provide a measure of guidance in thinking through the issues that confront us. Though details can sometimes matter, they only make sense from within the sphere of the “big picture” God has adequately revealed. Our responsibility, or so it seems to me, is to lay out these broad ideas in a faithful manner, to embody these truths to the best of our ability, and to journey with others as they consider the faith. One wonders how many unnecessary fights might have been avoided, how many misunderstandings could have been curtailed, had conscientious Christians learned to “major on majors,” allowing those essential realities to be the parameters, the guiding principles, for thinking through the things that matter most.

An Exclusivistic Pluralistic Approach

One of the major difficulties that Christians face is how to remain faithful to the biblical claims concerning the exclusive claims of the one true God and his Son, Jesus, in a world that simply assumes that many paths (if not all) lead to God.

First, it is evident to many that what might be termed naive pluralism is an absurd concept, for no one lives in a way that literally places all views on an equal plane. To say that the philosophy of, say, Adolph Hitler should receive as much respect as that of that of Gandhi, is ludicrous. People in the real world, whatever their official claims to the contrary, recognize that there is such a thing as good and evil, proper and improper, mediocrity and excellence.

Second, a reasonable type of pluralism can (indeed, should) be embraced by Christians, for it is quite evident that human beings, created by God in his own image, are likely to give expression to this fact. Therefore, one would expect (and even look for) these God-given qualities to exist in many places and among many people.

All that said, it is also true that human beings are, to say the least, spiritually “out of sorts” and seemingly unable or unwilling to look out for their own best interests. More so, men and women (all of us!) provide daily examples of their alienation from God and his ways. The Christian solution to this dilemma is located in Jesus, God’s unique Son and humanity’s one Savior.

Of course any claim of exclusivity is often met with disdain. How can anyone be so narrow-minded, so arrogant? Well, the fact is that many Christians have been arrogant, but that’s not the real point. The issue, quite simply, is whether Jesus himself is arrogant, and this must be answered in the negative. Unfortunately, these debates have often been framed inaccurately and, as a result, the claims of Jesus are misunderstood. But, what should we do with his claims? Was he the very epitome of out-of-control hubris, some sort of religious megalomaniac? Or, as more often contended, should he simply be “elevated” to a place of equal status with the other leaders of major religions.

Neither of these options will do, for Jesus did indeed claim to be “the way, and the truth, and the life.’ But, and this is important, he was never arrogant in the way he demonstrated these claims. Rather, he came across as God’s humble servant, as the only one able and willing to go to go to such lengths to show forth God’s love and rescue humanity. Though Jesus was often bold (especially, I might add, when confronting the religious leaders of his day), his attitude and demeanor were that of compassion and mercy and boundless love. Thus, the exclusive claims of Jesus should not be seen as the antiquated views of an out-of-control religious fanatic. Rather, they are the manifestation of this amazing fact: He is not simply the one-and-only Savior; he is also the only one who is gracious enough and powerful enough to actually reunite us with our loving (and holy) Creator. (By the way, this is something of an adaptation of C. S. Lewis’s trilemma argument.)

So, we have to account for a number of important ideas: (1) God is present in his world, and thus we ought to anticipate signs of his presence. (2) Human beings, for all their admirable traits, are still in need of reconciliation with their Maker. (3) Jesus alone meets the requirements of God and the needs of human beings. As such he is the only Savior.

In balancing these factors, a few general remarks are necessary. First, if Jesus is the only way, some ways must be wrong ways. Though this statement may not sound very politically correct, it is in fact consistent with the way most human beings actually think and act. Some roads lead to the interstate, while others will take you to a dead end. Second, the normative expectation of Scripture is that of faith. Both the Old and New Testaments confirm that people are expected to know certain things about God and to respond to what they know. Third, a lot about faith is, by the nature of the case, subjective. Thus, it can be difficult to know who has genuine faith and who does not. Furthermore, no exact formula exists as to how much knowledge is enough. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture where minimal knowledge is apparently sufficient to yield saving faith. Fourth, the whole nature of salvation is shrouded in mystery and in the personal. After all, who can “see” faith? You can only observe the fruit of faith. More importantly, one can never tell exactly where the grace of God might reach. Indeed, he searches the earth for those who will follow him. Therefore, it should not surprise us to discover that he “shows up” in some unusual places. This means, among other things, that we ought to maintain a reasonable optimism when it comes to the salvation of those who don’t quite fit our preconceived categories. We shouldn’t be naive, of course. But I think we can prayerfully and with faith look for God to exceed our expectations and to demonstrate, as he did most profoundly in Jesus, that he is indeed a friend of sinners. (For some additional thoughts, look here and here.)

A “Worldly” Apologetic

Often times it is said that in order to reach those outside of the faith we must get to know them, and this is true, generally speaking. The problem, however, is that this can also come across the wrong way. It’s almost as if we are conducting some sort of clinical research, viewing people from a distance so as to determine the tastes and tendencies of those who have yet to embrace Jesus. This, I would argue, is a superficial way to conduct ministry, producing a disconnect with non-Christians.

Perhaps you’ve been there, or maybe you’ve seen this among certain traditional believers. They want to be nice and helpful and to learn the ways of the people they encounter. But they almost seem like they are from another world, as if they are living “outside the bubble” when it comes to relating to others.

There is a sense, of course, in which we should be “different.” Our attitudes, our commitment to love, our discernment, our humility–these and other things should be evident. Indeed, there ought to be a genuineness to the manner in which we live, an authenticity that truly stands out in a crowd. In this sense we are anything but worldly, in the biblical depiction of the term.

Yet, in another sense, we have to understand that true connections with people will not occur, and our apologetic will not be effective, unless we actually immerse ourselves in the lives of others. What I’m talking about, of course, is an incarnational attitude, that is, a heart that follows Jesus and the patterns he set.

