Saturday, 12 May 2007
Speaking the Truth in Love
Ours is a time of compromise and accommodation. We see it often as we take our message to people who are pleased that you should have your beliefs as long as you leave them alone with theirs. We witness it in the attempts of political and social movers and shakers to find a middle ground, on which all faiths can stand and create a global religion to serve our global society. We hear it in the cries of protest that go up at our claim to exclusivity for the Christian faith. And our faith is uncompromising. Take the words of Jesus who declared:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn.14:6)
There is nothing remotely compromising about the message of the cross.
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to a cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him…
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear…Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ….
Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:22-39)
With our "Great Commission" clearly spelled out, "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt.28:19-20), we cannot, we dare not compromise.
Winning Friends and Influencing Sheep
Dale Carnegie, the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People, astutely observed that "If you want to make an enemy, tell a man he is wrong". But if we are going to that man with the Christian message, the message of Acts 2, how can we possibly avoid the risk of making an enemy? When dealing with the errors we encounter, and applying the corrective of Scripture, how can we make a friend and still "tell a man he is wrong"?
Isaiah, in describing the work of the cross and the desperate needs of a rebellious world, wrote:
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way"
And this describes perfectly the people to whom we are to take this uncompromising Christian message. All are following a way that seems right to them, their own way. But Isaiah goes on to describe God’s response to this straying world:
"And the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)
In Matthew’s gospel we read these words of Jesus:
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander." (Matt.18:12-13)
The apostle Peter’s familiar instruction to believers helps us here as he encourages us:
"In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1Peter 3:15).
Surely the answer to our question - "how can we make a friend and still "tell a man he is wrong"?" - is, in telling him he is wrong, we should also show him he is valued.
Christ in your Heart – and in your Witnessing
Sometimes, in our evangelistic efforts, we can lay such great store on correcting people that we can forget to value them. It is as though the person to whom we are speaking has no value until they come around to our way of thinking. It is well to remember that "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Ro.5:8).
God’s response to our sinfulness and rebellion is a demonstration of love. Setting apart Christ in your heart means more than telling the woman at the well that she is wrong in her beliefs and lifestyle. It means demonstrating that she is valued by speaking to her with gentleness and respect.
In "witnessing to the cults" it is very easy to become combative when we mean to be challenging, condemnatory when we should be caring, judgmental when we should be gentle and respectful. As we approach our evangelism perhaps it would help to bear in mind the following:
Apologetics isn’t there to make us look clever, but to make the message clear and more convincing. Remember that Jesus could have commanded angelic legions and looked mighty and triumphant if that had been God’s purpose (Matt.26:52-54). How often have I heard tales of Christians sending off a Jehovah’s Witness "with their tail between their legs", the argument won but the Witness lost? As we marshal our legion of arguments we must ask whether we are serving the purpose of God in winning souls or serving ourselves in gaining a reputation for winning arguments. Are we sharing the good news that Christ died for sinners, the just for the unjust, or are we breaking the bad news that our visitor is in a cult and doomed unless they get out? There is a world of difference.
Apologetics isn’t there primarily to pull down the Mormon Church or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society but to win the Mormon or Witness at your door. Long after Jesus had returned to glory both the temple and the establishment that crucified him still stood – for a time. But already, during his ministry and following Pentecost, people were responding to the call to repent and be baptised. Individuals were being saved into the kingdom even as the kingdom of Satan seemed indestructible.
Apologetics is an essential tool in our armoury, but we should remember that we do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm (Eph.6:12). This is particularly difficult for those who have been victims of deception but it is well to remember that the Mormon at your door is not the Mormon Church, the Witness is not the WTBTS. You are not tearing down strongholds but building a bridge. If we have put on Christ then, though we may burn with anger at the injustice and deception perpetrated by these organisations, we will look with love and compassion on those who are deceived just as we once were. Ask yourself, am I getting back at the organisation that hurt me, or am I valuing the person in front of me by sharing the truth with gentleness and respect?
Apologetics isn’t enough and no one can be reasoned into becoming a Christian. Apologetics can, however, remove obstacles to faith by showing that the Christian faith is not irrational. We can, with God’s help, "convince" people of so much, but more important than being convinced is being convicted. Conviction of sin is something brought by the Holy Spirit. That is why we need to pray for those to whom we witness. If we do not value them we will be less inclined to pray for them. If we value them we will speak the truth with gentleness and respect and pray that they may come to know him even as we have. Because they, like sheep, have gone astray, and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of them all - if someone would but tell them the truth, in love.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn.14:6)
There is nothing remotely compromising about the message of the cross.
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to a cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him…
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear…Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ….
Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:22-39)
With our "Great Commission" clearly spelled out, "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt.28:19-20), we cannot, we dare not compromise.
Winning Friends and Influencing Sheep
Dale Carnegie, the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People, astutely observed that "If you want to make an enemy, tell a man he is wrong". But if we are going to that man with the Christian message, the message of Acts 2, how can we possibly avoid the risk of making an enemy? When dealing with the errors we encounter, and applying the corrective of Scripture, how can we make a friend and still "tell a man he is wrong"?
Isaiah, in describing the work of the cross and the desperate needs of a rebellious world, wrote:
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way"
And this describes perfectly the people to whom we are to take this uncompromising Christian message. All are following a way that seems right to them, their own way. But Isaiah goes on to describe God’s response to this straying world:
"And the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)
In Matthew’s gospel we read these words of Jesus:
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander." (Matt.18:12-13)
The apostle Peter’s familiar instruction to believers helps us here as he encourages us:
"In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1Peter 3:15).
Surely the answer to our question - "how can we make a friend and still "tell a man he is wrong"?" - is, in telling him he is wrong, we should also show him he is valued.
Christ in your Heart – and in your Witnessing
Sometimes, in our evangelistic efforts, we can lay such great store on correcting people that we can forget to value them. It is as though the person to whom we are speaking has no value until they come around to our way of thinking. It is well to remember that "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Ro.5:8).
God’s response to our sinfulness and rebellion is a demonstration of love. Setting apart Christ in your heart means more than telling the woman at the well that she is wrong in her beliefs and lifestyle. It means demonstrating that she is valued by speaking to her with gentleness and respect.
In "witnessing to the cults" it is very easy to become combative when we mean to be challenging, condemnatory when we should be caring, judgmental when we should be gentle and respectful. As we approach our evangelism perhaps it would help to bear in mind the following:
Apologetics isn’t there to make us look clever, but to make the message clear and more convincing. Remember that Jesus could have commanded angelic legions and looked mighty and triumphant if that had been God’s purpose (Matt.26:52-54). How often have I heard tales of Christians sending off a Jehovah’s Witness "with their tail between their legs", the argument won but the Witness lost? As we marshal our legion of arguments we must ask whether we are serving the purpose of God in winning souls or serving ourselves in gaining a reputation for winning arguments. Are we sharing the good news that Christ died for sinners, the just for the unjust, or are we breaking the bad news that our visitor is in a cult and doomed unless they get out? There is a world of difference.
Apologetics isn’t there primarily to pull down the Mormon Church or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society but to win the Mormon or Witness at your door. Long after Jesus had returned to glory both the temple and the establishment that crucified him still stood – for a time. But already, during his ministry and following Pentecost, people were responding to the call to repent and be baptised. Individuals were being saved into the kingdom even as the kingdom of Satan seemed indestructible.
Apologetics is an essential tool in our armoury, but we should remember that we do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm (Eph.6:12). This is particularly difficult for those who have been victims of deception but it is well to remember that the Mormon at your door is not the Mormon Church, the Witness is not the WTBTS. You are not tearing down strongholds but building a bridge. If we have put on Christ then, though we may burn with anger at the injustice and deception perpetrated by these organisations, we will look with love and compassion on those who are deceived just as we once were. Ask yourself, am I getting back at the organisation that hurt me, or am I valuing the person in front of me by sharing the truth with gentleness and respect?
Apologetics isn’t enough and no one can be reasoned into becoming a Christian. Apologetics can, however, remove obstacles to faith by showing that the Christian faith is not irrational. We can, with God’s help, "convince" people of so much, but more important than being convinced is being convicted. Conviction of sin is something brought by the Holy Spirit. That is why we need to pray for those to whom we witness. If we do not value them we will be less inclined to pray for them. If we value them we will speak the truth with gentleness and respect and pray that they may come to know him even as we have. Because they, like sheep, have gone astray, and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of them all - if someone would but tell them the truth, in love.
Learning from Job
I was asked recently to write my testimony around Ezekiel 14:6 and the theme of God’s mercy in that if we repent we can be delivered. It stretched me and, I am glad to say, helped me find new insights into my relationship with God. This is what I wrote.
Turning from Idols
My parents weren’t Christians, nor were theirs before them so far as I know. But that is no excuse. Somewhere back then someone deserted God for idols. I guess I was at the end of an assembly line. Every time the world turned, out popped a sinner and I was the latest, the latest God-deserter, the latest idolater.
