Stephen D. Morrison's Blog, page 16

“Drumming” by Steve Reich (1971) – Art Sunday

Lately I’ve been enjoying a great piece by Steve Reich simply titled “Drumming”. It’s a highly rhythmic piece of music written with many complex and intricate patterns to make the listener pay attention to the subtleties. It’s one that could be listened to over and over again with a new experience for the listener each time. I wanted to share this music with you all today as a part of Art-Sunday this week.

There are several things to listen for here. 1. Pay attention to how the piece changes from sections of pure rhythm to sections with tonality mixed into the rhythms. 2. Listen to how the piece evolves over time. How is this done whenever there is a change? 3. Pay attention to phasing. Steve Reich is known for his phasing technique in which two melodies, played at once, fall out of sync with each other. The tempo of one musician will clash with the other and for a moment it will sound like chaos. But then listen as this chaos evolves into a new complex section in the music.

I hope you enjoy this piece as much as I do!

It is a difficult piece to get into at first, but the more you really listen to it, the more the brilliance of it is made clear. Not everyone may like music like this, but I certainly do! I hope you can see why too. Enjoy :)

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized

The nature of the Atonement has been a study for me over the last few years. After having my world turned upside by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger in his book Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, I have not been able to shake this fascination with rediscovering the cross of Jesus Christ. Today I wanted to share seven of the major theories for the Atonement. These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today!

#1 The Moral Influence Theory

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.

#2 The Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.

#3 Christus Victor

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)

In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.

#6 The Governmental Theory

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.

#7 The Scapegoat Theory

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”

Conclusions

Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of the atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more!

What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment!

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Notes:

Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory 1995 ↩ Christus Victor P. 20 ↩

Election and Reprobation

A few weeks ago I finished reading Karl Barth’s Göttingen Dogmatics, an earlier attempt at dogmatics which precedes the Church Dogmatics. In this volume I came away with many great insights, but one in particular has stuck with me in my thinking, that is, Karl Barth’s doctrine of Election and Reprobation. Prior to reading this volume I had a general concept of what Barth’s doctrine of predestination was, but this added more depth to what I understood. I’ve not yet read CD II where Barth deals with election exhaustively, and have only read bits and pieces of his doctrine in other works. This was then my first real introduction to that which lead me to Barth in the first place.

I started reading Karl Barth for two reasons. First, because I have a great amount of love for the theology of T.F. Torrance, who was a student and close friend of Barth. Second, and perhaps most of all, because of an interest in Barth’s doctrine of election which offered a theological alternative to both the harshness of Calvinism and the semi-pelagian-like beliefs of Arminianism (which was my background growing up). So today I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this. I’ll present these thoughts in what I feel are three important shifts in the thinking of Barth which will help you understand what election and reprobation means.

1. Jesus IS election

The brilliance of Barth’s theology is his christocentric approach. He is fully focused on Jesus Christ as the Word of God and the source of revelation. Barth was therefore very much against any notion of a God behind the back of Jesus Christ. Instead, Jesus Christ is the one in whom all theology must correspond to. We cannot do theology behind the back of Jesus Christ, we must think out our concepts about God only in the light of Jesus Christ.

This is true especially for election. Election is not a doctrine found in Romans 9, nor is it exclusively Pauline. The doctrine of election is centered around Jesus Christ the Son of God. John Calvin wrote that Jesus is the “mirror of election”. Barth Himself then writes, “Who is elect? Not the individual… Christ, that is, Christ …as the Head and Redeemer of the church.” 1 Therefore, for Barth, the important truth about Election is that it is not a doctrine abstracted from Jesus Christ, but rather found in Jesus Christ. Jesus is election.

2. Reprobation is for the sake of election (and therefore not eternal)

Another important aspect of Election is one that I had not heard from Barth before, but that has since caused me much joy in meditating upon it. In the light of Jesus Christ we cannot now say that there is no reprobation, to say so is to misunderstand Barth. His doctrine does not do away with the reprobate altogether. Instead, Barth refocuses reprobation in the light of Christ.

Reprobation, for Barth, is not an eternal decree in God. Only election is eternally in God. Therefore, reprobation is only rejection temporarily, for the sake of election. “Its point (predestination) and goal are always election, not rejection, even in rejection.” 2 “God alone is the cause of election” 3 And therefore, “In Him we know predestination primarily as election” 4 The reprobate are therefore not eternally damned by God, but only for the sake of eventual election. This is true in the wrath of God too. God has wrath only for the sake of healing our humanity. Wrath and reprobation do not exist for the sake of either, instead, they are in God for the sake of His love and dedication to the human race.

