Practical Reflections on Free Will and Divine Sovereignty—Part 3: An Aside

(Note: The following post is part 3 in a series authored by Dan Hermiz. Click on the links to view part 1 and part 2)

For about a hundred pages of one of my favorite fiction books, Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo, there is a not-so-brief history lesson on the Battle of Waterloo. You could easily read it and wonder halfway through, “What happened to the story?” “What’s the point of this?” The answer, I think, is context. The author apparently felt that for his readers to get the full weight of the story there were certain things they would need to understand from a historical perspective. Makes sense to me. Now I’m obviously no Victor Hugo, and my work is far short of a masterpiece. However, if I may borrow the strategy for a day, I’d like to go on a little aside and provide some context before moving to my next reflection. The aside I have in mind is a consideration, or really just a reminder, of what it means to keep an eternal perspective on things.

I’m guessing it’s a safe bet that you’ve heard someone described as “so heavenly minded” that he or she is “no earthly good.” I think I get the sentiment—that some people do in fact seem to render themselves somewhat impotent (socially speaking) because of their preoccupation with some other time or place, unwilling to see or do something about the problems staring them in the face, seeing them instead as some sort of doctrinal validation, so we best avoid them. But I have to admit that while I take the sentiment seriously, I’ve come to really dislike the phrase. My reason? For starters, it seems to me that the person this phrase attempts to describe has precisely the opposite problem. He’s too earthly minded, which is deeply unbiblical. Colossians 3:2 actually commands us to “set [our] minds on what is above, not on what is on the earth” (HCSB).

I think C.S. Lewis put it well: “If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next.” In my estimation, this is a far more accurate characterization. If I really am passionate about something, doesn’t that cause me to talk about it more? Even convert people to my way of thinking? Whether it’s my favorite sports team, musical preferences, or life and death itself, if I really care about something and dwell on it constantly I’ll be a greater ambassador on its behalf, not a poorer one. So if I find that I just can’t stop thinking about heaven, I’ll probably find that I can’t help but want to “give ‘em heaven.”

You might be wondering what this could possibly have to do with free will and divine sovereignty. It’s simple really.  A heavenly minded person is an eternally minded person, and eternity is the ultimate perspective changer. And if this is true, then getting eternity right can make all the difference in the world. For the Apostle Paul, even his great earthly suffering could be regarded as “a light and momentary affliction” when considered in light of the “eternal weight of glory” (2 Corinthians 4:17). I think this is one of the most profound indications of just how powerful an effect the reality of Heaven (or eternity) can have on Christ-followers.

If ever there were an issue that could use an infusion of heavenly perspective, it’s the doctrine of salvation. My next two reflections in this series will venture into just that issue. This is where the whole free will vs. divine sovereignty issue gets really sticky. So before offering my thoughts on it, I think it’s beneficial to remind ourselves that when we’re talking about salvation, we’re taking about eternity. While there might be a process involved, there is nothing temporary about it. It is my personal belief that one of the reasons this doctrine of the relationship between free will and divine sovereignty is so difficult for many of us is that we are stuck in “earthly minded” ways of thinking (I’ll expand on this later). And if we’re going to understand how these two concepts work together, we’re going to need a strong dose of eternal-mindedness. We must proceed with caution and humility.

—Dan Hermiz

Becoming fit for service through non-Jedi mind control

Jesus’ beautiful but uncomfortable command to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24/Mark 8:34/Luke 9:23) has been on my mind a lot lately. I touched on it in a recent post on consumerism, but on this happy Monday I’d like to direct our thoughts on self-denial to . . . our thoughts.

We often conceive of self-denial as doing things for other people rather than for ourselves. After the prior two weeks, I am recognizing afresh that self-denial also has a mental component to it. Truth is, if we become overly focused (read: obsessive) about certain anxieties, dilemmas, and even hobbies, it is impossible to be engaged with other people as we should be. Instead of concerning ourselves with Jesus and His mission of service, we spend our time in virtual cubicles of control, fixating on memos we have written to ourselves.

In Philippians 4:8, Paul writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (ESV). In commenting on this verse, Fred Chay, my mentor from Phoenix Seminary, said this: “Paul is calling for nothing less than for Christians to be engaged in ‘mind control.’”

