Christians seem to be extremely partisan, more so than other religious groups. I recently saw a report on Fox News where the commentators expressed their concern about Obama’s supporters elevating him to the status of savior. I find this a bit ironic since many of Bush’s supporters claim that he was placed their by God. Bush was God’s chosen vessel in their eyes. That should be much more concerning. I’ve never claimed that God chose Obama, nor do I know anyone else who has. I do think he is a genuinely good guy who is trying to do what is right, rather than just playing the God card. It seems the former president did just that. He and his constituents used Christians in order to increase their power. It didn’t turn out so well. We ended up with two ongoing wars (Did God tell Bush to start those two? If so, God hasn’t read the sermon on the Mount.), and a ruined economy.
The solution to the alliance of the North American Protestant Church with the right cannot be fixed by younger generations of Christians allying ourselves with the left. We can work with all people and groups with common goals. This means we may work with both parties on different issues. Christians should join liberals and radicals in the streets to protest war. We should join libertarians when the government oversteps it’s boundaries. We should join conservatives in protecting the unborn. In other ways, we should join with feminists in asserting the equal rights of both sexes. We should join with labor unions, and even socialists and communists if need be, in asserting workers’ rights. We should join with hippies and deep ecologists to protect the environment. We rarely do such things, however. Instead, we focus internally and embrace a gospel of selfishness, wealth, and apathy. We shut out the “evil” world and pray for God’s judgment. How stupid we are!
Where is love if we shut the world out? How can we proclaim the victory of God in Christ if we know no one outside our church? How can we claim anything that can be legitimately called salvation if it’s all about us? Jesus never taught selfishness. We certainly didn’t tell us to shut ourselves off from the world. He enjoyed the company of whores, traitors, bastards, outcasts, and lepers. The church has become no better than those who opposed Jesus’ message. We have sold out. WE have become the enemies of God in our arrogance and hatred. For as I John tells us if we cannot love our neighbors, how can we love God?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What the Church Can Learn from the Justice League
In the amazingly well done cartoon “Justice League Unlimited,” there is an episode where the Justice League saves several small towns from an alien weapon. Ultimately undoing it from the inside, they attempt to buy some time by using a large laser cannon to create a barrier between the expanding alien weapon and the towns in danger. After defeating the alien technology, the United States army keeps the weapon, in case they ever need to use it against the Justice League. Why because the Justice League is a loose cannon. True, they only do good, but they do not hold a strict allegiance to the United States government. This makes them dangerous.
The Church would do good to remember its roots. It was originally a small persecuted movement within the Roman Empire, only doing good as it spread among women and slaves, but a threat to the Pax Romana, a peace dependent upon predatory violence and exploitation. How legitimate is the peace that America is trying to secure? Is the means by which it does so contrary to God’s kingdom? What kind of allegiance, if any, can Christians have to a government that demands unquestioning obedience to its arbitrary mission. Doesn’t the Church’s ecumenical and universal nature transcend national allegiances? The Church should take a lesson from the Justice League. We work for God’s good, which means the good of the world, not the petty interests and power plays of nation-states. Christians must remain independent of such claims. We must be, in a sense, anarchists.
The Church would do good to remember its roots. It was originally a small persecuted movement within the Roman Empire, only doing good as it spread among women and slaves, but a threat to the Pax Romana, a peace dependent upon predatory violence and exploitation. How legitimate is the peace that America is trying to secure? Is the means by which it does so contrary to God’s kingdom? What kind of allegiance, if any, can Christians have to a government that demands unquestioning obedience to its arbitrary mission. Doesn’t the Church’s ecumenical and universal nature transcend national allegiances? The Church should take a lesson from the Justice League. We work for God’s good, which means the good of the world, not the petty interests and power plays of nation-states. Christians must remain independent of such claims. We must be, in a sense, anarchists.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Irony of My Universalism
My journey toward universalism is a bit ironic, I think. I first began to flirt with the idea in grad school while studying Paul. Reading E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright gave me a wholly different understanding of covenant. Reading Paul, especially Romans gave me an understanding of God’s grace that was, in fact, gracious. At that point, I rejected the idea of hell all together. God’s faithfulness to us was greater than humanity’s unfaithfulness.
Later on, as I struggled with the idea of evil, I rejected universalism in favor of annhilitionism. I took a more material view of it. Some understand it to mean that the unrepentant suffer in hell for a while and are finally destroyed. I took it to mean that they just die, but the those who commit themselves to God’s ways are raised up in the resurrection.