3. Election is not about individuals, but about God

As already quoted, for Barth, “God alone is the cause of election.” This means that election is not centered in the individual, but in God. If this is true, then predestination is not about God choosing individuals, one over another, but about God choosing all people in His Son Jesus Christ. “Who is elect? Not the individual…”

Predestination must move away from thinking through election and reprobation in terms of “certain people” but only in terms of Jesus Christ as the mirror of our election. Predestination for Barth is not about God choosing some over others, but of God choosing Jesus Christ and the human race in Him. This shift is important and has huge ramifications in theology, specifically in soteriology and the nature of God. This frees up the cross to be for all people, as scripture tells us, instead of only some within Calvinism. This also makes God not a harsh God who chooses some over another, but a God who loves all people. 

What do you think about Barth’s doctrine of Election and Reprobation? Is it an improvement on that of Calvin? Why or why not? Let me know in a comment!

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Notes:

Göttingen Dogmatics, P. 463 ↩ibid p.460 ↩ibid. p.461 ↩ibid. p.471 ↩

How Much Do You Love Me? (Einstein on the Beach)

Phillip Glass is a Minimalist composer, often considered one of the greatest living composers. I first heard Glass in High School while taking a Music Theory class. I was at once awestruck with his piano work Metamorphosis. The complexity and beautiful simplicity of this piece won me over to become a life-long fan of Philip Glass, along with the whole Minimalist style of composition.

Today is Art-Sunday, a blog series dedicated to discussing some of the most beautiful works of art in the world today (all subjective to my person taste of course). Today I wanted to talk about an excerpt from Philip Glass’ opera, Einstein on the Beach. It’s not my favorite work from Glass, but the meaning behind it is one that I respect a great deal. There is a specific excerpt from this piece that always stirs me greatly.

At the end of this excerpt, there is a monologue about a man and a woman sitting on a park bench. The woman asks the man “how much do you love me?” His response is easily the most beautiful and moving response I can think of. Listen carefully to this point in the piece. You can think about it however you’d like, whether this is God talking to you about how much He loves you, or whether this is your emotions for your significant other. Either way, enjoy this masterpiece of musical composition, and poetic beauty. Einstein on the Beach: 

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

“You are a Soul” C.S. Lewis Misquote & Gnostic Heresy

C.S. Lewis is often quoted for saying, “You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” This is actually a misquote however. It’s been proven that C.S. Lewis never said this. Although regardless of its origin, this quote attributed to Lewis gets shared quite a lot around social media with great enthusiasm from many Christians and non-Christians alike.

But this quote, whoever first said it, represents a failure in Christian theology. Fundamentally, this statement is rooted in gnostic philosophy and new age thinking. The notion that your earthly body is only a temporary shell is not a Christian idea at all. In fact, it is anti-Christian. This idea threatens the truth of a bodily resurrection (Jesus’ historical resurrection and our eschatological one), which is a grave error to make. This statement is the by-product of a Gnostic philosophy. 1 For the Gnostics, earthy matter was evil and spiritual matter was good. Therefore, the Gnostics rejected earthly pleasures by disciplining their bodies by strict abstinence and harsh punishments. Or, on the other hand, others treated earthly existence as futile and therefore, indulged in all sorts of corruption and immorality. Both ethical responses stem from a radical Dualism between that which is heavenly and that which is earthly. 2

Gnosticism is a heresy which ultimately denied Jesus’ physical existence, and in doing so, salvation itself. Gnostics trade a real human salvation for an abstractly “spiritual” one. Jesus therefore comes not to save human beings, but to save our spirits. The incarnation is thereby deemed unnecessary and false. All this spirals into a blatant disregard of creation and the negation of the Christian Gospel. In short, Gnosticism is a serious problem for theology and for the Gospel.

Yet thousands will share this quote, most of them Christians, with great enthusiasm, unknowingly taking part in promoting Gnosticism. Why? Unfortunately, I’m afraid it is because Gnosticism is alive and flourishing in the church today. We too, like the early Gnostics, have traded a real flesh and blood human salvation with a strictly platonic “spiritual” salvation somewhere off in heaven. Jesus, for many, did not come to save us as a human being, but rather to only give us access to a spiritual world apart from this reality, ie, “heaven”.

