squaring God's election with "all men are created equal"

Have you ever wondered how the doctrine of election and the Declaration that "all men are created equal" can both be true? Now that is a question I have never heard discussed. It's probably in the "too hard" pile. A question we can wait to ask on the other side of eternity. But, if you are a serious ponderer, you must give it go :-)

Let's see what we can do with this.

God's election, clearly found in Scripture but not embraced by all Christians, speaks to God's Sovereign will. He does what He chooses independent of cause and effect. This is a concept outside the realm of our natural thinking. Even a non-Christian perspective is that humans have difficulty accepting randomness, an unexplainable occurrence. Randomness is what Sovereignty looks like. 

Equality is a dominant theme of human nature. Equality somewhat flows from the human obsession with justice. While people see equality as a virtue, there is no universal way equality is understood. People are not equal in obvious ways. Some are taller, smarter, more attractive, faster, etc. Given these differences do not produce the same results, we agree equality is not "sameness". Everyone is not created the same. Thus, the common debate is generally "equality of opportunity" vs "the equality of outcomes." Primarily society grapples with "all men are created equal" as economic policies that affect the distribution of goods and services are developed and enacted. 

Is this what the Founding Fathers meant? Were they proposing an economic system? There is an argument for claiming the Declaration was aimed more at dismissing the class systems that used birth position to determine the worth and destiny of individuals. Birth established privilege for much of history. Maybe they were declaring that there are no divine authorities among humans. There are no Lords and no Ladies. No Gents. Maybe "all men are created equal" was a break from historical views that some people are advantaged simply by birth,

For those that believe the Founding Fathers were taking "all men are created equal" from the Bible, what do we do with the doctrine of election? When Jesus says, "for God so loved the world", is  He not referencing an equality of all individuals? The word "world" here means nations and tribes of the world. Jesus is moving from the Old Covenant with Israel to a covenant that is not dependent on a specific people group. Jesus is declaring the Gospel is not restricted to Jews. Similar to the Founding Fathers, Jesus is claiming one's birth into a given situation is not God's view of that person's value and destiny. 

Jesus also says in His final prayer before the cross, “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me." This referred to the disciples. But Jesus goes on to pray, "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me." In many places in scripture, it is clear that God chooses, He calls whom He wills. He knocked Paul off his horse on his way to persecute Christians. Like the parable of the landowner, He rewards as He chooses. There is no cause and effect. Not even the effects of "all men are created equal". HE IS SOVEREIGN.

In the final analysis each of us must decide if God should be defined by what man thinks or if man should be defined by what God thinks. Which view takes primacy in our understanding? We can never know why God chooses as He does. We just know it is for His glory and not ours. That is what makes Him Sovereign. To force our rationale about the equality of persons denies His Sovereignty. What makes Him worthy of our worship is that even in His sovereignty, He has chosen to favor us. This favor is not based on "equality" of our birth, His favor is not based on anything about us. The only real statement of "equality" in Scripture is that "we all" have fallen short of deserving His favor.

In that way "all men are created equal" is a scary proposition, not one in which we should boast.

That is the way I ponder this question ......  through the lens of Grace

"scientific truth" - an oxymoron

A recent article made headline news when it reported the findings of scientists on climate change. The thrust of the article was that now there is "scientific truth" of man induced climate change, what will a Trump administration do about it?

Now let it be clear, this blog is not about climate change. If truth be known, I am a strong advocate that man should be a good steward of God's creation. The article interested me because it claimed "scientific truth." I would dare say a large percentage of those reading the article would never question that phrase. They would knock each other out debating the conclusions of the article and maybe its purpose, but rarely its assumption that science produces truth.

No reputable scientist would claim science produces truth. I have advanced degrees in both physical and social sciences, well published in academic journals. Science finds statistical evidence that A is likely to cause B given C. Science is limited in many ways. First, it is only probabilistic, or showing a statistical inference. Second, all scientific inquiry is bounded. That is, the findings are limited to certain conditions included in the study.