After the death of my brother, I began to see that God’s love is greater than our baggage. My brother was a sinner, he was steeped in it. Despite that, despite choices for which some might label him “wicked,” my family and I still loved him. Despite the fact that he took his own life, we still deeply cared for him and would have done anything to bring him back to us. I began to see that if we cared about my “wicked” brother, if we did not reject him, if we loved him without condition, how much more did God love him? How much more was God’s love for him unconditional. And so I was a universalist again. Though it was not purposeful (my parents are not universalists) this is the greatest lesson they have taught me.
At this point, I still rejected hell and so discarded the parts of the Bible that mentioned it, while emphasizing the parts of the Bible that talked about God’s love. I didn’t think I could reconcile the two. However, when I began reading some books about the subject I discovered that many Christian Universalists do believe in hell. They just believe that it is temporary and purgatorial in nature. Furthermore, they made a strong biblical case for their belief. The irony of the position I now find myself in is that as a universalist I am now more orthodox and more biblical than I was when I wasn’t a universalist. My universalism is a matter of being more conservative, not more liberal. And I find myself in good company. Origen, Clement, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs Von Balthasaar, Karl Barth, and many more throughout the Church’s history have been universalists. Into the 5th century it was actually pretty common. Strange now how it’s considered heresy while the idea of a loving God condemning billions of people to hell, most on a technicality, is considered true and good. What perverse morality. Thank God it isn’t true.
Later on, as I struggled with the idea of evil, I rejected universalism in favor of annhilitionism. I took a more material view of it. Some understand it to mean that the unrepentant suffer in hell for a while and are finally destroyed. I took it to mean that they just die, but the those who commit themselves to God’s ways are raised up in the resurrection.
After the death of my brother, I began to see that God’s love is greater than our baggage. My brother was a sinner, he was steeped in it. Despite that, despite choices for which some might label him “wicked,” my family and I still loved him. Despite the fact that he took his own life, we still deeply cared for him and would have done anything to bring him back to us. I began to see that if we cared about my “wicked” brother, if we did not reject him, if we loved him without condition, how much more did God love him? How much more was God’s love for him unconditional. And so I was a universalist again. Though it was not purposeful (my parents are not universalists) this is the greatest lesson they have taught me.
At this point, I still rejected hell and so discarded the parts of the Bible that mentioned it, while emphasizing the parts of the Bible that talked about God’s love. I didn’t think I could reconcile the two. However, when I began reading some books about the subject I discovered that many Christian Universalists do believe in hell. They just believe that it is temporary and purgatorial in nature. Furthermore, they made a strong biblical case for their belief. The irony of the position I now find myself in is that as a universalist I am now more orthodox and more biblical than I was when I wasn’t a universalist. My universalism is a matter of being more conservative, not more liberal. And I find myself in good company. Origen, Clement, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs Von Balthasaar, Karl Barth, and many more throughout the Church’s history have been universalists. Into the 5th century it was actually pretty common. Strange now how it’s considered heresy while the idea of a loving God condemning billions of people to hell, most on a technicality, is considered true and good. What perverse morality. Thank God it isn’t true.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
God’s Irresistable Love and Human Freedom
God’s Love and Human freedom, even the nearly absolute freedom we enjoy (in respect to our relationship with God, not necessarily with others), are not in contradiction. Most would not probably see a contradiction, except, perhaps in the case of universal reconciliation. Some believe this doctrine to contradict the idea of human freedom. We know humans have freedom to reject God. Therefore, God must not be able to reconcile us. In this model, hell is something we choose. I use to think like this. I remember having a conversation with a friend in Santa Cruz who was anything but a Christian. I said something to the effect that non-Christians, when confronted with the reality of God essentially spit in God’s face (I was more naive then and saw things in a more black and white nature. Now I understand that things aren’t so clear cut, even if we would like them to be). He responded, sort of shocked, that he would do nothing of the kind, that he thought it would be a more awe-inspiring experience. Though my friend rejected God, he did not do it out of a hatred of God, but out of either disbelief or misunderstanding. He did not understand why God interacts with the world the way God does, or would make the rules the way God did, therefore, we chose to reject the theistic model. There were blockades that stopped my friend from becoming a Christian, but if they were removed, if he was directly confronted with the power and love of God, my friend would repent and respond to God’s love in kind.