Many Christians today would be surprised to know how little the bible actually talks about heaven. Instead, the scriptures are far more concerned with heaven coming to earth, the kingdom of God manifesting here and not, along with a final bodily resurrection with the second coming of Jesus Christ. God in the end will not throw away the creation, He will resurrect it. He will make a “new heaven and new earth.” (Rev. 21:1)

God is not an anti-materialist. He is the original, material-loving God! He created the world after all, and He’s not quick to throw away what He’s made. Our bodies are not headed for destruction, nor are they merely a shell for metamorphosis. We are looking forward to a bodily resurrection in Christ when He comes again.

If I would restate the quote, I’d do it like this: “You are neither a soul, a mind, or a body in abstraction from the rest of you. You are a human being, and therefore, all of these things at once!”

So what do you think? Have you heard this quote before? What did you think of it?

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Notes:

Gnosticism is one of the first heresies that came about during first centuries of Christianity. ↩For more on Gnosticism see my video on it here. ↩

Abba, Dear Father!

For the first century Christians Jesus’ monumental prayer of “Abba, dear Father!” sparked a revolution. We see this prayer echoed in the letters of Paul, and recorded in the early accounts of Jesus.  This prayer changed everything! God is Abba, our dear Father!

But interestingly enough, after the first century it all but disappeared from the Christian life. Instead, it was replaced with “Our Father in heaven”—a Father of distance, otherness, and exclusion! Now originally this did not mean distance. For the early church (most of it anyway) Jesus’ prayer of a Father in heaven was no less as revolutionary as “Abba, dear Father” was. But tragically, due to the rapid influence of Greek Philosophy, namely of Plato and Aristotle, this prayer became not a prayer of close intimacy, but one of distance and otherness. In Greek philosophy, heaven is elsewhere, separate from human existence. Therefore, within Platonic thought, “Our Father in heaven” became a prayer of petition to a distant deity, not an intimate conversation with our Abba God.

The revelation of God as “Abba, dear Father” slowly became less and less prevalent in the church in favor of a distant “our Father in heaven.” Even today when a western Christian is asked about heaven, or of God, nearness and right-here-and-now concepts are rarely central. We imagine our Father in heaven as distant and somewhere “else” besides here with us right now. We have traded Jesus’ prayer of intimacy, that of knowing Gods nearness as our dear Father, with that of Platonic otherness, that of a God who is distant and far-removed from our human existence.

But  there’s good news! In the midst of all this Greek Philosophy the truth still meets us in the pages of Jesus’ story. Abba, dear Father remains just as radical as it originally was in first century. God is not far away! We must recapture the stunning truth of Jesus’ radical prayer: “Abba, dear Father!” God is near to the human race! He is for us. He is the God of mankind, not some abstract deity in opposition to the human being. The God revealed in Christ is a God who is wildly for the human race, madly in love with our existence, and we must not think any differently! God is nearer to humanity than we will ever know fully in this life.

Which this is not to say that we should stop saying “our Father in heaven”. But instead, we need to drop all our philosophical notions of heaven as distant in exchange for the biblical and Jewish concept of heaven as joined together with earth! (If you remember, God created the heavens and the earth at once, there is no implication of distance, only difference.) Once we see heaven as a present reality rather than a distant one, “Our Father in heaven” becomes congruent with “Abba, dear Father”.

Therefore, let’s be a people of Jesus’ Abba, a people who know just how intimate and close God has come to us. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us! The Spirit of God has made His home in me! God is not far away, God is right here!

Abba! Dear Father!

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Isenheim Altarpiece

Matthias Grunewald’s famous Isenheim Altarpiece is a stunning depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was painted during the 16th century, and today it remains one of the most important pieces of art for the Christian church.

One of the beautiful things about this painting is how realistic and awe-inspiring it is. Whenever I look at it I can’t help but feel the total agony of Christ’s sufferings, and the reality of it all. This truly happened. Jesus Christ actually lived within our humanity, He took up our burdens, He died our death, and He defeated the grave. For me this painting inspires worship and thanksgiving. What a wonderful savior!