It seems strange to claim to have deserted a God you have never known, but God made us for Himself and that was not reflected in my life. Like a family leaving a newly born at the doors of an orphanage, my family deserted God at some point and walked away. And no matter how much they deny it, or how ignorant are future generations, the family connection is there. It sounds like desertion to me.
God made us for Himself and, in an attempt to renew that connection perhaps, my idol became quite sophisticated. I became a Mormon. No one blows their own trumpet like Mormons. Just ask Moroni. It’s like being wrong at the top of your voice.
But I didn’t know. I didn’t know it was detestable to worship a man as though he were God; or to view God as an exalted man; to doubt Christ’s promise to keep His own no matter what; to add to Scripture; to denigrate "God’s called out people" as abominable; to enter into secret practices and covenants; to deny grace and to want to be god. That I didn't know doesn’t make it less detestable, or me any less culpable—just detestable in my ignorance.
Turning from Idols
My parents weren’t Christians, nor were theirs before them so far as I know. But that is no excuse. Somewhere back then someone deserted God for idols. I guess I was at the end of an assembly line. Every time the world turned, out popped a sinner and I was the latest, the latest God-deserter, the latest idolater.
It seems strange to claim to have deserted a God you have never known, but God made us for Himself and that was not reflected in my life. Like a family leaving a newly born at the doors of an orphanage, my family deserted God at some point and walked away. And no matter how much they deny it, or how ignorant are future generations, the family connection is there. It sounds like desertion to me.
God made us for Himself and, in an attempt to renew that connection perhaps, my idol became quite sophisticated. I became a Mormon. No one blows their own trumpet like Mormons. Just ask Moroni. It’s like being wrong at the top of your voice.
But I didn’t know. I didn’t know it was detestable to worship a man as though he were God; or to view God as an exalted man; to doubt Christ’s promise to keep His own no matter what; to add to Scripture; to denigrate "God’s called out people" as abominable; to enter into secret practices and covenants; to deny grace and to want to be god. That I didn't know doesn’t make it less detestable, or me any less culpable—just detestable in my ignorance.
I am thankful for two things:
- For those Christians who saw past the wrong in my faith to the man who had such need and didn’t know it;
- For God’s mercy in that, as ignorant and detestable as my ways were, He made a way for me to repent.
God did something "to recapture the hearts of my people Israel, who have deserted me for their idols." (Ezekiel 14:5) It astonishes me that, no matter where you come in the assembly line, be it the first to desert (Adam) or the latest to do so in ignorance (Mike), God is prepared to do something to win you back.
"Repent and turn away from your idols," the merciful Lord says. "Thus [you] will be [Mine], and I shall be [your] God." (Ezekiel 14:6 and 11)
In the beginning God…
I began to ponder how we approach this whole area of thinking about our faith. As we develop an apologetic, a reasoned defence or explanation of what we believe, where do we start? The world starts with ‘me’; how I view things; the way it seems to me, as a man, or as a woman, or as a Welshman, or…put in your own nationality. And, even as Christians, we can easily give precedence to our own views, or the views of the particular group to which we belong.
In doing this we can feel disengaged from what God has been doing in the past, and might be doing elsewhere, as though my life is a clean slate on which God and I can make our own marks. It is this approach that gives birth to the idea that your faith is determined by where you are born, what your parents were, your temperament. Out of this come the extenuating circumstances we feel excuse us before God. We say, "I can’t help it", or, as the former Welsh Secretary, Ron Davies, said when explaining his strange and infamous behaviour on a certain London Heath, "We are what we are."
In reading Job I began to see a different approach. Although he regards himself as blameless (9:21 He does not mean sinless perfection here) and, unbeknownst to him, God himself takes the same view (1:8), Job nevertheless says:
How can a mortal be righteous before God? Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?…He alone stretches out the heavens and treads the waves of the sea. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.
He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted…How can I dispute with him? How can I find words to argue with him? Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy. (Job 9:2-4, 8-10, 14 & 15)
As we present our "reasons to believe" we should remember Job, and the fact that this is the God to whom we are bringing people. While our theology is vital to our witnessing, we should remember that Job’s ‘comforters’ were the ones with all the theology, the tidy theories that explain how it all works.
"Job, God punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. Repent of your secret sin and, ‘life will be brighter than noonday’." (Job 11)
They it was who claimed special insight and secret visions:
"I had a vision Job and learned that all men are sinful and you should take it like a man." (Job 4)
They it was who claimed to understand perfectly the justice of God:
"The lamp of the wicked is snuffed out…such is the dwelling of an evil man, such is the place of one who knows not God." (Job 18)
But it was Job who knew God and his place before him, "I could only plead with my Judge for mercy." As we witness we do use reason but there is a better reason than reason itself to come to God. He is there, and we are his, and our apologetic simply helps people to see clearly that, "Though I were innocent (‘we are what we are’), I could not answer him; I could only plead with my judge for mercy." This is the way of salvation. If our apologetic does not lead people to cry, "Brothers, what shall we do?" our "reasons to believe" are no reasons at all.