In other words there is a sense in which we must be “worldly” if we expect to relate to people. Indeed, anything less not only comes across as disingenuous but, in many cases, actually is. Human beings are not to be treated as our “projects,” as mere objects of study. They are our friends, co-workers, neighbors, family members, and sometimes they are our enemies. And we have to live among them if we hope to embody an apologetic that is real. We must learn–carefully, wisely, prayerfully, but also wholeheartedly–a worldly apologetic.

(Not Really a ) Conclusion

Obviously, there are many other features that might be added to this list. These are simply a handful of initial thoughts that, perhaps, may prove useful as we consider how best to do apologetics in our postmodern world. The cognitive and the existential must be balanced. A framework must take precedence over extreme details. A type of exclusivism and a type of pluralism must be simultaneously meshed. And, we simply have to become (properly) worldly in our apologetic approach. What’s more, we must embrace the notion that living the faith and sharing it with others are ongoing affairs. At the end of the day, therefore, we need each other and, above all, we need the presence of the living God, if we are to faithfully navigate this strange and changing world.

Interview with John Smulo

Recently, John Smulo was kind of enough to interview me about the release of my new book. I’ve reproduced the interview here. But, if you wish, you can check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the interview on John's blog, Smulo Space. Here is the entire interview:

SMULO: In the first of this two-part interview I talk with Carmen DiCello. Carmen is an author, public school teacher, blogger, and adjunct professor at Columbia Evangelical Seminary in Postmodern Studies, Apologetics, and Theology.

Carmen has most recently published Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil, which is available through his publisher (Wipf & Stock), and will also be available through Amazon and other bookstores shortly.

I've had the pleasure of reading through the pre-published manuscript, and thoroughly appreciated the way in which he made a complex subject readable, intellectually helpful, and personally practical. I trust you'll get much out of the interview as well.

SMULO: Do you think God allows or uses pain, evil, or suffering to shape us?

DICELLO: Absolutely! We’ve all known people who have experienced some measure of positive change that resulted from having gone through hard times. Indeed, there are instances in Scripture of this soul-shaping activity. Job, Paul, and others gained new perspective through their experiences. The greatest example is Jesus himself, who “learned obedience,” a part of which involved rubbing up against evil.

Still, at least for me, this does not answer all of the questions, and I have sometimes wondered why God didn’t choose a different route in seeking to change us. This, of course, is part of the reason why evil is considered a problem. That God uses evil in this positive way is evident, but why he selected this particular method is somewhat baffling, especially when you consider the more extreme examples of suffering.

This reminds me of an old theological concept called Consequent Absolute Necessity. God did not have to create the world as we find it; however, having chosen this kind of world, there are inevitable (or at least likely) consequences, meaning that certain things are absolutely necessary in this type of world. John Murray, the former Princeton and Westminster theologian, advocated something like this, only as it related to Jesus’ death. (The question they asked was this: Did salvation have to come via the death of the Son of God? Answer: Yes, in the type of world God created, Jesus’ death was needed to save us.)

SMULO: You raise the fact that not all suffering comes from evil in the world. Instead, some suffering we experience comes as the result of bad choices we make. How does God respond to this type of suffering?

DICELLO: Wow, this is a good (and tough) question! Sometimes, it would seem, he responds with dissatisfaction or even anger. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture when the bad choices people make are judged by God. This dimension of God’s prerogative to “come down hard on us” is often absent from postmodern discussions, and I admit that it is an uncomfortable thought. Still, if we are going to approach Scripture with honesty, we cannot ignore this fact. That being said, I also believe that God is the very epitome of compassion and love. Thus, he pleads with us, “feels our pain,” if you will, genuinely desires our betterment, and is concerned for our welfare. A prime example of this would be the time when Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem. He knew all about the bad choices–past, present, and future–and that thought brought him to tears.

SMULO: Though we all experience evil and suffering, we don’t all respond to difficult circumstances in the same manner. You mention that there are a number of different ways that individuals might respond ranging from an intellectual response, to a grief filled response. How is being aware of this important from an apologetic perspective?

DICELLO: Well, I think it should cause us to approach these matters with a lot more humility than we are known for. The modern church often treated (treats) this subject in a simplistic fashion, thinking that all we need to do is demonstrate the evidence for Christian theism and everything will be fine. For numerous reasons, however, this often does not work. The fact is, John, people are different, or at least their life-experiences can be. As a teacher of many years, I know full well that some kids need a firm hand, while others require a more gentle approach. Of course knowing which type of counsel to provide is no easy task, and I absolutely do not have some mapped out program for responding to these matters, but perhaps that’s the point. Our apologetic can never be reduced to a detailed strategy but also requires that we look outside of ourselves for wisdom. God supplies this through many avenues, and sometimes we aren’t listening. The bottom line, though, is that God has seemed to construct the universe in such a way that we are forced to depend on him. Perhaps, this is what James is talking about when he says: “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God.” This is something of an invitation to connect with our Maker, and–let’s face it–we can’t help but be better at helping people if we’ve spent time “hanging around” the very embodiment and standard of wisdom.

Back to your original question, we need to engage people with our eyes open and, as best we can, with a desire to truly get to know what individuals are going through. Don’t get me wrong; I think we can provide a measure of help from a distance, that is, without knowing all of the circumstances, etc. But sometimes we simply have to spend more time with people if we are going to offer additional support. Only then will we be able to truly know what type of apologetic works.

SMULO: It’s one thing to respond intellectually to the problem of evil and suffering; it’s another thing to respond to a person’s grief and pain when facing tragedy, death, or suffering. What advice would you give to people who struggle with how to respond appropriately in different situations?