So is our understanding of freedom accurate? I don’t think so. Much of contemporary theology is radically conservative, which means it fails to recognize the influences and limitations of both our genetic predispositions and our environmental factors. I do not want to go to far the other way and say that we are not responsible for our actions, but I don’t want to say that genetics and environment influence and thus limit our ability to make certain choices in certain situations.
So what is freedom? In the following propositions I hope to come to a clearer understanding of it, as well as its obstacles.
1. Freedom is the ability to choose to act on our desires without being restricted from doing so by another and without restricting another’s ability to do the same.
2. We only desire what is actually good or is seemingly good, goodness being a matter of pleasantness or usefulness—something beneficial.
3. Anything that hinders our ability to understand what is pleasant, useful, or beneficial compromises our ability to know what is good, and thus restricts our freedom.
4. Removing or overcoming that which distorts our vision of the good increases our freedom.
5. Therefore, God’s act of purging or correcting our understanding of goodness is not a violation of our freedom.
6. This correction will result in our freely choosing God and our welcome into heaven, even after death.
We already believe all these things. Think of those who are brainwashed, either in cults, or as children in terrorist groups like the LRA. Their ability to understand what is good has been compromised. We also say things like “If he only knew!” when some one we care about is making or has made a bad decision. We understand that such a person’s understanding of what is good is distorted. They are not acting with their best interest in mind, and are, therefore, acting irrationally. But irrationality and freedom are not compatible, which is why we punish those with lower brain capacity less for the same crimes as those of us with full capacity. We also understand that mistakes do not warrant full culpability, some culpability, but not full. And this is where those of us who reject God fall: we reject God and God’s way because we do not understand it (though many who accept it do not understand it either), but our lack of understanding is a mistake. Something blocks us from choosing properly, whether predisposition, environmental factors, or misinformation. In any case, these can all be cleared up. We can be healed, retaught, and told the truth. Wouldn’t we do the same for our children? God desires that all be saved and God desires that we freely choose to be saved. If we cannot freely choose, then God will give us the freedom we need to make the right choice and dwell in love for eternity.
So is our understanding of freedom accurate? I don’t think so. Much of contemporary theology is radically conservative, which means it fails to recognize the influences and limitations of both our genetic predispositions and our environmental factors. I do not want to go to far the other way and say that we are not responsible for our actions, but I don’t want to say that genetics and environment influence and thus limit our ability to make certain choices in certain situations.
So what is freedom? In the following propositions I hope to come to a clearer understanding of it, as well as its obstacles.
1. Freedom is the ability to choose to act on our desires without being restricted from doing so by another and without restricting another’s ability to do the same.
2. We only desire what is actually good or is seemingly good, goodness being a matter of pleasantness or usefulness—something beneficial.
3. Anything that hinders our ability to understand what is pleasant, useful, or beneficial compromises our ability to know what is good, and thus restricts our freedom.
4. Removing or overcoming that which distorts our vision of the good increases our freedom.
5. Therefore, God’s act of purging or correcting our understanding of goodness is not a violation of our freedom.
6. This correction will result in our freely choosing God and our welcome into heaven, even after death.
We already believe all these things. Think of those who are brainwashed, either in cults, or as children in terrorist groups like the LRA. Their ability to understand what is good has been compromised. We also say things like “If he only knew!” when some one we care about is making or has made a bad decision. We understand that such a person’s understanding of what is good is distorted. They are not acting with their best interest in mind, and are, therefore, acting irrationally. But irrationality and freedom are not compatible, which is why we punish those with lower brain capacity less for the same crimes as those of us with full capacity. We also understand that mistakes do not warrant full culpability, some culpability, but not full. And this is where those of us who reject God fall: we reject God and God’s way because we do not understand it (though many who accept it do not understand it either), but our lack of understanding is a mistake. Something blocks us from choosing properly, whether predisposition, environmental factors, or misinformation. In any case, these can all be cleared up. We can be healed, retaught, and told the truth. Wouldn’t we do the same for our children? God desires that all be saved and God desires that we freely choose to be saved. If we cannot freely choose, then God will give us the freedom we need to make the right choice and dwell in love for eternity.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Logic of Christian Universalism
Most Christians are not universalists. In fact, most believe that God eternally tortures non-Christians. Some hold to a more inclusivist model where the faithful in all traditions are accepted by God because they are doing the best they can given their context. For example, if a person is born in Saudi Arabia and raised a strict Muslim, never really hearing the Gospel, is it fair that god damn that person? Inclusivists say it's not fair. While I believe the inclusivist position is the better of the two, it still has its problems. As I will show, and I'm indebted to Thomas Talbott for this, the logic of who God is leads to the conclusion that God will save all people.