Friday, 11 May 2007
The Fulness of the Gospel - Agency
The Fullness of the Gospel
In 2006 the official Mormon Ensign magazine launched "A series of articles explaining basic beliefs of the restored gospel…unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of [LDS]" entitled The Fullness of the Gospel. Although they cover a lot of big ideas the articles are brief and there is precious little explanation. They assume the reader will accept uncritically what is written. We will look in more detail at these ideas, compare them with the Bible, and investigate for ourselves. The series begins with the following quote:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches," said Elder Dallin H Oaks of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. "But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians, why we build temple in addition to churches, and why our beliefs bring us such happiness and strength to deal with the challenges of life and death." (Ensign, January 2006, p.50)
Mormonism then does not bring what might be recognised as the traditional Christian gospel, but a very different message. This third article (February 2006) addresses the Mormon concept of ‘Agency’.
Agency
To a Mormon ‘agency’, or free will, means ‘an unfettered power of choice’. Everything in our lives is contingent upon the choices we make, even the decisions and activities of God are a response to those choice.
Building on the teaching of our premortal existence, the article says that we, like God, are eternal beings, and that we enjoy the same freedom of choice as God himself, "Agency is an eternal attribute of all intelligent beings". They define four conditions required for agency:
- Laws we can either obey or disobey.
- There must be opposites – good and evil, right and wrong.
- Knowledge of good and evil;
- We must possess an unfettered power of choice. (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (1966), p.26)
"We must also be accountable for our choices if we are to enjoy agency fully. The laws that exist must bring consequences…[bringing] blessings from God if we obey them and punishments if we do not."
Satan is portrayed as attacking this agency by, among other things, encouraging disobedience that can blind and enslave us and teaching us the popular message of ‘saved by grace’ which denies consequences to our actions and accountability. When we use our agency to choose righteousness then God rewards us with more freedoms and responsibilities. They describe a meritocracy in which rewards and punishments follow swiftly on obedience or sinfulness.
On this issue it is easy to fall into the trap of following what you instinctively feel must be true. These ideas would feel right to many people with a homespun philosophy and approach to justice. We must, however, approach these things scripturally not intuitively. It is not about what philosophy appeals to my limited reason but what God says in the Bible.
Creator/Creature
"Most Christian churches believe God created his children ex nihilo – out of nothing", they say and this would make God responsible for our sins because he "created us with flaws and weaknesses." They then assert that God did not create out of nothing, we already pre-existed and God placed us in a world he made out of pre-existing matter. There are several problems here.
Firstly, if anything coexisted with God, matter, spirit or ‘intelligence’ it would be eternal like God and would challenge God’s independence and sovereignty. This is a form of dualism in which God and the material universe eternally exist side-by-side. This would mean that there were two ultimate forces in the universe, God and matter, that something existed apart from God of whom Scripture declares, "In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…" (Col.1:16) "For you created all things, and by your will they existed" (Rev.4:11).
How could God be omnipotent if something existed apart from his will? This challenges his lordship over creation, his ultimate will for creation and his glory in creation. How could we know that God, and not another eternal force, is ultimately in control? But this is exactly what Mormonism presents us with, i.e. a ‘Plan of Salvation’ to which even God is subject.
Secondly, God did not create us with flaws and weaknesses. When God finished his creation he declared everything he had made, "very good". The fall of man, not the God who created man, brought sin into the world.
Finally, and most importantly, the Bible clearly shows in many places that God created everything out of nothing and that nothing in creation pre-existed or was fashioned from pre-existing materials. Before God created the universe nothing else existed except God.
For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him (Col.1:16, c.f. Ge.1:1; Ps.33:6,9; John 1:3; Acts 17:24; Heb.11:3; Rev.4:11)
Purpose in Creation
To Mormons God’s purpose in creation is that his children should progress to become like him. This progress is dependent on their adherence to the ‘Plan’ that God has for them and that God himself followed in order to become God. How they use their agency is key to their progress. The emphasis is very much on the creature.
The Bible emphasis is on God’s glory and makes clear that God’s purpose in creation is for his own glory. He speaks of his sons and daughters, "whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made" (Isaiah 43:7 c.f. Ps.19:1). We are further told that God, "created all things, and by your will they existed and were created" (Rev.4:11). God did not create according to some foreordained ‘Plan of Salvation’ to which he himself was bound. He created us because it was his will and pleasure.