DICELLO: I may have partially answered this already, but here are a few additional thoughts. Bathe your mind in Scripture, and absorb some of the great stories that pertain to a theodicy (e.g., Job, the Thessalonian believers, etc.). These won’t necessarily provide answers, but they do something that may be even more important, for they supply the context within which we can think through these issues. Also, allow genuine concern and personal humility to permeate your discussions. The modern church expected and almost demanded that we approach people with confidence and certainty as we responded to the questions surrounding human suffering. Too often, though, this came across as unfeeling and, frankly, arrogant.

The best response to the question “Why?” is often a great big “I don’t know.” Therefore, one of the most helpful ways to relate to hurting people and their puzzling situations is to join them in their complaints (when appropriate, of course) and to align ourselves with them in genuine and unforced ways. So, when a person is going through hard times, we don’t spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to “defend the faith” (though that has its place) but instead agree (as much as possible) with his/her assessment, acknowledging that we, too, don’t “get it.” God has provided some of the context for thinking through these issues, and he has promised us his presence. But, he has not given us every answer to these often heart-wrenching difficulties. So, we take what we can from what God has revealed, and we go out into the world with faith and humility, unafraid to acknowledge that there is a lot that we don’t understand. Still, from what we do know, we believe that God can (and ultimately will) make sense of these matters. So, we balance knowledge and mystery but all within the sphere of faith.

SMULO: Perhaps the most common—and difficult—question that people pose to Christians revolves around how a good and powerful God can allow evil and suffering in the world. Do you think we normally take this question seriously enough?

DICELLO: Generally, no. The church has often responded by categorizing these matters in a nice and orderly system. Then, we go our merry way, convinced that God has been “protected” and all is well in “faith land” (forgive me if that appears a bit harsh).

The reality, though, is that in our captivation with the certainty of modernity we have failed to recognize that Scripture doesn’t seem to approach theodicy the way we often do. While we are providing answers, the characters of the Bible are complaining. While we are acting like we have solved this dilemma, Scripture is overflowing with examples in which all we can do is ask, “Why?”

Unfortunately, however, in our efforts to avoid doubt, we may have unintentionally cut-off faith, as well. Isn’t it a good thing to inquire of the true God, the good and loving Creator/Savior? Sometimes, in our failure to express dissatisfaction with typical (and sometimes simplistic) theodicies, we have inadvertently neglected the possibility that God might “show up” and provide a theodicy of his own! Sometimes, the “Why’s” we ask are best answered by the One to whom they are ultimately addressed. When we minimize these issues and are too quick to provide pat answers, we interfere with this process.

SMULO: In Why? you quote Brueggemann who says, “At least it is clear that a church that goes on singing ‘happy songs’ in the face of raw reality is doing something very different from what the Bible itself does.” What are your thoughts on this?

DICELLO: I agree! Though a lot of this is well-meaning, it is almost akin to emotional abuse. If tears are required, why do some segments of the church insist on perpetual happiness? Of course we also hurt ourselves if we go in the other direction and fail to recall that “the joy of the Lord is our strength.”

I suppose there is a need for balance. Sometimes we know this intuitively, but the church short-circuits the process with its unquestioned paradigms. After all, who are we to interrupt the church’s efforts to sustain the “there is joy in serving Jesus” mentality? Sometimes, there is pain in serving Jesus. In fact, to be blunt, we probably ought to balance the joy side of things with an additional thought: “it sometimes sucks when serving Jesus.” I don’t mean this, really, but I do think it highlights what the church often neglects to include as a major part of its outlook.

Though the Psalmist had no problem exclaiming his perplexity in the face of trials, the church seems to fear that this response leads inevitably to unbelief. Sometimes, this might be the case. Often, though, our questions actually lead us in a more faith-augmenting direction. Indeed, is it not possible that some of our complaining, directed as it is to God, is in fact an act of deep faith?

SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to understand evil and suffering intellectually?

DICELLO: Be honest. Talk about these things on a regular basis. Work through them. Don’t despise the harder questions. Accept doubt as a part of the journey of faith. Follow the wisdom of Scripture by embracing the knowledge-mystery paradigm, as I sometimes call it. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us” (Deut. 29:29). Some things can be known, while others will always escape our grasp. A good part of our lives involves the effort to live with this tension.

SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to live well through evil and suffering?

DICELLO: Part of the response to this is provided above. Beyond that, I would encourage believers to cultivate closeness with likeminded individuals. We need to get to know one another in all times, for we were created for relationships. Regularly connecting with others enables us to experience our joys and pains together, and this is what most of us need most. One more thing: I believe we need to allow people room to explore their own pain; thus we shouldn’t be too quick to criticize. Indeed, by paying attention to the way people mourn, we might pick up valuable lessons.

SMULO: In concluding, how would you summarize your approach to the problem of evil?

DICELLO: It is primarily about locating a paradigm or framework within which we can think through these matters. I believe this framework is located both in Scripture (given to us by God) and in the ever-present God himself (who is depicted in Scripture and speaks there and in the world). The God of Scripture is a revealing-concealing deity. As such he can be understood in one sense, even as he mesmerizes us in another sense. He has revealed enough to fortify faith and has hidden enough to compel recognition that he is far “bigger” than our best conceptions of him. This is the transcendent-immanent theme. God is simultaneously “above us” and “with us.” How these can coexist in the same being is beyond full comprehension, of course. The trick, I think, is to learn to live with the tension (notice how often I’ve used that word Laughing), not allowing either reality to overshadow the other. Thus, or so it seems to me, the whole idea of theodicy is integrally linked with our view of God. Both intellectually and personally, both theoretically and practically, we need to approach the mystery of evil from within the context of the (even larger) mystery of the transcendent-immanent God.