This kind of mind control is not for Jedi Knights; it is for any man (or woman) reading this blog who wants to be about what Jesus is about. Losing control of our minds is not just bad for us. It makes us ineffective in multiplying devoted followers of Jesus.

If we choose to dwell on the true, the honorable, the just, and so forth, it will liberate us to serve others and love them as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25–27). If we choose to dwell uncritically on whatever enters our minds, we’ll be hamstrung in service for Christ.

On this Monday, which will you choose?

—Beau Stanley

Be yourself?

Those of you who are music fans, as I am, may agree with me that songs often provide an interesting look at the worldviews of those who write them.

Lately I have enjoyed listening to Pandora, an Internet site where you can type in the name of a group and hear (for free) music that has similar characteristics to the music of the group you specified. Within the last week I heard two songs with which I had not been familiar, which contained similar and helpfully direct statements about worldview. The first was “Be Yourself” (2005), by Audioslave, and the second was “Nutshell” (1994), by Alice in Chains.

The verses of the former song talk of the various ways in which people find “salvation,” but the chorus delivers Chris Cornell’s takeaway: “To be yourself is all that you can do.” In the hauntingly dark but beautiful “Nutshell,” lead singer Layne Staley croons, “And yet I find / Repeating in my head / If I can’t be my own / I’d feel better dead.”

What a stark contrast there is between the message of these two songs and the teaching of Jesus:

“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25 ESV).

It is very tempting to think that the solution to the difficulties and struggles of life is to turn inward and liberate ourselves, pursuing our personal preferences and desires and throwing off restraint. This thinking leads to unhealthy introspection, crippling self-absorption, and despair. I’m sorry to say that I can speak to this from personal experience. Tragically, Staley himself died in 2002 of a drug overdose after a long battle with substance addiction, which I doubt was unrelated to his inability to find what he was looking for.

Jesus said in the above quote and elsewhere that one finds true life not by turning inward, but by serving Him and others. I am much more pleased to say that I can also speak to this from personal experience. I’m at about the same age Staley was when he died, and I’ve become increasingly turned off by trying to find myself and “be my own.” This is progress.

—Beau Stanley

Are preemptive strikes biblical?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracebrethren.org, or by leaving a comment on this post.

A couple of weeks ago I received an intriguing “Ask Beau” question about preemptive military strikes. The emailer had been thinking about the issue because of the recent nuclear developments in Iran. She wrote, “I am finding it more and more difficult to justify in my heart killing innocent lives in an effort to protect the US from a ‘possible’ attack.” Her question included an inquiry about whether or not there was a biblical example of a God-ordered preemptive strike at the national level.

I am not aware of any such example. In fact, I am not aware of any biblical example in which a nation attacks another nation in a preemptive manner—that is, to prevent a potential military action from the other party. This may be more related to the nature of ancient war tactics than it is to theology. Modern warfare is significantly different from ancient warfare. The Bible contains many examples of military aggression, but in ancient times, opposing armies would fight face-to-face, at close range. Usually you saw your opponent coming. Consider the words of Jesus:

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace (Luke 14:31,32 ESV).

With modern technology it is possible for a nation to attack even a distant nation, suddenly and stealthily. This makes preemptive strikes more plausible (and, some would argue, more necessary) than they were in ancient times.

The question remains, though: Would God condone preemptive military strikes in a modern context? This is a very difficult question to answer, as there is little if any direct biblical teaching on how a nation should approach warfare. Comparisons with ancient Israel are not fully adequate as we do not live in a theocratic system in the New Covenant era.

Just war theory presents one possible synthesis of biblical morality as it pertains to armed conflict. The theory suggests, among other things, that military force should only be used as a last resort, and that the cause must be just. Quoting from the Wikipedia article to which I linked above, “Innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.”

This is the crux of the issue in Iran, it would seem. Christians who feel that the Iranian nuclear situation presents an imminent threat to innocent life, and that all possible measures have been taken to deal with the situation peacefully, will naturally feel more comfortable with a preemptive strike. Personally I am uncomfortable with the idea of a preemptive strike at this point, but I am also not well-acquainted with the specifics of the Iranian nuclear situation.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

—Beau Stanley

Primary goals

Those of us who live in Ohio have become accustomed to the fierce political battles that take place in our state. Ohio has played a key role in recent presidential elections, and 2012 will likely continue this trend. Tomorrow’s primary election features candidates from several different parties for several different offices, and all of them want you to believe that they are the best for the job. So what’s a follower of Jesus to do?