Eternal Principle?
Agency is one of many ‘eternal principles’ in Mormonism. The idea of eternal principles is itself problematic. The reason has already been stated, i.e. if anything coexisted with God it would be eternal like God and would challenge God’s independence and sovereignty. The problem is compounded by the fact that in Mormonism not only do principles coexist eternally with God but also the God of Mormonism is himself subject to these principles. Indeed, the Mormon God has not always been God but these eternal principles have always been eternal principles. In this God’s sovereignty is compromised since he is a changing being (man become God) subject to unchanging principles!
The article insists that without this principle of agency God is "a deterministic God – that is, one who determines in advance the eventual fate of his children." The Mormon God acts in accordance with the Plan (a form of determinism surely?) and acts towards his children according to his perfect foreknowledge. "[God] may use this foreknowledge to guide us or even to warn us, but He does not use it to pre-empt our agency."
"[God] knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning…He sees the future as a state which will naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be" (James E Talmage)
There are several problems with this view. One is that it doesn’t free us from determinism altogether or create the ‘unfettered power of choice’ so beloved of Mormons. Rather it turns the tables and causes God’s choices to be determined by our actions, again robbing God of his sovereignty. Another problem is that foreknowledge does not make our choices any more free, it still pre-empts them. If God knows now what we will choose in the future that choice is already fixed and determined, otherwise God could not foreknow it.
As I sit here writing I might consider the question of what I might do with the rest of my day once this article is completed. Does God know what I will do? Let us say that God ‘knows’ that I will visit a friend but then I change my mind and stay at home. God’s ‘knowledge’ in that case is wrong. But God cannot be wrong because he is – God. And it is not in his nature to be wrong about anything. In which case, if I am to truly to have the unfettered freedom Mormons speak of, God cannot know until I decide. In which case God would not be omniscient; i.e. he wouldn’t know everything. But omniscience is part of God’s nature and Scripture declares that he does know the end from the beginning (Isa.46:10) and Mormons agree. If he knows what I will do am I then robbed of my freedom to choose? Are my choices predetermined?
Providence
We have seen that God is the all-powerful creator and that all else exists at the word of his command (Col.1:16 c.f.) All that he has created the Bible says he preserves and governs according to his perfect will. God is said to "uphold all things by his word of power" in Christ, and "He is before all things and in him all things hold together" (Col.1:17)
This is called God’s providence; i.e. God’s continued provision of life and order in the universe. If anything existed apart from God then God could not be said to be "before all things" nor that all things hold together in him. Some things would be self-sustaining. The Bible makes clear that if Christ ceased for a moment to uphold all things then all things except God would cease to exist.
We enter into a world created, ordered and sustained according to God’s perfect will and purpose. Our decisions, then, are already contingent upon the sovereign will of God for his world and for the people in it. It is not a question of whether God "pre-empts our agency", nor does God "arbitrarily" will our future. This is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical message. God has a purpose in creation, does nothing arbitrarily, and we are not in a position to pre-empt and frustrate that purpose.
Free Will
The Bible tells us that God "accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph.1:11 c.f. Ps.139:16;Jer.10:23). This does not mean, however, that we are robbed of choices. Nor are we absolved of responsibility for our actions.
God is said to "cause the grass to grow" (Ps.104:14); to direct the stars in the heavens (Job:38:32); "makes his sun rise…and sends rain" (Matt.5:45) and yet that does not mean that there are not also natural explanations for these phenomena. God is said to direct - "accomplish all things according to the counsel of his will" - and work through the distinctive properties of created things so that it can be said these things bring about the results we see. God is sovereign and nature is ‘natural’.
In the same way God achieves his perfect ends through the choices and actions of men who make choices for which they are rightly accountable and which can be said to have real effects on the world God made. This is no better illustrated than in the account of the crucifixion. In his speech at Pentecost Peter declared:
"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)
God decreed that Christ would die but men killed him and are accountable for their actions. There is a tension between the sovereign will of God and the genuinely free choices of men that we see in Scripture and that we must recognise. Both sovereignty and a degree of free choice are compatible in God’s plan but God alone can understand and perfectly reconcile them.
We must not misunderstand ‘free will’ however. Our freedom to choose is restricted by natural circumstances, where and when we are born and in what circumstances, as well as by God’s ultimate sovereignty. No one enjoys "unfettered power of choice". But we are free to choose and remain accountable for our choices. We might distinguish between free will in the sense of being able to do good in one’s own strength and the ability we have to voluntarily co-operate with God’s purposes – or not. But we cannot frustrate or change those purposes.