SMULO: Carmen, thanks for your very helpful thoughts on this topic. I’m sure that, like me, everyone who reads this will have taken a number of things away to help them with this difficult question—“Why?”

DICELLO: Thanks, John, for allowing me to interact with you on some of these important subjects. My hope is that the hard questions of life will be met with appropriate wisdom and faith, and that our journey together will be enlivened as we connect (and encourage others to connect) with the approachable yet equally mysterious God of love.

Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil

Just wanted to mention that my new book has just been released. It is called Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil and is published by Wipf & Stock Publishers. In this work I seek to provide a framework or a paradigm for thinking through this age-old dilemma.

The back cover description is as follows:

Nothing so baffles the mind or staggers the soul than the reality and sheer intensity of human suffering. How can we explain such widespread malevolence in a world ruled by a benevolent God? What is the proper response to such pain and puzzlement? Skeptics and believers alike are compelled to ask, “Why?”

Some have advocated an overly confident and simplistic theodicy, while others have retreated to a place of doubt or even unbelief. But neither of these options will do. Carmen DiCello urges that we reject both unwarranted confidence and outright skepticism, favoring an approach in which human knowledge and human ignorance are held in tension.

Providing a helpful framework for thinking through these issues, DiCello balances what we can know with what we can’t, showing that there is reason enough to believe along with ample cause to rest our hearts and minds in a good, sovereign, but also mystifying God. Why? provides spiritual and intellectual guidance for all who are willing to venture into these troubling waters, and who desire to emerge with a realistic faith and a sustaining hope.

Pi

Pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. As far as anyone knows, the number never ends. From a theological and philosophical perspective, is it a symbol of divine infiniteness? A mathematical illustration of eternity? A pathway to some esoteric sphere? Who knows? All that is certain is that God has built a universe in which the relationship between two aspects of a circle is a number with no end. Weird? Maybe . . . but pretty cool, too! Here is Pi to 72 places:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288
4197169399375105820974944592307816406

I think we should be . . .

What is the Christian life supposed to look like? I have struggled with this question for years, and I haven’t come to any firm conclusions. Still, I do have my thoughts–for what they are worth–and I’d like to share a number of them here.

+ We should be “outside of ourselves” alert. That is, we ought to be aware of the fact that so much of what takes place in our lives, so many of our hopes and dreams, such a large measure of our ability to persevere through hard times is activated by a sense of “the other.” That Other, of course, is none other than the true, revealed in Scripture, the very one who sent his Son to rescue us.

+ We should be driven by love–received from God and (hopefully) from others and directed toward God and the people whose lives intersect our own. Paul said that the love of God compelled him, which is pretty amazing stuff. The whole notion of multidimensional love so filled his life and directed his thoughts that it just naturally (or was that supernaturally?) spilled out into all of his affairs. Cool stuff!

+ We should be both like and unlike those around us. The similarity comes from the fact that we are made of the same “stuff” as all human beings. The difference is a result of our having rubbed up against the grace of God that flows from his Son. It is at this point that we should exude, what should be call it, a godly type of distinctiveness, which is often referred to as holiness. Too often, holiness has been defined and portrayed in a rather strange and forced manner. At its core, though, holiness is simply a life lived within the sphere of God’s presence. This can then work its way out in numerous ways, ways that are linked to such traits as joy, hope, peace, patience, kindness, and many others.

+ We should be “every day, normal” in the way we conduct our lives. No over the top religious hyperbole, no exaggerated commitment to Christian subculture, no need to embrace every politically correct idea that comes down the pike–just a daily life of authenticity.

Obviously, there are many other things that we should “be,” but these represent some starter thoughts.

some works on apologetics

Recently, I was "tagged" by John Smulo and asked to provide some opinions on books that (1) have been influential in the realm of apologetics and (2) should be influential. Eventually, I'll "tag" someone else, but for now here are my quick responses.

Three Influential Works on Contemporary Apologetics

The most influential have probably already been mentioned (McDowell, etc.). These had some positive impact on me, especially in the very early days of my personal search. Thus, I’m not ready to throw everything out. However, I do think there are serious limitations (and even errors) in some of these traditional approaches.

There are some other books, however, that played a major role in the development of Christian apologetics. These include the following:

Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson

This was a truly revolutionary book, for it demonstrated that it was possible to doubt Darwinian evolution without being a fundamentalist. In many ways Johnson was a trailblazer for the entire Intelligent Design movement. A great analysis of ID, which I’m currently reading, is Doubts About Darwin by Thomas Woodward.

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

A classic by Lewis, who should not be neglected by postmodern readers. Indeed, I think he shows that there is something to be said for including some of the insights of modernism. Indeed, I also believe that he demonstrates, to some degree at least, that some (not all!) of the gripes against modern thinking are based on caricatures. Furthermore, he shows that not all “moderns” were completely bound by their modernism.

Three Lesser Known Books Almost Everyone Should Read

Faith Has It’s Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity by Ken Boa and Robert Bowman

This resembles in some ways the approach taken in the Views series called Five Views on Apologetics. It shows that there is a legitimacy to a number of approaches to apologetics. Sometimes, we shoot past one another in defending our views. Other times, we allow errors (real or simply perceived) to so turn us off to the views of others that we fail to take into account the helpfulness of certain aspects of what they say. Personally, I went through a period where I experienced the tension between evidentialism and presuppositionalism. At that time, I was taking a class that was taught by a very sound and balanced evidentialist (Robert Newman, Biblical Theological Seminary), while I was simultaneously immersed in a lot of the ideas fostered by presuppositionalist John Frame. I discovered at that time that it was possible to embrace the best of both worlds and that an “either-or” approach was not very helpful or intellectually honest.