Profesor Talbott suggests a simple exercise in logic, an exercise which distinguishes three different groups of Christians based on their denial of one of the three proposed points, which I have taken some liberties with here, but which lead to the same conclusion. They are as follows:
1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.
2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.
3. Most people will be separated from God and tortured in hell forever.
The third premise does not seem to follow the first two. The third only makes sense, in fact, if we deny one or both of the other two points. Calvinists escape this logical conundrum by denying that God loves all people and desires their salvation. According to Calvin, God only desires the salvation of some--the elect. Arminians, though they faithfully confess that God is love, deny the second proposition by positing that human freedom stops God from accomplishing God's will, even in the afterlife. Christian universalists, such as myself, affirm the first two propositions and so deny the third. Because we believe that God is love and desires the salvation of all, and because we believe that God can bring God's will about ultimately, we deny that the unrepentant will be eternally lost. They may experience a time of punishment in hell, but not for eternity.
Much of God's will is not accomplished on earth because God has given creation freedom. We can do as we wish without God intervening to stop us. In this sense, we do many things that thwart God's will. Where God desires peace, we make war; where God desires love, we hate; where God desires compassion, we are selfish. However, there is no reason why this logically carries over to the next life. I do not mean that there are not consequences for sin in this life or the next, only that our ability to thwart God's will on earth does not mean that we will be able to do so in the afterlife. While freedom is important, it is not the end all. God is the end all, and all things will be subjected to him, according to St. Paul. Every will will be in alignment with God, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. This is not because God will lobotomize unbelievers so that they do what God says. God is not a "sky bully." Rather, the reality that God is Love in essence, and wants us to be supremely happy--wants what is in our best interest and will provide us with lasting joy--should persuade us toward God. Do we reject a loving parent, a parent that not only wants what is best for us, but brings it about? Any rejection of those who love us, requires valid reasons, but if there are no valid reasons for rejecting God, why would we do so? (I'm assuming here that our various philosophical objections to theism or the problem of evil will be asnwered in an adequate manner). A rejection of God in the afterlife, once the truth has been made known to us, would require such irrationality that we could say that such a person is not actually free, but still clinging to old wounds or stubbornness. The removal of such afflictions does not require a breach of one's freedom any more than a removal of cancer does.
Profesor Talbott suggests a simple exercise in logic, an exercise which distinguishes three different groups of Christians based on their denial of one of the three proposed points, which I have taken some liberties with here, but which lead to the same conclusion. They are as follows:
1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.
2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.
3. Most people will be separated from God and tortured in hell forever.
The third premise does not seem to follow the first two. The third only makes sense, in fact, if we deny one or both of the other two points. Calvinists escape this logical conundrum by denying that God loves all people and desires their salvation. According to Calvin, God only desires the salvation of some--the elect. Arminians, though they faithfully confess that God is love, deny the second proposition by positing that human freedom stops God from accomplishing God's will, even in the afterlife. Christian universalists, such as myself, affirm the first two propositions and so deny the third. Because we believe that God is love and desires the salvation of all, and because we believe that God can bring God's will about ultimately, we deny that the unrepentant will be eternally lost. They may experience a time of punishment in hell, but not for eternity.
Much of God's will is not accomplished on earth because God has given creation freedom. We can do as we wish without God intervening to stop us. In this sense, we do many things that thwart God's will. Where God desires peace, we make war; where God desires love, we hate; where God desires compassion, we are selfish. However, there is no reason why this logically carries over to the next life. I do not mean that there are not consequences for sin in this life or the next, only that our ability to thwart God's will on earth does not mean that we will be able to do so in the afterlife. While freedom is important, it is not the end all. God is the end all, and all things will be subjected to him, according to St. Paul. Every will will be in alignment with God, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. This is not because God will lobotomize unbelievers so that they do what God says. God is not a "sky bully." Rather, the reality that God is Love in essence, and wants us to be supremely happy--wants what is in our best interest and will provide us with lasting joy--should persuade us toward God. Do we reject a loving parent, a parent that not only wants what is best for us, but brings it about? Any rejection of those who love us, requires valid reasons, but if there are no valid reasons for rejecting God, why would we do so? (I'm assuming here that our various philosophical objections to theism or the problem of evil will be asnwered in an adequate manner). A rejection of God in the afterlife, once the truth has been made known to us, would require such irrationality that we could say that such a person is not actually free, but still clinging to old wounds or stubbornness. The removal of such afflictions does not require a breach of one's freedom any more than a removal of cancer does.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Cross as a Symbol of Non-Violence
St. Paul wrote that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8),”the ungodly” (5:6) who had made ourselves enemies of God according to our sin (5:10) that we might come to repentance (2:4).