Third, going in assumptions and methods are always biased. I once heard, "the problem with science is the scientist." For example, in this article the conclusion by the scientists was climate change must be man made because they could find no evidence for any other explanation.


This is VERY FAULTY SCIENCE.

Therefore, I do several things with scientific studies. I take the findings with a grain of salt until I view the assumptions and methods. I do not take it as evidence of truth, but statistical probabilities that two things relate together in a certain way, possibly. Finally, I seek to understand the purpose of the study.

While many people wish to conduct themselves in ways that do not create problems for our environment, many of these same people do not want "climate change" to be used by government as a hammer to control and interfere in their lives. Constitutionalists would claim "inalienable rights". That is, they want to pursue their life outside of government intrusion. There is a concern that science, similar to that presented in this article, is simply a tool to grow government. That's where the disagreement generally is and that is where the public discourse should go. Those that are cynics of climate change science should not challenge science with science. That is ingenious and futile. But rather argue for the way in which society should incorporate the myriad of studies that suggest cause and effect of actions we take on the environment.

Its not that we should avoid or constrain public discourse on issues like climate change, it's that we should be more informed about the methods and tools we use to debate. Science does not determine truth. Let's at least quit bullying others with that claim.

If truth is not determined through observation, how then is it determined?

I'll leave that with you for now as something to ponder ......      

Inalienable rights

 

In declaring their independence, our founding fathers made the statement, "that they (all men) are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This statement attempts to answer the question, "who grants rights?" For if someone has a right, someone had to give it to them. But whom?

This act of men and women at this point in history established the best form of government in the history of the world. The establishment of a government that was ruled by the people as a rule over the people was an enormous departure from what had existed in Western Civilization, although the Greeks created the notion of democracy or "people rule" a thousand years earlier. The notion that "all men are created equal" was to reject that kings and queens were no different than the peasant absent their circumstances. 

"Inalienable rights" has commonly and without question been considered a Biblical concept since God is invoked as the grantor. BUT is it? Is He? Can it be a spiritual head fake? Now questioning whether "inalienable rights" is actually God's view of truth about His Kingdom does not challenge or diminish the amazing experiment in government of our founding fathers. However, Christians, and especially American Christians, should reconcile "inalienable rights" with what Scripture, especially the New Testament, actually claims about God's Kingdom and rights in this world.

First, the declaration says "these truths are self evident". How so and if so, do we find God's truths often "self evident"? What is wise to men is foolishness to God. What seems to be the emphasis for this worldview is the Aristotelian notion that there are natural laws or rights that informs and exist beyond government's laws, therefore not subject to any government's control. Basically, the founding fathers were debunking the prevailing idea of "the divine right of Kings." The source and motivation for this declaration is more about rejecting government as the ultimate authority and source of "rights granting." In a way, this declaration is placing the Sovereignty of God above the institution of government, which is a reasonable conclusion.

But, in doing so, are they declaring "truth" as God has revealed in His word?

I have found nowhere in the New Testament that God has bestowed on us "rights" to anything in this world. In fact, Jesus says the really fortunate are those who are destitute in self-reliance and rejected by this world because of their allegiance to Him. He contrasts the Kingdom of heaven with this world by pointing us to His unmerited provision for us, not our rights we can demand for our benefit. In fact, if we seek everything this world has to offer, our soul loses, not wins. We are told we are pilgrims and sojourners in this world and must "hate" this world's system. This doesn't seem like He is reminding us of our rights. We hear that we are not immune from affliction, but actually we are called to have our deepest emotions align with how Jesus felt as he journeyed to the cross. 

Before you want to "tar and feather" me for patriotic heresy, let me say I love the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I do believe society works better when government belongs to the people, not vice versa. BUT, if we confuse this with God's truths, we operate well beneath His best for us. When we claim our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we miss all of God's wishes for us in His Kingdom. His plan for us is not rights and rewards in this world, but provisions and privileges in the Heavenlies. 