Further reading:
Systematic Theology, Creation, God’s Providence, Wayne Grudem, IVP 1996
Know the Truth, Bruce Milne, IVP 1993
Look out for more on this subject and further subjects from the Ensign ‘Fulness of the Gospel’ series on the Reachout web site http://www.reachouttrust.org/
The Real Chess Club and the Mormons
An article in the unofficial Mormon Meridian magazine illustrates the Mormon preoccupation with critics. Entitled The Parable of the Chess Club and anti-Mormons it portrays the typical ‘anti-Mormon’ as someone who has become disaffected with and left the Mormon Church and gone on to live a parody of ‘the true church’ and insisting that what he has is the real truth. The article can be read at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030128anti.html
Typically it begins with the assumption that Mormonism is the truth. I was quite taken by the idea and the format and wondered how it would work out if we assumed that the traditional Christian message is the truth and wrote my own version. It was good fun and this is it.
There once was a highly successful chess club. Over a period of 2,000 years the club became popular across the world and gained countless millions of members. Clubs were set up in most countries, each doing things a little differently reflecting the different cultures, times and circumstances of its members. Some were quite formal while others were less so. Some met in great numbers in large buildings, while others met in small groups in local halls, or member’s homes. Some club meetings were grand affairs with a good deal of pomp and ceremony, while others were simple gatherings with the least fuss and formality. But each adhered to the basic rules of the game of chess.
One of the members, let’s call him Joseph, didn’t really understand the game and grew bored with playing chess according to someone else’s rules. He decided he wanted to play by his own rules. In fact, he was so determined that he wanted all of the other members to play by his rules too. He spent all of his time haranguing them to stop playing by the established rules and start playing his way. He began to claim that he had a special gift for the game, and an insight on how the founder had originally intended it to be played. And when he didn’t get his way, he left in a huff.
The chess club didn’t mind too much. Joseph was still the only guy who wanted to play by his rules. Time passed, and the chess club went through a rough patch, as all clubs do from time to time. It had happened before and would, no doubt, happen again. Some of the people couldn’t deal with the tough times, and Joseph noticed this. He convinced them that now was really the time to start playing by his rules. A small group, a total of six, of the chess club’s members said they felt that there was something in what Joseph was saying and wanted to play Joseph’s way.
Soon they became bored with just playing among themselves, and they decided to try to get everybody else in the chess club to play Joseph’s way. But nobody else wanted to play with Joseph besides the original six. Club leaders and members became concerned that Joseph and his friends were claiming that they were the real chess club, that members of the club they had left were not true to the rules, and that he had a book containing the original rules of the game.
"Look guys, this is the chess club. If you want to play by different rules that you’ve made up yourselves, go start a club of your own, but don’t pretend your us" the original club members said. But of course this is not what the dissident chess club members wanted. Simply going off and doing their own thing was not very challenging; they wanted to convince everybody else to play by their rules.
Soon it became a rule of Joseph’s club that members give some of their time, say two years, to going around telling as many people as they could that what they had come to regard as the chess club over 2,000 years had moved away from the club founder’s original vision. That they should look around for another club to join, say Joseph’s. They gave away copies of the book Joseph claimed contained the original rules as well as supplementary books containing more and more and more rules.
Members of the original club were now quite alarmed and began to study these books and compare them with the real original rules contained in the book they had been given by the earliest club members, friends of the founder. Joseph had changed so many rules they hardly knew where to begin. For instance, while there was only one white king in the original game, Joseph had lots of white kings. Furthermore, Joseph kept adding rules, changing rules, and ignoring rules. In fact this last point bothered a lot of people since he seemed to play by different rules to everyone else in the club.
Where the book he started off with seemed to have some resemblance to the original game, his later books moved further and further away until it was hard to recognise that they were playing chess at all. He jumped over so many heads in an attempt to have his own way that some say he was playing checkers. And this was a problem because people who didn’t know the rules of chess took a game played on 64 black and white squares with "pieces" that moved back and forth across the board "taking" each other was actually chess. Some people played checkers for years thinking they were playing chess.
Soon some of the original members of Joseph’s club decided to leave for various reasons. Some left because they noticed that Joseph was not true even to the original rules under which these earliest members joined. Some left because, following Joseph’s example, they saw an opportunity to be at the head of a club of their own. Some even left because they began to suspect that Joseph was using the club as an opportunity to have improper relations with other club member’s wives. Following this scandal Joseph’s wife, lets call her Emma, eventually got involved in another club that claimed to have stuck to Joseph’s original rules.