Empowered by the love of God in him, Christ allowed himself to be killed because he desired his persecutors to repent and be reconciled to God, which is why he forgave them with his last breath. Christ could have called down legions of angels to defend him, but faced his death without threats of violence, without responding to violence with counter-violence. Instead, through active peacemaking, he proved his innocence and exposed his killers for the villains they were. Thus the cross should be seen as a non-violent act by which God attempts to bring us to repentance by exposing our guilt in the death of the innocent. This is Christian non-violence, and we see it rooted in the very ideas of the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus. So why aren't more Christians practitioners of non-violence?
Empowered by the love of God in him, Christ allowed himself to be killed because he desired his persecutors to repent and be reconciled to God, which is why he forgave them with his last breath. Christ could have called down legions of angels to defend him, but faced his death without threats of violence, without responding to violence with counter-violence. Instead, through active peacemaking, he proved his innocence and exposed his killers for the villains they were. Thus the cross should be seen as a non-violent act by which God attempts to bring us to repentance by exposing our guilt in the death of the innocent. This is Christian non-violence, and we see it rooted in the very ideas of the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus. So why aren't more Christians practitioners of non-violence?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Better an Atheist than a Calvinist
Wesley said that, and he was right. Calvinism is evil. Really, really evil. It's also rooted in a bad reading of scripture, a very, very bad reading. I used to be more tolerant (blame society's liberal influence for that), but I'm becoming more “conservative,” which requires me to reject ideas that I find morally repugnant, like Calvin's thought. For those who don't know Calvin maintained that God, from eternity, determines before a person is born that they will be condemned to hell (This is different from knowing. The second is passive, while Calvin's damning is active) or "saved" to heaven. You would think that this would conflict with the confession that God is Love, wouldn't you? And isn't this is the central Christian confession? God forgives; God opens up the way of salvation to us. Why? Because God is Love. This is exactly what the famous John 3:16 tells us: “For God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” Pretty clear, unless you're a Calvinist.
J.I. Packer, a reformed theologian, and thus in inconsistent one, tells us that the confession “God is Love” is not the whole truth about God. This is true in that there are other things we can say about God. We can also say that "God is triune" is not the whole truth about God, but it names somethign about God's essence. It tells us something. However, this is a roundabout way of explaining that God isn't really love. I've heard many times that God is “Holy” Love”, which is another way of saying that God isn't love at all. If we cannot draw any parallels between love as we know it as humans and God's love, then there is no point in saying that God is Love. This is, in fact, just what the Calvinists do. Thank God they are wrong.
Of course, we have I Corinthians 13 to tell us what love is. We also know that Christian ethics are rooted in God's very person. We are to be perfect, just as God is (Matthew 5:48), merciful just as God is (Luke 6:36). But if God predetermines who goes to hell, and a person is judged according to the things he or she has done (Ezekiel 24:14, Revelation 20:12), then God must cause sin. This is what Calvinists must say, and have said. “Neither rape, nor adultery, nor theft, nor murder happens apart from the will of God.” If Calvin believed this, no wonder he did the things he did. Calvin was personally responsible for at least one death, that of Miguel Servantes, some one who dared to disagree with Calvin. Servantes sent Calvin a copy of his book, a letter outlining Calvin's mistakes, and a copy of Calvin's work “Institutions,” where the mistakes were pointed out. This outraged Calvin so much, that from that point on, he desired the death of Servantes. (We know this from Calvin's correspondences) Apparently, Calvin forgot to love his enemies, but I guess you don't have to do that when you don't believe that God is Love, but arbitrary power. Calvin's God is formed in the image of kings and emperors, who apply their will without reference to goodness, love, or justice. They do as they please. Calvin reasoned that God must be the same, forgetting to root his theology in the love of God. In fact, he easily brushes off God's love in his theological work. Why? It doesn't fit within his theological framework.
