Predestination and Old Souls

Predestination: the idea that some people are somehow chosen to be children of God while others aren't, has been debated and argued for centuries. What if this is yet another example of something the church has profoundly misunderstood? What if people on both sides of the argument have missed the point completely?

The other night there were several people at our house. I was in the kitchen doing something and the rest were in the living room just chatting when suddenly everyone burst out in laughter. This is not an unusual
thing with this particular group, but when I came in, my wife explained to me that one of our members - who is more concerned with social justice than the rest of us - shared the fact that when she was younger, she thought that she wanted to marry a black guy to show that there was nothing wrong with that sort of thing. In and of itself there is nothing funny about this, but the reason it was so funny to everyone else is because it is totally in keeping with her personality, and that even at a very young age it was evident.

I didn't really think much about this until a couple of days later when I was trying to work through some other perplexing scenarios in the bible, and my mind wandered to predestination. Somehow my mind tied

Separating Eggs

I am currently reading a book by Peter Rollins called “How (Not) to Speak of God”. I first heard of him, and the book, on Drew Marshall. He was so fascinating that I immediately ordered all three of his books. So far I’ve just gotten through the introduction and the first couple of chapters.

In the foreword, Brian McLaren says that he is a raving fan of the book, so I was cautiously optimistic when I started reading. After having read a couple of chapters let me just say this; I do NOT recommend reading this book – unless your spiritual journey has taken you down a path that is similar to Brian McLaren et al, and you are comfortable in that spot. Because, if you aren’t, you will start to read and after a very short while you will put it down in disgust, and possibly never pick it up again - which would be a real shame. This book has the potential to take your spirituality to the next level in much the same way that “A New Kind of Christian” opened up the spirituality of many fundamentalists. In fact, providing that Peter doesn’t somehow screw up, I think that he, and those who are like minded, will be the force that causes the emerging church to explode in the coming years.

I am debating whether or not to write about the book as I fear that in my attempt to summarize some of the concepts I will overly simply things that he has taken great pains to explain. However, since a blog really isn’t written for those who read it, but is more cathartic therapy for the author, I probably will. In any case, I suspect it will influence my blogs for the next while.

In the first chapter his basic premise is that theology is man’s attempt to explain what can not be explained – God. In fact not only can God not be explained in any adequate way, but he actively resists any attempt to be explained. The danger in thinking that we can explain or define God, is that it creates a type of idolatry – conceptual idolatry as opposed to physical idolatry.

One of the examples of God avoiding explanation or definition is Job. I have never come across a wholly satisfying explanation of God’s response to Job, until now. Basically Job questions God, and God goes into the whole long tirade of how Job has no idea what he’s talking about, and how he can’t possibly know why God does, or did, anything and never does really answer Job. After which Job goes; you’re right, I have no idea what I’m talking about – and backs down.

You might think that if you are arguing that God can not be explained, you would come to the conclusion that you should just give up trying, but this is not the case. It is one of the things that I like about the book - it is actually very fair and balanced. What he is trying to say is that we can have our explanations – in fact we need to have our explanations – but we need to remember that they are completely inadequate, and that they may not be correct or complete. We must always remember that the points of view of others may be more complete or valid than ours, so we must not create an idol out of our beliefs.

I don’t know if you’ve ever separated eggs – the whites from the yolks – but there are basically two methods. One, you crack the shell in half and then slip the egg from one half to the other, and you keep doing this until the white has fallen off and you are only left with the yolk in the shell. The other way is to crack the whole egg into your hand and let the white slip through your fingers until eventually you're left holding just the yolk in your hand. The second way is a very tactile experience as you move your fingers back and forth trying to open them just enough for the whites to flow through, but not wide enough that the yolk starts to drop. You are always very conscious of the fragility of the yolk. Any wrong move and you will breach that microscopic barrier that holds the yolk intact, and the whole mess disappears through your fingers. This is a very good picture of how we should view our ideas of God. Yes we can have our concepts, but we must always recognize their fragility. That they are less than perfect and that they may disappear on us suddenly if we are confronted with different concepts that make more sense, or give us a more complete picture of God.

Do You "Get it"

Shortly after we started down this spiritual journey, about 3 or 4 years ago, we started to meet with a group of friends who had similar questions. I think it was Brian McLaren who used the term "Recovering Evangelicals" in one of his books, and we would sometimes refer to ourselves by that moniker.

In the early days, one of our group told us a story. 

Despite the fact that she was still attending an evangelical church on Sunday mornings, she would sometimes sneak away in the evening to attend a church of a different persuasion. I don't remember if it was during an evening service or some other event, but they had brought in a magician who was entertaining the congregation with some of his tricks. I don't think there was a particularly spiritual point to it all, it was just entertainment. Our friend happened to be sitting beside the priest during this performance, when she temporarily fell off the wagon of "Recovering Evangelicalism", and asked the priest if the magician was a Christian. After pausing for a moment, the priest replied, "Yah, I think he gets it".

Now, I have often in the past, and still do, wonder what it is that clicks with a person and changes their point of view from something like evangelicalism, to something that is more open, more accepting. A view that embraces the freedom and spirit of the Gospel, the way it was originally intended. A view that is ready to interact with the world and show them in actions and deeds what the Gospel really means. A view that would make them "get it". 

Apparently Brennan Manning has said, "You either get it, or you don't".

When I've used the term "Get it" in the past, that's the way I meant it. But lately I've started to wonder if "Getting it" isn't bigger than all that.

Let's assume for a moment that my recent universalist leanings are in fact true. And, let's boil them down to the most basic statement; everyone goes to heaven. If that's true, that everyone goes to heaven, what's the difference between a "non-christian" and a "christian"? What's the point of being a christian, of going to church, of reading the bible, of trying to learn to be the best christian you can be, of praying? Why not just carry on our merry way, doing our occasional good deed, screwing up every now and them, but basically being good, law abiding, citizens. 

Maybe, the difference is between those that get it and those that don't. Maybe there are those that go through life being basically good people, and then there are those who take it to the next level, or at least spend their life trying to. Those that realize that Jesus came to show the way to be fully human. To show the way to self-sacrificing love, even it it means going to the cross.To show the way that God had been trying to instil into the Israelites for millennia. To show the way that Adam and Eve were supposed to live originally. To show the way of the Sermon on the Mount. 

Maybe that's why Christianity was originally called "The Way".

Now I'm not for a moment trying to suggest that those who are following The Way are perfect, but maybe they get it, and the others don't. And, although they aren't perfect, I'm pretty sure they are better people than if they weren't following The Way, at least they should be, because if they aren't, they really don't get it, even if they say they do.