Historically, this painting was used during Catholic mass as the backdrop to what was the center of church: communion. The Catholic church teaches that the bread and wine of communion literally (vs. figuratively in protestantism) becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. They would therefore put this fact on the forefront of everyones mind. Could you imagine standing there with this beautiful painting towering over you (it’s massive in size!) as you take communion. How real the cross must have been. How beautiful and awe-inspiring of a moment this must have produced.

One thing I respect about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions alike is the stunning liturgy that seems to be lacking in protestant churches. They believe that it is not only preaching that gives testimony to the Word of God, but also the sacraments—communion and baptism—which speak the message of Jesus Christ. Wordlessly, in stupor and wonder, these things were done in order to give witness to the goodness of God, and the good news of Jesus Christ.

As you think about this painting, try and imagine yourself there. Imagine a 16th century church service, imagine standing before the communion table staring down this magnificent piece of art. What beauty and amazement there must be in your heart! As I meditate upon this altarpiece, I can’t help but feel it pulling me up into thanksgiving and praise.

The cross truly is the most stunning moment in all human history. The whole life of Jesus, in fact, is nothing short of magnificent. Jesus Christ truly lived within our existence as a man. He felt the full weight of our humanity in Himself. Jesus Christ, in taking up our cause as His own has succeeded by reconciling us back to Himself, removing our sin, recreating our existence, and lifting us up into the Trinity itself!

In short, this painting makes me think of the humanity of Jesus Christ, and of the stunning humility of God to meet us in our brokenness in order to lift us up from out of darkness, into the light of His love.

What does this painting inspire from you?

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Introducing: Art-Sunday

Few things give tribute to the glory and majesty of God like art does. For me, the primary way I express beauty in worship to God is through my writing. I consider writing an art, as do I consider theology (as academic as it may be), too, an art. In both, beauty and creativity are essential.

I think that art is one of life’s most important and worth-while endeavors. Beyond writing, which is my first love, I also have a passion for many different artistic expressions. Particularly painting, writing poetry, composing music, and playing music. Creativity makes me come alive with joy and wonder!

I say all this because I want to introduce a new series for this website: Art-Sunday! From now on Sunday’s will be set aside for the purpose of sharing some of my favorite works of art. (Including some originals!) We could all use a little more art in our life, so why not celebrate it together here?

Some art that I present here may have deep meaning with theological parallels, while some also may just be beautiful. Not every piece has to have intellectual importance. Beauty is for beauty’s sake alone! But those pieces that do have some spiritual importance will be taken note of, and many in fact do. Even so called “secular” art has the ability to speak profoundly about God and life.

I plan to include many pieces of art within the realms of painting, music (classical and modern), poetry, architecture, design, and fiction writing.

I’m truly excited about this series and I hope we can together discover something beautiful and inspiring. We’ll start next week with a full article, but for now I’ll begin this series with one of my favorite pieces of music: Eight Lines by Steve Reich.

I’ve listened to this composition well over a hundred times, and I still am fascinated with it. Steve Reich does a wonderful job interlacing complexity with simplicity in order to create a beautiful soundscape. It is repetitive, I know! Reich writes within the modern style of “Minimalism.” Steve Reich is one of the pioneers of this movement alongside Philip Glass, and John Cage. Reich’s piece here is one of his best, along with my second favorite piece he’s done: “Music for 18 Musicians”. Enjoy the rhythmic melodies, and the subtle changes. Sit back, relax, maybe close your eyes to get the full effect of this piece, and enjoy!

What did you think of this piece?

Do you have a favorite piece of music? (Share it with me in the comments!)

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

The #CalvinismDebate: My Thoughts

Hello friends! I’m glad to be back from a month long blogging sabbatical. Today I’m interested in sharing a few of my thoughts on the Calvinism Debate (hosted by Zondervan) which took place on Wednesday night. This debate was filled with many great moments, a few not-so-great moments, and overall a lot of complex ways of addressing two very simple ideas.

The format of this debate went like this. There were two statements (called Propositions) about Calvinism. The first is against Calvinism, the second is for Calvinism. The host did a great job in choosing these statements because they certainly cut right to the heart of Calvinism. These two statements are: #1 “Calvinism necessitates unconditional predestination and unconditional predestination is incongruent with the God revealed in Jesus Christ.” In other words, unconditional election is contrary to the nature of Jesus Christ. #2 is “The cause of repentance and saving faith is not synergistic but monergistic.” In other words, how are we saved? Do we participate in our salvation (Synergistic) or is it solely the work of God done upon us (Monergistic)?