This was all getting very messy, and Joseph and his friends were creating chaos. They spent all of their time bothering the chess players so no one could simply enjoy the game as it had been played for 2,000 years. Finally, the members of the original club decided it prudent and wise to publish what they had found so that people would have a clearer picture of what Joseph’s club was really all about. To broadcast to the world of chess what had been going on and warn them that this dissident group could cause all sorts of problems.
Some, who had played checkers for years, thinking it to be chess, refused to believe at first what they were told by original club members. When they finally realised, however, that they had been mistaken in taking checkers for chess they were grateful and left Joseph’s club. Many joined the original chess club, although it has to be said others stayed away from the game altogether, refusing to risk being duped a second time. Joseph had spoiled the game of chess for a lot of good people. Some simply refused to believe anything members of the original club told them. They accused those who left Joseph’s club of betrayal and said that those who went on to tell the truth about Joseph were just bitter and spiteful people. This was sad because these people felt that in the original game they had found the challenge, companionship and fulfilment they had always been seeking and simply wished to share it with others.
As time passed and new presidents of Joseph’s club came and went the rules continued to change. Eventually new generations of club members knew only the "Joseph’s rules" with which they had grown up and knew nothing of the changes that had taken place over the years. They believed that this was how the game had always been played, not just 2,000 years ago, but by Joseph himself. They didn’t realise how far from the original game their club had travelled. Nor how far even from Joseph’s game.
Original club members continued to share the original rules with those who cared to know, and especially with members of Joseph’s club, because they felt an empathy with those who thought they were playing the game but were only paying a pale imitation. Meanwhile, members of Joseph’s club whined and complained continuously about the original club, claiming it was "persecuting" them. The leaders of Joseph’s club realised how far they had moved from the original club rules and began to "forget" some of the rules Joseph and other early presidents had insisted upon. They tried harder and harder to sound like chess players. They used chess terms, even though they were playing checkers. Finally, they thought that they had enough people convinced they were really playing chess that they demanded to be recognised as just another chess club.
Original club members, while recognising the different "flavours" of chess clubs around the world, felt this was asking too much. It didn’t seem right somehow that people should go around playing checkers all the while claiming it was chess. They, therefore, continued to publish information about Joseph’s club, and members of that club continued to whine and complain. They insisted that members of the original club were not playing chess, only the checkers players were playing chess. When members of the original club aimed that charge back, claiming that you can hardly call checkers chess, Joseph’s club members insisted that they had every right to call their game chess, and said they were being persecuted. They said it was not fair that, just because the original club had the original rules, they should decide on how chess should be played. "We’ll play by Joseph’s rules ‘til we die", they exclaimed as they jumped over several of the opposing player’s pieces and demanded to be made king.
Typically it begins with the assumption that Mormonism is the truth. I was quite taken by the idea and the format and wondered how it would work out if we assumed that the traditional Christian message is the truth and wrote my own version. It was good fun and this is it.
There once was a highly successful chess club. Over a period of 2,000 years the club became popular across the world and gained countless millions of members. Clubs were set up in most countries, each doing things a little differently reflecting the different cultures, times and circumstances of its members. Some were quite formal while others were less so. Some met in great numbers in large buildings, while others met in small groups in local halls, or member’s homes. Some club meetings were grand affairs with a good deal of pomp and ceremony, while others were simple gatherings with the least fuss and formality. But each adhered to the basic rules of the game of chess.
One of the members, let’s call him Joseph, didn’t really understand the game and grew bored with playing chess according to someone else’s rules. He decided he wanted to play by his own rules. In fact, he was so determined that he wanted all of the other members to play by his rules too. He spent all of his time haranguing them to stop playing by the established rules and start playing his way. He began to claim that he had a special gift for the game, and an insight on how the founder had originally intended it to be played. And when he didn’t get his way, he left in a huff.
The chess club didn’t mind too much. Joseph was still the only guy who wanted to play by his rules. Time passed, and the chess club went through a rough patch, as all clubs do from time to time. It had happened before and would, no doubt, happen again. Some of the people couldn’t deal with the tough times, and Joseph noticed this. He convinced them that now was really the time to start playing by his rules. A small group, a total of six, of the chess club’s members said they felt that there was something in what Joseph was saying and wanted to play Joseph’s way.
Soon they became bored with just playing among themselves, and they decided to try to get everybody else in the chess club to play Joseph’s way. But nobody else wanted to play with Joseph besides the original six. Club leaders and members became concerned that Joseph and his friends were claiming that they were the real chess club, that members of the club they had left were not true to the rules, and that he had a book containing the original rules of the game.