Finding Faith by Brian McLaren

During the early days when I began to move in a more postmodern direction, I read a number of helpful works. This sort-of apologetic work by McLaren resonated with me a lot. Good reading!

Proper Confidence by Leslie Newbigin

Not an apologetics book, per se, but a great treatment of subjects that are related, things like knowing, doubting, believing, etc. Very good.

Obviously, there are plenty of others. :)

more on missional apologetics

In a previous post, I mentioned the work of John Smulo and his cutting-edge ventures into new territory. Personally, I have often pondered the subject of apologetics as it applies to today’s world, asking myself what I feel truly makes sense and works best in a postmodern world. To that end, I sent these words to John a while ago. There’s a lot more to say, but here are at least a small handful of things pertaining to missional apologetics.

+ Missional Apologetics is both propositional and narrative in focus, convinced that it is best to keep ideas about God together with the story God has told (and is telling), for God meets people through both ideas and story.

+ Missional Apologetics revels in mystery, seeing our incomplete knowledge not only as evidence of human ignorance/limitations but also as a God-given way of highlighting the magnificance of a God not easily “boxed.”

+ Missional Apologetics is Personal, approaching the faith not only with facts but with the conviction that the One about whom we speak is actually with us, seeking to draw near to those who seek him.

+ Missional Apologetics is redemptive historical, for it is able not only to look around (at a postmodern world) but also back (to premodern and modern models) and ahead (to post-postmodernism?).

Thus . . .

+ Missional Apologetics follows a journeying paradigm, believing that “the faith once delivered” is gradually and increasingly unfolded over time.

lessons from Jesus on relating to others

1. Jesus spent time with regular people, focusing especially on the downtrodden and those who were going through hard time.

There was no arrogance or party spirit stuff with Jesus. He wasn’t an elitist.

2. Jesus wasn’t afraid to break with tradition.

Man, what a paradigm breaker he was! Of course what makes his “break with tradition” so striking and surprising to many is the fact that he often separated himself from the biblically-minded religious types.

3. Jesus’ chief opposition came from the orthodox defenders of his day, those (supposedly) already within the fold of the faithful.

Again, this is a remarkable lesson to learn. If we fail to pay attention, we place ourselves in a rather precarious position. Keep in mind, as well, that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day gave every appearance of being the “real deal.” That is, they were not–as typically imagined–so obvious in their hypocrisy. Had we lived in that day, we would no doubt have applauded their commitment to the truth of God’s word. Thus, Jesus’ opposition from (and of) these individuals would not have appeared immediately hypocritical.

4. Jesus primary targets of attack were these same religious hypocrites.

In keeping with the previous point, here is another strange but true fact about the Savior of the world. He spent more time criticizing and correcting the people who were (theoretically) bets informed in issues of truth than he did those who were clearly, in most people’s eyes, outside of the faithful community.

5. Jesus rarely felt hurried or pressured in his relationships with others.

Though there might have been a couple of well-chosen exceptions, he was generally committed to spending whatever time he could with people, and he never appeared to use high-pressure tactics in an effort to promote some wooden agenda. Though he certainly cared about the spiritual condition of the people he met, his strategy for assisting them was not overly predictable.

6. Jesus specialized in story telling (narrative).

He didn’t feel like he had to frame everything according to logical categories or present the truth in a tidy little package. Rather, he utilized stories to provide a more personal look at what God had done, was doing, would do. Narrative drew people into a relationship with truth that included but was never limited to abstract ideas.

7. Jesus was the epitome of compassion and love.

He was driven by compassion and a desire for people, many of whom were blinded to the truth and resistant to the idea of following the Spirit into a relationship with God. Jesus’ life and ministry, his choices and decisions, were all governed by a zeal for his Father’s kingdom and for the hearts and lives of the people he encountered.

8. Jesus went to where the people were, unhindered by religiously defined parameters of acceptable behavior.

There was no “sacred vs. secular” with the Son of God. Just about everything was (potentially, at least)sacred. Indeed, it might be argued that the place that was supposed to be the epitome of godliness was far too often the very place where it was least likely to be found. See # 3 above.

9. Jesus wasn’t afraid to speak the truth, whether to friend or foe.

Clearly, this was an individual of great courage. He had the courage to stand against the evil of his day, even when evil resided in the religious establishment. He had the courage to endure the incomprehensible agony of being judged by God for sins that we committed. He had the courage to leave his Father’s side in order to reside among human beings.

10. Jesus often used an indirect approach far removed from today’s evangelical prescriptions for evangelistic success.

That is, he rarely said the things we often say, things like “believe in Me,” “ask Me to come into your heart,” etc. Sometimes, of course, he did say things like that, but more times than not he spent time with people, told them stories, and gently though powerfully invited them into the realm of divine love and acceptance, that is, into presence of God. He wasn’t trying to press for a “decision,” for apparently that’s not the way relationships are established and hearts molded. Though this surely deserves much more treatment that I’m giving it here, it is I think plain to see that Jesus, the perfect paradigm of what it means to spiritually assist other human beings, went about his business in ways from which we could all learn.

Saddam's execution, the death penalty, and the proper "Christian" response

I have posted elsewhere how complicated the conservative-liberal debate can be, and I have often found myself in opposition to the so-called conservative branch of the church. Indeed, having spent a good many years interacting with such folks, I have had ample opportunity to find weaknesses and unbalanced tendencies among such individuals. More so, a reasonable portion of my time in recent years has been given to a critique of and (often an) opposition to the more predictable elements of the evangelical faith. Clearly, there are blind spots and faulty assumptions among many groups that are traditional in orientation, and there are many things within this segment of the church that I oppose and have no intention of embracing. This, in part, explains my liking for certain emergent trends.