So, in this schema, God's not really love, and determines beforehand who will go to hell and who is lucky enough to go to heaven. Faced with a religion like this, atheism is the right response. Better no god, than a monstrous one. Fortunately, this is not our choice. Calvinism simply isn't Christian. It has nothing to do with Judaism, then or now, Jesus' own teaching on the matter, or Paul's. It's nonsense, and nothing more. God is not the author of evil, for the Bible bears witness to God working against evil, but if God wills evil, then God works against God's self. And as Jesus said in Matthew 12:25 that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Abe Lincoln said that too, but he was quoting Jesus.) Paul also tells us that love does not delight in evil (I Corinthians 13:6), but if God wills evil, he must desire evil because God only wills what God desires. And if God desire evil, he must see some good in it because no one desires that which they don't think good. This would mean that God delights in evil since surely, we delight in that which we find good, right? Rather, God “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). Even the unrighteous are loved by God, for God loves those who do not love God, the very basis for our call to love our enemies. If we must love our enemies, how much more does God love them? And if God loves them, Calvinism is nonsense that must be purged from the Church. Jesus was a martyr who forgave, but Calvin was a murderer who had a man brutally killed for disagreeing with him.
J.I. Packer, a reformed theologian, and thus in inconsistent one, tells us that the confession “God is Love” is not the whole truth about God. This is true in that there are other things we can say about God. We can also say that "God is triune" is not the whole truth about God, but it names somethign about God's essence. It tells us something. However, this is a roundabout way of explaining that God isn't really love. I've heard many times that God is “Holy” Love”, which is another way of saying that God isn't love at all. If we cannot draw any parallels between love as we know it as humans and God's love, then there is no point in saying that God is Love. This is, in fact, just what the Calvinists do. Thank God they are wrong.
Of course, we have I Corinthians 13 to tell us what love is. We also know that Christian ethics are rooted in God's very person. We are to be perfect, just as God is (Matthew 5:48), merciful just as God is (Luke 6:36). But if God predetermines who goes to hell, and a person is judged according to the things he or she has done (Ezekiel 24:14, Revelation 20:12), then God must cause sin. This is what Calvinists must say, and have said. “Neither rape, nor adultery, nor theft, nor murder happens apart from the will of God.” If Calvin believed this, no wonder he did the things he did. Calvin was personally responsible for at least one death, that of Miguel Servantes, some one who dared to disagree with Calvin. Servantes sent Calvin a copy of his book, a letter outlining Calvin's mistakes, and a copy of Calvin's work “Institutions,” where the mistakes were pointed out. This outraged Calvin so much, that from that point on, he desired the death of Servantes. (We know this from Calvin's correspondences) Apparently, Calvin forgot to love his enemies, but I guess you don't have to do that when you don't believe that God is Love, but arbitrary power. Calvin's God is formed in the image of kings and emperors, who apply their will without reference to goodness, love, or justice. They do as they please. Calvin reasoned that God must be the same, forgetting to root his theology in the love of God. In fact, he easily brushes off God's love in his theological work. Why? It doesn't fit within his theological framework.
So, in this schema, God's not really love, and determines beforehand who will go to hell and who is lucky enough to go to heaven. Faced with a religion like this, atheism is the right response. Better no god, than a monstrous one. Fortunately, this is not our choice. Calvinism simply isn't Christian. It has nothing to do with Judaism, then or now, Jesus' own teaching on the matter, or Paul's. It's nonsense, and nothing more. God is not the author of evil, for the Bible bears witness to God working against evil, but if God wills evil, then God works against God's self. And as Jesus said in Matthew 12:25 that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Abe Lincoln said that too, but he was quoting Jesus.) Paul also tells us that love does not delight in evil (I Corinthians 13:6), but if God wills evil, he must desire evil because God only wills what God desires. And if God desire evil, he must see some good in it because no one desires that which they don't think good. This would mean that God delights in evil since surely, we delight in that which we find good, right? Rather, God “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). Even the unrighteous are loved by God, for God loves those who do not love God, the very basis for our call to love our enemies. If we must love our enemies, how much more does God love them? And if God loves them, Calvinism is nonsense that must be purged from the Church. Jesus was a martyr who forgave, but Calvin was a murderer who had a man brutally killed for disagreeing with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