I think it is helpful to come back to Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:1–2: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (ESV). Timothy and most of his congregation at Ephesus weren’t likely in a position to elect political leaders, but they could pray for those leaders. Paul seems to be concerned that political leaders would allow Christians to be witnesses for Jesus (see the following verses) without persecution and undue difficulty.

Though the freedom of religion is written into the First Amendment, some politicians would prefer to substitute the more private and less politically meaningful “freedom of worship,” as Chuck Colson has repeatedly pointed out in his Breakpoint blog. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy suggests that a good goal for Christians voting in Tuesday’s primary would be to vote for candidates who would work to preserve the rights of Christians (and other religious groups, in our political context) to practice and promote their faith freely in the public sphere. In my judgment, this freedom of religion is more important for us than economic freedom—which has attracted far more attention lately.

What are your thoughts going into Tuesday’s primary?

—Beau Stanley

Uncomfortable diversions

I suppose I like change more than some people, but lately I’ve been a creature of habit in my running. When I run in my neighborhood, I run pretty much the same exact route every time. This past Saturday, though, I had the revolutionary idea of going a different direction near the end of my run.

My neighborhood consists primarily of single family homes, but at about the three-mile mark I run by some apartment complexes. These complexes are not necessarily luxury living. I would imagine that there is drug activity there and probably some other things going on that I’d prefer not to know about. A small portion of my standard run goes along the road on which these complexes lie, but eventually I turn back toward the center of the neighborhood.

Since a friend and I had already walked through one of the complexes several weeks ago, praying for the people, it seemed like a good idea to head back there. I can’t tell you how refreshing it was. A small diversion from my run took me into territory where I don’t usually go. Thoughts filled my mind of the possible ministry that could take place in this location. I met one of the maintenance men. For a moment I had stepped out of comfortable suburbia into a place where things are a bit rougher, and in that short time I felt like the Lord gave me a window into the possibilities of what He can do (Ephesians 3:20-21).

We will be speaking of the concept of witness on Sunday, March 11, at Grace Polaris, but let me prime the pump a bit today. If we are to be Jesus’ witnesses (Acts 1:8), then we must be willing to go outside of our comfort zones, to use a popular phrase. Comfort zones, by definition, don’t like to be transgressed. We must sometimes take uncomfortable diversions if we desire to be the effective witnesses that Jesus wants us to be.

I think I may have found myself a new running route.

—Beau Stanley

The problem with shooting .45 rounds through a laptop

On Monday a friend passed along a link to a parenting story that has drawn quite a bit of attention. New parenting strategies come up from time to time. Evidently a new parenting strategy in our day is to respond to a fifteen-year-old daughter’s disrespectful and rebellious Facebook post by shooting her laptop and posting a video of the “execution” on YouTube.

The friend who sent the link wondered what I thought about this incident. As for his take, he wrote, “In my opinion, too many believers have praised this father for the way he is disciplining his daughter. I might be in the minority, but as a guy trying to be a godly father, I didn’t find anything that he did that made me want to employ the same method. It mostly just made me sad and a little sick.”

Before I give my reaction, I must offer a bit of a disclaimer. Over time I have grown more leery of criticizing other people’s parenting methods; perhaps this is because I have come to recognize as I raise my own children that there is often important context that those on the outside looking in can’t see. Even in this instance, where the situation seems pretty straightforward, I offer my comments with the recognition that I am not in the dad’s shoes/cowboy boots.

My suspicion is that some people who are pleased with the father’s response are more pleased with his strong reaction to the child’s mildly nauseating rebellion and entitlement mentality than they are with his specific methods. The daughter’s post, which contains language fit for a sailor, is a disrespectful expression of pride, and the father was right to take it very seriously. My concern is that he may be missing the root of the problem.

Here’s the thing: shaming someone can be a very powerful way of manipulating her behavior, but it is quite ineffective at dealing with her heart. While I think we all can understand dad’s frustration, the discipline he employs feels like a strongarm tactic that could easily backfire. She might throw in the towel after this incident and “shape up,” but maybe not. What happens if she posts something even more ridiculous on Facebook next time by borrowing her friend’s smart phone? Would he get out the heavy artillery and aim for the satellites?