I am afraid "self evident" is a human nature core assumption that truth is determined by what we conclude through observing our situations. It probably is evident from what people witnessed that human kings were not Sovereign. But, if we assume truth is revealed to us by the Creator (the witness of the Holy Spirit) not our observations, we would not assume we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing revealed in His word other than life, liberty and joy is all given to us by Him consistent with his Sovereign will.

Core assumptions are powerful forces in how we think, feel, and act. This is why the b4worldview team developed a transformational learning experience to better understand the core assumptions of Jesus.

Give it a try ..... www.b4worldview.com 

Economics and Christianity: Strange Bedfellows?

One of the most common discussions in training Christian youth is how capitalism associates with the Christian worldview of economics. Generally, this focus on economics is how capitalism is a "better" economic system than socialism or communism. Capitalism is more aligned with the Judeo/Christian work ethic.


The notion "better" uses both principles of economics and experience to demonstrate that free market societies are more materially prosperous than these other economic approaches. Inherent in capitalism is greater personal liberties. Therefore, capitalistic countries have a higher GDP, are freer and thus, considered "better off."

If the results of an economic system is a higher standard of living and more people are lifted out of poverty, then we can arguably say that is a "good" thing. It may even be considered a more moral system because of the overall impact on people's living conditions and liberties. BUT, is capitalism consistent with the basic precepts of God's Kingdom as established by the Cross? If not, what is the Christian worldview of economics? Is it socialism because of the "greed factor" in capitalism and a "perceived fairness" in socialism?
OR
  is the Kingdom economy very different than socialism?
  does the Kingdom economy produce a "better" outcome than capitalism?   
Let's start with a clarity on what an economy is. The Webster's 1828 dictionary, the first dictionary in America, defines an economy in terms of how a family orders itself, especially how it distributes its resources. The word economics does not appear. Economics has evolved in the last 100 years as a study of the transfer of wealth through systems of producing and distributing goods and services within society as a whole. A recent movement of thought, called behavioral economics, seeks to understand behavioral influences associated with how humans are motivated and naturally view risks and rewards.

For example, economies use influences of power to govern the amount and movement of products and services. So, understanding forms of power and the associated incentive systems for people's behavior can be a helpful way to evaluate performance of an economic system and what you might expect its outcomes to be.

Let's look at three different systems of power and the kinds of economies each would produce. In doing so, we can look at the motivation factors associated with each to understand its potential outcomes.

First, there is the power/greed model. In this case the one with power uses an economy that maximizes their own outcomes on the backs of those without power. However, the ones with power must satisfy the ones without power sufficiently for them to continue work at all for them. Motivation is only the effort needed to relieve fear in the workers and therefore total output is limited.

Second, power can be distributed to the people and everyone is free to produce goods and services as they choose. They are only limited by how others respond to their production. The power is placed in pricing mechanisms relative to the value the good or service brings to the purchaser. Supply and demand equilibrium, known as justice or reciprocity, governs the system. Rewards are contingent on what people do. People are less constrained than in the first example but they are still somewhat limited in their motivation to what they believe others will buy. This creates some concern for the welfare of those who cannot generate resources on their own to obtain what they need. The system must decide how to produce some goods and services that do not return economic value to the producer in order to support this greater need for goods and services. This is a taxation on the economy and reduces the potential return of the system to producers.

The third view of power is actually the Biblical view. Here all power is in a Sovereign will of one who both owns everything and chooses to share it with His subjects out of love. This is an unmerited favor where the distribution decisions belong to the one in power and the subjects participate solely out of thanksgiving. Subjects are willing to produce, innovate, and share from a heart sold out to the one with power. In generosity there is no coercion, no incentives, no quid pro quo, nothing that constrains the subjects' motivation to produce and share with each other.