All that being said, I have to be honest and say that many things that take place within the emergent movement are themselves becoming predictable. Indeed, it sometimes irritates me how one-sided and, sometimes, “liberal-sounding” the emergent movement can be. It’s almost like there is a new dogmaticism that has surfaced, a new kind of certainty, and–yes–even a new type of hubris. This manifests itself in many ways, but I would like to point out one thing that comes to mind.

Recently, there has been a predictable response to Saddam Hussein’s death. Thus, we are told that we should be appalled and embarrassed by his execution. For instance:

Brian McLaren writes, “Taking the human life of a person in the name of human life brings no sense of justice or satisfaction to me. Rather, it brings the opposite. … Whether executions are justified or not, I feel dirty and ashamed whenever I hear of an execution, and Saddam’s was no different. I hope I don't ever stop feeling that way.”

– I love Brian in many ways, but I have to say that I disagree here. I hope I never stop feeling that sometimes, when the crimes are great and the evidence is clear, the taking of a human life is one way that God meets out justice. Must we be careful when it comes to such things? Yes. Are we to be arrogant in the process? Never! But this does not mean that those who accept the death penalty are somehow sub-Christian, We can disagree about such matters, but the rhetoric that places death penalty advocates into a less spiritual category is inappropriate.

Jim Wallis says: “If we truly believe that all human life is created in God's image, then no matter how distorted that life may become, we do not have the right to take it.”

– This is hogwash. It is precisely because we believe in the sanctity of life that we enforce such penalties. Divine image bearers by the thousands were tortured and killed by Hussein. This does not prove that the death penalty is warranted, but it is a legitimate view to hold.

Personally, I am well aware that I might be wrong about this matter, and I hope that I remain open to correction and change. But, or so it would seem, some within the emergent movement (though not necessarily those I’ve quoted from) don’t seem very open to contrary opinions. While I am aware of a number of exceptions, there does seem to be a tendency to accept certain predictable responses in a number of areas.

Hussein was an evil man, who performed heinous acts. Though I am often a scum myself, this does not mean that I can sit idly by and take a wimpy approach to such atrocities. I wonder, in fact, what some of the looser emergent types would do if a burglar broke into their house. If, God forbid, their families were in danger, would they try to negotiate with evil even if it cost them the lives of their loved ones? Of course negotiation and dialogue can be (and often are) wonderful tools for resolving differences. But, and this is the point, sometimes they are not!

While I realize that some will disagree and may take a different interpretation, the fact remains that there are indeed passages of Scripture that at least allow for the death penalty. The typical interpretation may be wrong, but it doesn’t become wrong simply by stating it as such. It becomes wrong if and only if a better interpretation can be provided. Paul, for instance, spoke in terms of ancient governments, imperfect and sometimes perverse as they could be, “bearing the sword,” which appears to be a depiction of the death penalty. Indeed, it may even be an avenue by which God’s wrath is inflicted. Just like human beings can be “the hands of God” in the expression of love, so it may be that they can (via government) be an expression of his will to oppose evil. My point, though, is not to overly defend this view but simply to say that it is not automatically irrational, inappropriate, and unchristian.

Has the traditional church done some stupid thing? Absolutely!! Might their position here be wrong? Sure. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that everything the “modern” church did/does is incorrect and not worthy of consideration, and let’s not neglect the better aspects of what God did/does through even these (in my view) often faulty segments of Christendom. Indeed, to do so, to take this approach, would be to border on the very pride that the emergent church has (rightly) reacted against. “Lord help us all (especially me!) to be open to your truth, whatever it is and wherever it appears. Don’t allow us to fall into a state of ecclesiastical predictability. And Lord, help us to have the guts to do whatever it is that is right.”

P.S. (Sort of) Sorry if I appear a bit frustrated here, but I felt like I had to get this “out of my system.”

Missional Apologetics

My friend John Smulo has recently launched a promising new site called Missional Apologetics. As John writes, “Due to the ongoing transition from a modern to post-modern culture, as well as a shift from a Christendom to post-Christendom age, a new paradigm for apologetics is called for.” I agree and highly recommend that you consider his thoughts on a new approach to apologetics. Click on the link to the right and read what John is saying. Good stuff!

thoughts on Jesus and the will of God

Though I haven’t given it a ton of thought, I have wondered about Jesus’ approach to the will of God. Clearly, if ever there was a person who knew and did the will of God, it was his Son. What does his life and ministry teach us?

First, I think it is clear that Jesus’ mind was saturated in the Old Testament Scriptures. He knew them well and allowed them to be the guiding influence in his life.

Second, he saw his life and ministry as the outworking and fulfillment of a higher purpose, a God-given purpose. The incarnation was about his being and doing what God wanted for/from him.

Third, he walked, how shall we say it, in his identity. That is, he seemed quite conscious of who and what he was. Of course he is in many ways unique, given his status as the Messiah and Son of God. Still, I think there are parallels between Jesus’ thought process and what ours should be.

Fourth, Jesus was very much conscious of the fact that God had a plan and that it was being worked out in daily affairs. Sometimes, this divine plan was evident and undeniable. Other times, it manifested itself in more mundane ways. In each and every case, Jesus was aware of a great story being played out, one in which he played the central role.

Fifth, though in one sense Jesus’ works and words have no parallels, he did seem to otherwise live his life in rather common ways. For instance though he clearly prayed, he didn’t put out fleeces, look for signs (As an aside, he actually criticized those who did look for a signs, but that’s another story), or (for the most part, at least) ask God to provide specific detailed information for decision making. There may be some exceptions here, and certainly there is a supernatural element to consider when it comes to the ministry of this one-of-a-kind individual (for instance angels showed up on occasion and direct revelation of some sort was occasionally supplied). Most of the time, however, this sort of thing does not appear to have happened.