If the true problem here is the daughter’s sense of pride and entitlement, I think dad would be more successful in dealing with the heart issue by “sentencing” his daughter for a time to serve people who are underprivileged, infirm, or something like that. I doubt it would take long for daughter to reconsider her attitude if she spent time on J5 at Children’s Hospital. Even this discipline, I would hope, would be done in the context of a loving relationship. This is not at all to say that this dad doesn’t love his daughter; it is to say that the Internet may not be the best medium to express parental love.

Of course what the daughter did was wrong. What do you think about this unusual response from dad?

—Beau Stanley

Does God speak to his followers today?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracebrethren.org, or by leaving a comment on this post.

Last week I received a question via email about how God speaks to His followers today. The person sending the email was asking the question in part because of some criticism that Beth Moore and John Piper have received regarding their belief that God can and does speak directly to believers.

The way in which God speaks to believers has been a topic of debate for a long time. The rise of the charismatic movement and the explosive growth of Pentecostalism worldwide have probably intensified the debate in our present day. Those who believe God still speaks directly to believers would cite as precedent such passages as Acts 8:29, in which the Holy Spirit told Philip directly to go over to the chariot of a nearby Ethiopian eunuch. Those who do not believe God speaks directly to believers would suggest that direct communication from God to a Christian (after the Scriptures were complete) would constitute extrabiblical revelation. In other words, they are concerned that an appeal to direct personal experience with the Holy Spirit contradicts the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) and, at least potentially, subjugates the Scripture to what you or I might feel at a given moment.

This is a tough question to address in a brief blog post, but my answer boils down to this: I believe God can and does speak directly to believers today, but I firmly believe in the authority of Scripture over personal experience.

Here is how I would relate the present working of the Holy Spirit to the Bible. The Holy Spirit, when speaking to the Christian today, shows the Christian how the Scripture applies to his or her personal situation. This is not God giving new revelation or reopening the canon of Scripture. It is God saying something like, “Bob, you know how my Word says not to exasperate your children? You’re exasperating them right now” (see Ephesians 6:4).

What then of the more abstract messages that someone senses from the Lord? Would God say to a believer, “Go, talk to that person”? I believe that He can and sometimes does do this. Though the application of Scripture here is not as linear as in the example of the exasperating father, the Holy Spirit is applying the “law of Christ” that Paul speaks of in Galatians 6:2, namely, the law of love (see also John 13:34–35). The Holy Spirit is showing the believer how he is to act in love in that particular moment.

Without an understanding that God speaks in some way to believers on a moment-by-moment basis, it is quite difficult to apply verses like Galatians 5:25, which states: “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (NIV). Obviously, the believer must be attuned to the Spirit’s leading so that he can keep in step with the Spirit. It won’t do to understand “Spirit” here as synonymous with the Word of God, in part because the Word does not directly address all the situations in which the believer is to find guidance from the Holy Spirit (see also Galatians 5:18).

I really do appreciate the concern that many have about contemplative spirituality and mysticism because in our pride we sometimes use the “God told me” line as a sort of trump card. This is particularly dangerous when people take actions that are clearly unbiblical and then justify these unbiblical actions by saying, “I know God is telling me to do this.” To use an extreme example, if you think God is telling you to cheat on your wife, you are wrong. When we remember that God’s Spirit applies God’s Word, then we will recognize that God’s Spirit will not tell us to do something that contradicts the Scripture.

This is certainly a hot topic. Have you thought about these issues? What is your take?

—Beau Stanley

Taking the high road with David

Part of the drama of professional sports is the high-profile breakups that take place between team ownership and star players. Most recently the potential breakup in focus has been that of Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Pretty soon owner Jim Irsay and the Colts are going to have to make a decision about whether or not to let go of their phenomenally talented but apparently still injured quarterback. If the two sides part ways, I hope Manning makes the difficult choice to follow David’s example.

No, I’m not talking about David Ortiz or David Beckham. I’m talking about David son of Jesse, shepherd boy turned king sometime around 1000 B.C. In the book of 1 Samuel you can read the story of David’s ascent to the throne and his strained relationship with King Saul, whom he replaced. David was incredibly loyal to Saul though Saul mistreated him horribly and even sought to kill him. Lots of times.