"Look guys, this is the chess club. If you want to play by different rules that you’ve made up yourselves, go start a club of your own, but don’t pretend your us" the original club members said. But of course this is not what the dissident chess club members wanted. Simply going off and doing their own thing was not very challenging; they wanted to convince everybody else to play by their rules.
Soon it became a rule of Joseph’s club that members give some of their time, say two years, to going around telling as many people as they could that what they had come to regard as the chess club over 2,000 years had moved away from the club founder’s original vision. That they should look around for another club to join, say Joseph’s. They gave away copies of the book Joseph claimed contained the original rules as well as supplementary books containing more and more and more rules.
Members of the original club were now quite alarmed and began to study these books and compare them with the real original rules contained in the book they had been given by the earliest club members, friends of the founder. Joseph had changed so many rules they hardly knew where to begin. For instance, while there was only one white king in the original game, Joseph had lots of white kings. Furthermore, Joseph kept adding rules, changing rules, and ignoring rules. In fact this last point bothered a lot of people since he seemed to play by different rules to everyone else in the club.
Where the book he started off with seemed to have some resemblance to the original game, his later books moved further and further away until it was hard to recognise that they were playing chess at all. He jumped over so many heads in an attempt to have his own way that some say he was playing checkers. And this was a problem because people who didn’t know the rules of chess took a game played on 64 black and white squares with "pieces" that moved back and forth across the board "taking" each other was actually chess. Some people played checkers for years thinking they were playing chess.
Soon some of the original members of Joseph’s club decided to leave for various reasons. Some left because they noticed that Joseph was not true even to the original rules under which these earliest members joined. Some left because, following Joseph’s example, they saw an opportunity to be at the head of a club of their own. Some even left because they began to suspect that Joseph was using the club as an opportunity to have improper relations with other club member’s wives. Following this scandal Joseph’s wife, lets call her Emma, eventually got involved in another club that claimed to have stuck to Joseph’s original rules.
This was all getting very messy, and Joseph and his friends were creating chaos. They spent all of their time bothering the chess players so no one could simply enjoy the game as it had been played for 2,000 years. Finally, the members of the original club decided it prudent and wise to publish what they had found so that people would have a clearer picture of what Joseph’s club was really all about. To broadcast to the world of chess what had been going on and warn them that this dissident group could cause all sorts of problems.
Some, who had played checkers for years, thinking it to be chess, refused to believe at first what they were told by original club members. When they finally realised, however, that they had been mistaken in taking checkers for chess they were grateful and left Joseph’s club. Many joined the original chess club, although it has to be said others stayed away from the game altogether, refusing to risk being duped a second time. Joseph had spoiled the game of chess for a lot of good people. Some simply refused to believe anything members of the original club told them. They accused those who left Joseph’s club of betrayal and said that those who went on to tell the truth about Joseph were just bitter and spiteful people. This was sad because these people felt that in the original game they had found the challenge, companionship and fulfilment they had always been seeking and simply wished to share it with others.
As time passed and new presidents of Joseph’s club came and went the rules continued to change. Eventually new generations of club members knew only the "Joseph’s rules" with which they had grown up and knew nothing of the changes that had taken place over the years. They believed that this was how the game had always been played, not just 2,000 years ago, but by Joseph himself. They didn’t realise how far from the original game their club had travelled. Nor how far even from Joseph’s game.
Original club members continued to share the original rules with those who cared to know, and especially with members of Joseph’s club, because they felt an empathy with those who thought they were playing the game but were only paying a pale imitation. Meanwhile, members of Joseph’s club whined and complained continuously about the original club, claiming it was "persecuting" them. The leaders of Joseph’s club realised how far they had moved from the original club rules and began to "forget" some of the rules Joseph and other early presidents had insisted upon. They tried harder and harder to sound like chess players. They used chess terms, even though they were playing checkers. Finally, they thought that they had enough people convinced they were really playing chess that they demanded to be recognised as just another chess club.
Original club members, while recognising the different "flavours" of chess clubs around the world, felt this was asking too much. It didn’t seem right somehow that people should go around playing checkers all the while claiming it was chess. They, therefore, continued to publish information about Joseph’s club, and members of that club continued to whine and complain. They insisted that members of the original club were not playing chess, only the checkers players were playing chess. When members of the original club aimed that charge back, claiming that you can hardly call checkers chess, Joseph’s club members insisted that they had every right to call their game chess, and said they were being persecuted. They said it was not fair that, just because the original club had the original rules, they should decide on how chess should be played. "We’ll play by Joseph’s rules ‘til we die", they exclaimed as they jumped over several of the opposing player’s pieces and demanded to be made king.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)