Sixth, there was a supernatural cognizance in Jesus’ life and ministry. He seemed in tune with the broad sweep of the divine presence and plan. Still, much of this was received by Jesus passively. Thus, while he knew he was going to die, he was not consumed with every detail of his demise. His emphasis, I think was broader and more general than that.

Seventh, generally speaking, it seems like he already knew God’s will rather than being consumed with discovering it. This is not to say that he never struggled. It’s just that, for the most part, he was more concerned with doing what he knew. Now, I suppose we could assume that God was constantly whispering in his ear and explaining the divine will. It is more likely, however, that the paradigm he followed was a more general type in which his faithfulness to God (his obedience to the will of God) was an outworking of what he had already learned. How did he learn? From the Scriptures and from allowing the Scriptures to create the ambience or atmosphere of his life.

Eighth, like us, Jesus was sometime puzzled by the will of God. This was most evident in Gethsemane and at Golgotha. Though he knew his overall purpose, the actual experiences were sometime painful and puzzling. “Not my will but yours” and “Why have you forsaken me?” are examples of those times when the perfect Son of God was not at all certain about the meaning of his Father’s will.

Whatever else is true, Jesus was clearly committed to doing what was good and right. However, I am not entirely convinced that his model of decision-making was anything like what many promote today. Jesus’ heart and mind were immersed in God’s purposes as found in Scripture, and he was faithfully alert to the hand of God in his life. Apart from some times of exception when the unique Son of God received uncommon revelation from above, these factors seemed to shape his life and guide his choices. He had come to do his Father’s will, which entailed a steadfast determination to transmit to the world the very love he had shared with his Father before the world began.

God's will . . . sexual purity, and related matters

In 1 Thessalonians 4:1-3, Paul describes at least one major segment of the will of God. He says this:

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

Aside from the more difficult segments of this passage (e.g., Does “vessel” in verse 4 refer to the man’s physical body or to his wife?), this is an already demanding application of the will of God. At least the following flow out of this section of Scripture:

(1) God’s will is that we be like he is, that is, holy. Man, that is no easy task! Anyone else struggle with this?

(2) Sexual immorality is to be avoided. Wow! In a culture that has trivialized real relationships and sacrificed long-term commitment on the altar of sort-term titillation, this is an incredibly challenging thing to do? Have any of you ever succumbed to inappropriate impulses? Hmm.

(3) We don’t really need this passage to remind us of the obvious: Those who give no thought to God behave in a manner consistent with their philosophy, and we aren’t supposed to copy them. Clearly, in many legitimate ways, we should be like everyone else. Our likes and dislikes, our shared experiences and common humanity–these things should link us to those around us. But, this doesn’t mean that we are to be like everyone in every way. In some ways, ways that matter most, we should be different. Lord, help us!

(4) God’s will, which in this case involves sexual self control, should be viewed as a divine calling. God has not called us to simply be like everyone else. Rather, he intends that we choose a higher calling? Have you ever viewed your decision to resist temptation as a divinely initiated mission? Ever treated your lack of resistance as a denial of that mission? Me neither . . . to my shame!

(5) If we disregard this, we aren’t simply ignoring some manmade standard–whether ours or someone else’s–but we are rejecting God. Oh, that hurts!

What’s my point? Well, I suppose it is that God’s will is difficult. Our calling to a sanctified life is demanding. Yet, we often ignore these clear-cut directions (at least I do) while pretending to be on a search for God’s will. So, for example, we wonder which ministry opportunity we should take, and we ponder what our next Sunday School series should entail. Then, when we’re with others, we pray for the Lord to show us the way as if the things that really matter are hidden behind some bush somewhere or perhaps under a rock. All the while–while we’re fretting about what God might want us to do–we ignore or minimize what he has already said. Please, don’t take this the wrong way. It is certainly a good thing to care about ministry opportunities and Sunday School lessons, and it is of course healthy to pray about such matters. All I’m saying is that, in the grand scheme of things, I would do a whole lot better if I simply paid closer attention to things I already know. Whether I take this or that opportunity, whether I teach this lesson or that one, what truly matters is that I understand and seek to follow what God has clearly revealed.

Man, I would be so much better off if I expended more energy resisting temptation, seeing God’s purpose in my walk with him, and learning to abstain from anything that is inappropriate. What about you? Want to join me, pray with me and for me (and I for you), in our efforts to be different, to be sanctified? I have a feeling that if we did these things in sincerity and commitment that the other things would eventually fall into place. “Lord, help me to fulfill that which is already evident. Empower me through your Holy Spirit to do your will! Heck, if he is your holy spirit, make me like he is, holy.”

more on God's will . . .

Since my recent post on the will of God, I have had a number of related thoughts. They include the following:

The will of God, the best I can make any sense of it, involves . . .

Holiness . . . “This is the will of God, your sanctification,” says Paul. Among others things, he lets us know that God’s will is that we be sanctified or “set apart.” Of course the point is not that we are to simply be different for difference sake, that we are to be weirdos for the kingdom of God. But it does, I think, involve being different for his sake. This has little to do with dress codes and whether or not we drink of attend movies, but has everything to do with the big things like kindness, energetic joy, and love. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a big need for such things in my world, our world, the world.