Second Samuel begins with a lament that David wrote about Saul, a lament in which David makes Saul look like the greatest thing since cracked matzo. Reading the chapter this morning I was struck by the respect that David shows Saul in the lament, even though Saul had treated him worse than a belligerent free agent. Rather than bitterly blasting Saul, David showed him heartfelt honor.

It is very easy to become embittered and harsh, speaking of those in authority with little respect and honor, when we feel an authority has wronged us. This is unacceptable, men. I quote James on the matter: “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” (James 1:26 ESV).

Those in authority will wrong us sometimes. Let’s take the high road with David.

—Beau Stanley

Jesus, the second Adam

The New Testament presentation of Jesus as the second Adam is quite fascinating. The first Adam introduced sin into the world, but Jesus conquered sin as the obedient second Adam. Sharing in Adam’s sin makes me a sinner in need of the grace of God and I continue to be amazed by how imperfect I am and how perfect Jesus is. As the Spirit of God reveals to me my own sinfulness, but also the sinless life of Christ, I am driven to worship the One who has obeyed in every area I have sinned.

Comprehending the effects of the Fall in Genesis 3 is vital to truly grasp the significance of Christ as the second Adam. God created a perfect earth with a garden for a perfect man and a perfect woman to live in. They were living an abundant life in perfect relationship with the Father. Everything was great, but then sin entered the world. Eating from the one tree which was forbidden introduced death into what was a perfect world. Living an abundant, full, perfect life was now impossible and is contrasted with death. Even at the Fall God is faithful to His promises because Adam’s sin produces just what God promised, death.

Since we have inherited sin from our first parents we therefore live our lives in a condition of sin. As I read the Bible, especially Genesis 3 and following, it can be easy to put all blame on Adam, Eve, and those who followed, but at some level I must also take blame for sin. I not only have inherited a sinful status, but I live and partake in a sinful lifestyle. My life, apart from Christ, is lived in rebellion against God and I can do nothing on my own to earn His favor. Just like Adam’s sin produced what God promised, my sin also produces death.

Even though I share in the sinfulness of mankind and the consequences associated with it, the second Adam was perfect in my place. When Genesis 3 and Luke 4 are contrasted with one another, obvious parallels come to the foreground. Adam is in a perfect, beautiful garden with everything he could possibly desire. He has a relationship with a beautiful wife and every fruit pleasing to the eye and good for food is at his fingertips. Yet even though it seemed to be the perfect situation, when tempted he failed. He did not obey what the Lord commanded and the consequence of that sin was, and still is, death.

With Adam in mind we see Christ not in a beautiful garden with a wife and plenty of food, but alone in the dry, deserted wilderness with absolutely nothing to fulfill his hunger. The temptation of a full-bellied Adam pales in comparison to the dry-mouthed, hungry, worn-out temptation of Jesus. Adam with all of his wit caved under pressure at the suggestion of the serpent, but Christ, at wits end, stood firm in His obedience to the Father and overcame the absurdity of the devil.

Romans 5:12-21 presents the most obvious contrast between being in Adam and being in Christ. Paul makes it clear that sin entered the world by one man and spread to all men because all sinned; however, one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (Rom. 5:18). Verse 19 drives the point home, saying, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (ESV). The perfect obedience of Christ is the fulfillment of how man was supposed to live in the first place. Jesus had to live this way; otherwise His death would not be sufficient. It is amazing to think that in every area in which Adam sinned, Jesus obeyed. What is even more amazing is to realize that every area in which I have sinned, Jesus obeyed. He lived the righteous life that is impossible for us to live because we are in Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “In Adam all die, but in Christ all are made alive” (ESV). His perfect obedience on our behalf gives us the opportunity to have true life.

These are amazing truths to think about that continue to sink in the more and more I realize the depth of my own sinfulness. This thread throughout Scripture brings to light great truth about our fallen nature, but the gospel solution. In Adam we are sinful and must die, but in Christ we are righteous because of His righteousness and we live. The study of Christ being the second Adam has been deeply convicting yet liberating as I continue to consider my failures, but Christ’s perfections.

Have you ever thought about Jesus obeying in every area that you fail?

—Zac Hess