When we teach our young people about economics, must we neglect the economic model of the Kingdom? Can we equip them to understand that Grace is not socialism, communism, or capitalism?
Can we trust that Grace is God's way and the best way?

About 50% of Christian students view their family's economic system as a power/greed or fair exchange system. The other half seem to believe their parents establish a grace based economy by how they handle allowances and other sources for their personal use.

In economics, must we settle for beings agents of justice when we can be agents of grace?

Certainly worth pondering ......

What difference does it make what you THINK?

Most everyone would "think" that "thinking" is a good thing, a helpful activity for us. But in my experience, people don't really like to "think" much. Often I hear, "that's too deep." I "think" to myself, "but if it changes your life, isn't thinking differently something you should want to do?"

Part of the problem is that there are two kinds of "thinking." Most of the time we "think" about cliches or conclusions others have already reached. We "think" about beliefs like doctrine and accept the arguments others make for us. We really don't "think" about the arguments too much, that takes effort. We mainly "think" about the person who espouses the conclusion and accept what is said based on how we feel about that person. Further, because of confirmation bias, we restrict where we get our "thinking" to sources we already accept and admire. Even more, we don't often "think" about the source of the message but accept it as credible because others we want acceptance from accept that source.

There are so many ways we actually say with our actions - "what difference does it make what I think?"

I mentioned there are two kinds of thinking. The first described above - we "think" about things others have concluded for us and accept them without much "thinking" in order to belong. The second kind of "thinking" is about the core assumptions that all conclusions are based on. This is really hard work, but that's not why we rarely 'think" about them. They are out of sight. The messengers of our "thinking" don't often go there. The reason assumptions are out of sight for most of us is that they are built in to our nature. They are normal ways of "thinking" given our nature. This kind of "thinking" does not change until and unless our nature changes. I should stop here because that's way too deep to "think" about. What difference does it make what my nature is and how it "thinks"?

Here is an example:

Suppose someone gave you a gift that you enjoy very much. It makes you feel important and happy. There are two ways to "think" about that gift to conclude it is a good gift. You can see how well it fits you, how it looks and feels on you, what others may think because you now have one. This way of "thinking" is called "the consequence of things." Another way to "think" about the gift is by focusing on the one who gave you the gift. You can "think" about that person's love for you, their generosity and acceptance of you no matter what you do. The gift is meaningful because the giver is amazing. This way of "thinking" is call "the source of things."

The Bible calls the first way of "thinking" - walking in the flesh, the carnal mind - and this way of "thinking" flows from our fallen human nature.

The Bible calls the second way of "thinking" - walking in the Spirit, the mind of Christ - and this way of "thinking" flows from a regenerated Spiritual nature.

What difference does our nature make? It determines our core assumptions which then influences how we think, feel and act in all of our life's situations. Every doctrine or belief from arguments of smart people are what they are because of one of two "ways of thinking" that they start with. So it is with you.

What difference does it make how we THINK? None at all if we do not aspire to the abundant and virtuous life. Otherwise ......

Thoughts and ideas

Thoughts and ideas are as common as breathing. They impact us in profound ways. They can be helpful to us or harmful. Therefore, are we victims of them? Do we control them or do they control us? Maybe you don't care. Thinking about thoughts and having an idea about ideas may just be too stressful? or useless to you! But, you know what ponderers do, THEY PONDER

First, let's start with the difference between thoughts and ideas. You may find it difficult to define either, must less distinguish between them. My old trusty authority on words, the 1828 Webster dictionary, says that a thought is "a object produced by the operation of the mind". The mind thinks and thoughts are the outcome. Then, what is an idea? Webster kind of beats around the bush on this, sometimes seeing idea as the same as thought, but sometimes extending the notion of an object produced by the mind to the understanding or meaning of the object or thought - the object's purpose or intention.