The will of God . . . .

is (often generally objective but also necessarily) subjective . . . This means that God reveals numerous things to us in Scripture, but the outworking of these is often difficult to define with any precision. Though there are some things that are fairly basic, a good portion of what he has clearly revealed is also impossible to define. For instance God says that we are to be holy, but the exact “look”of holiness is–contrary to the opinion of the more rigidly-minded–quite difficult to prescribe. God says pray, but he does not provide directions for when, where, or how long. He tells us to love, but there is no exact template as to the manner in which this will take shape in our lives. Please understand, I am not saying that this whole holiness thing is completely relativistic or that we can never distinguish holiness from unholiness. What I am saying, though, is that the exact manifestation of such things cannot be pinned down or reduced to a formula. Such is the will of God.

Because the details of God’s will are at least somewhat subjective, the will of God is therefore . . .

Dependence-oriented . . . which means that we are, by the nature of the case, compelled to say, “Lord, help!” And this, I would argue, is a good part of what God is after in the first place. I don’t think he is as much interested in our ability to decipher which job we take as he is that we lean on him while trying to make our decisions. Therefore, the will of God is, in ways that differ from the typical views, quite personal–not personal in that God tells us which flavor ice cream to order but personal in that we are moved to trust in and turn to God himself. This leads to the next point.

On a related not, the will of God is . . .

Faith-centered . . . Thus, in the very act of turning to God, looking for his intervention, crying for his assistance, etc. we connect ourselves with the Lord of the universe, the Maker of all things, the Savior of the world. This is the essence of faith. If it is impossible to please God without faith, as the author of Hebrews argues, then faith itself must be a major component of what it means to please God. Thus, the demonstration of imperfect but genuine faith is, in this sense, the very will of God.

Obviously, there are many more things that could be said about the will of God. These are simply some current thoughts. God’s will involves holiness, is subjective, forces us to look outside of ourselves, and includes faith. These, I believe, all point us in a direction that produces hope, draws attention to the wonder of God in our lives, and yields the type of liberty that energizes our lives.

what is God's will?

What does God want from us, and what is our responsibility when it comes to decision making? The typical model, it seems, is to assume that God has a will for every facet of our lives. Thus, so we are told, he is concerned to reveal his will about such things as which job to choose, which house to purchase, and which girl to marry. Sound good, I suppose, but where is the line drawn with such things? For instance does God have a will for which shoes we should buy or how many slices of pizza we ought to consume? One problem with the traditional view is that it is rather arbitrary. At what point does our supposed openness to the will of God become absurd? Another weakness is the practical matter that it seems to make God into a master of disguise. In other words if God is so concerned to reveal his will about every detail of our lives, why does he have such an apparently difficult time getting through to us. I mean, if he wants me to turn one way and not another, why does he not simply say to me, “Hey, you idiot, go this way!”? I truly do not mean for this to be blasphemous or disrespectful, but it seems that the traditional view creates an avenue of communication that is extremely hard to decipher. You hear people saying, “I heard a still, small voice.” Fine, but how do you know that it was God’s voice and not merely the result of the hot wings you ate last night? Though we must not trivialize the voice of God, we must be equally careful not to put words in his mouth. Thus, if he has not said “Buy this car and not that one,” who are we to claim that he has? For these and other reasons, I struggle with the so-called traditional view.

As an alternative, there is a view–which probably fits in best with a good chunk of church history–that God’s will doesn’t work like that. I remember reading Gary Friesen many years ago, who proposed something along these lines. Does God care about every detail of our lives? Absolutely, but this does not necessitate that he share his will about everything. Instead, he expects us to trust in him, believe in his sovereign will, and learn to make wise decisions. This fosters maturity and faith, and it also provides believers with sensible amount of legitimate freedom. Too often, or so it seems to me, the traditional view promotes fear, uncertainty, and a tendency to play mind games. At least in my life, I was often frustrated my inability to decipher what God was saying to me. Of course there were times when I played the part and asserted that “the Lord had spoken,” but in my more honest moments I had to admit that I was unsure and often frazzled.

Of course even the non-traditional view has its drawbacks. Though I don’t think Friesen promotes it this way, I have seen some people who treat their walk with God in a rather mechanical way. It’s like God is doing his thing, but he never bothers much with us. And we do our thing, but it can become overly rationalistic and predictable. Thus, even this view, for all its strengths, is something less than perfect.

How then should we progress? Just a handful of thoughts:

(1) I don’t think there is some perfect model for outlining how God works in the world.

(2) This being said, the traditional view, though advocated by good and sincere people, is probably more unhealthy than healthy.

(3) On the other hand, I still believe that God is very much involved in our daily affairs, much more than we expect, in fact.

For what it’s worth, a number of additional points:

(1) God is sovereign, so we need not fret. We need to trust that he knows what's going on . . . even if we do not.

(2) God’s moral will is an important aspect of Scripture. Thus, we must learn to decipher and follow it.

(3) God’s will is located in community, in the ups and downs of regular interaction with other likeminded (and not-so-likeminded) people.

(4) God can and sometimes still does do spectacular things, and we should rejoice when he does.

(5) God wants us to be free and mature. Freedom means you can eat as many slices of pizzas as you’d like. Maturity means that you at least occasionally realize that perhaps you shouldn’t devour “the whole thing.”

(6) We ought to do more than simply ask for the Lord’s guidance. We should, I think, bathe in his “ever-present-ness,” his “already here-ness,” his life-permeating nearness. Though it can and often is healthy to say “Lord, what should I do?” it is also healthy to walk by faith and in freedom, learning each day to lean into and/or flow with this incredible being who is described as wind (see John 3).

(7) Someone once said, "love God and do what you want." Wow, that makes a bunch of sense to me. There is freedom and wisdom and purpose and a whole lot more whenever we are alert and responsive to divine love. “Lord, I am so often a fool, but you are with me still. Thanks for your ongoing displays of love. Lord, help me to be what I should be for others and for you, and continue to enable me to hear the beautiful music you are playing each day.”