I am sure many of you by now are worried about me. Why would I spend any THOUGHT on this? While hardly anyone thinks about thought, what we assume about thought and ideas is very important in living an abundant and virtuous life.

First of all, what causes the mind to produce the particular thought it produces? Why do some people have "better" thoughts than others? Do we have some skill that affects our thoughts? Are thoughts more a product of morality than ability? Are humans even authors of their own thoughts?

Second, once we have a thought, what provides us the understanding? Would two people always have the same idea from the same thought? If not, what would cause the difference? Is it skill or moral goodness that makes the difference?

One serious flaw in our humanity may be that we think we are responsible for our thoughts and ideas. By being the source, we are in control. We just need more training or discipline or some kind of personal development to have the thoughts and ideas that produce a better life.

Let's consider another possibility - REVELATION. Maybe thoughts, the object produced by the mind, and ideas, the meaning of the object produced by the mind, actually comes to us from outside our selves? What if the process of the mind is more like a receiver than a generator? Does that matter?

If this is true and the mind is a receiver, then there is a very important question to ask - who or what is the sender? Maybe the ultimate quality of our life is not training our mind to produce, but to submit our mind to the right sender?

The Christian understands this theologically. We learn through Scripture that the Holy Spirit "bears witness" to us many things. We can't even produce the object of our prayers - this is revealed to us by the HS. The HS told Philip to witness to the Ethiopian Enuch and told Paul to go to Jerusalem. Most Christians accept revelation THEOLOGICALLY. But, to what degree do we accept it PSYCHOLOGICALLY? Can this Kingdom idea of thoughts and ideas have primacy in your life every moment and in every situation? Can we submit our minds to revelation as a matter of practice, or will we continue to think we are in control of producing our thoughts and ideas when we are not thinking theologically?  

I just happen to think that the return on an investment in revelation is "out of this world" ....

Do you understand?

How often in your discourse with others are you faced with the question, "do you understand?" Seems like a simple question. Usually you say you do, but you still have lingering questions. You may even fail to be as empathetic as you should be because you really don't fully understand.

How can this be?

Consider this

What may be going on is that you may understand WHAT the other person is feeling or experiencing, but you cannot really understand WHY they feel that way or HOW you can help them feel better or WHO is really causing them to feel threatened or fearful.




One problem with "understanding" are the complex set of questions the human brain seeks answers to. We usually only settle one of those in our discourse with others. Shouldn't we make an effort to explore or probe all of the dimensions of understanding when we engage others in communication?

Maybe "walking the brain" with another about important issues will truly help us listen and understand each other better?

Another issue with understanding is the frequent use of ambiguous or imprecise language. For instance, recently I listened to someone teaching young people about principles of good financial management. For illustration purposes, consider two of these principles:

1. save
2. avoid foolish debt

These sound reasonable, but how instructive are they? Does the audience really understand what the expert speaker is saying?

For instance, is saving merely a practice of putting money away? Maybe, maybe not. Putting money under your pillow during times of high inflation is not prudent. Sometimes saving can look like spending. What? Yes, spending can be either consumption or investing. If I buy something that will appreciate in value, then I am saving. Saving is much more complex than just the activity of setting money aside, SO simply instructing others "to save" can be easily misunderstood.

What makes debt "foolish"? Is this description of debt sufficient to guide anyone to prudent financial management? Is the idea of "foolish" too incomplete to provide good guidance? Suppose we advise others to avoid being too leveraged with debt? Is "foolish" debt really debt we have with risk in our ability to pay if and when adversity arises? If so, to help another understand the issue with debt, shouldn't we use the notion of leverage?

These are just examples, but they all illustrate why we talk and talk and talk and think everyone understands, BUT THEY DON'T.

Those that know me often roll their eyes when I push for more clarity. It may be a curse I live with but the absence of completeness and precision in our words too often leave us all frustrated or naive that others understand when they REALLY don't?

Just something to ponder ......