These two propositions were then debated by two men on each side of the debate. For Calvinism: Daniel Montgomery and Timothy Paul Jones. Against Calvinism: Austin Fischer and Brian Zahnd. Therefore, DM and TP stood against position #1, yet for position #2. AF and BZ stood for position #1, and against position #2.

Here are the videos if you’d like to watch this for yourself (I personally enjoyed video 1 more than video 2, especially Brian Zahnd’s remarks)

Proposition #1:

Proposition #2: 

My Overall Thoughts:

I agree with statement #1 (I am therefore, against the Calvinists here), but I also agree with position #2 (I am therefore, for the Calvinists here). I condition my agreement of #2 on a limited basis. Those against position two, and therefore against the Calvinist position, made great points as well that I echo myself. However, I agree more with the Calvinists on that issue, but believe I have a solution to fix the complains against both Synergism and Monergism (thanks to Robert Capon!) But we’ll get to that. Here are my briefly explained positions on both unconditional election (position #1) and Monergism vs Syngergism (#2).

In position #1, I disagree whole heartedly with the doctrine of double predestination, and with it the whole Calvinistic system of sovereignty. For this I lean on Karl Barth for his much needed re-interpretation of the doctrine of Election. For Barth, Election is not a matter of God choosing one person for salvation over another person for damnation. Instead, Election is God choosing Jesus Christ for both election and reprobation. This plays a lot into Barth’s concept of the election of Israel and how that foreshadows the Election of Jesus Christ. This is certainly a far to complex thing to cover here. But to say one thing I will say that for Barth, and I agree with him here, Election is not, because it has never been, about God choosing one person instead of another. For Barth, Election is God choosing one individual nation or person for the sake of the whole world. This is then a vicarious form of election.

When we then look at Jesus, He becomes the Elect One who is chosen not instead of everyone else, but for the sake of the entire cosmos. God excluded everybody from the salvation business except for one Man Jesus Christ, in order that He might include all of creation through this one man. This is essentially my position on double predestination. I disagree with Calvin, and prefer the adjustments made by Karl Barth.

As far as position #2 goes, things are a little bit more complicated. I found myself agreeing with both sides of the debate at times. This half of the debate was more difficult to decide a clear position for myself personally. I do agree with the Calvinistic position on Monergism, but at the same time I likewise agree with the denial of this in favor of Syngergism because of the robotic nature of Monergism. The analogy I believe Brian Zahnd used was that in Monergism, God dances with a mannequin. He takes no risk in wooing us to Himself. He forces us to dance, thereby risking nothing at all in the process. This echoes C.S. Lewis’ brilliant remarks that “to love it all is to be vulnerable.” So I find myself struggling to balance between the two. Both positions had clear scriptural proofs, and both had great theological principles at play.

It wasn’t until I thought it through in the light of the works of Robert Capon that I finally came to a conclusion. Robert Capon brilliantly offers a solution to this in part three of his book Between Noon and Three. (An excellent book, by the way!) He writes similarly to Monergism, that we cannot come to God on our own efforts, but He must draw us to Himself. We therefore only come to Him dead with the promise that He will raise us to life again. However, where Capon differs in the execution of this raising from the dead. For Capon, who is not a Calvinist, he did not have to work around a doctrine of limited atonement. He therefore is able to say that in Christ all people have died and have raised to life. He therefore affirms the Monergistic approach in saying that it is only if God calls you that you can come into the kingdom. Yet, he also helps with the Synergists in their position that the Monergistic God is a God who takes no risks.

Now this does not equal universalism for Capon. Instead here we have to play again on an analogy used in the debate. For Capon, all men and women have risen to new life by God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, all are at the “party” or “dance.” All are included in the work of Christ. Therefore, all are at the dance, all are in a sense “saved.” The difference—and this is important!—for Capon is that your inclusion into the party does not force you to enjoy the party. You are here, you are in the dance, but you are not forced to enjoy the party at all. You can sulk around and be a party pooper all you’d like. But you cannot change the fact that you have been included into the party by no merit of your own, solely through grace. This then for Capon is Eschatologically how he works in hell. Hell is for those who, while still at the party, choose to reject the party by not enjoying the party. This then Echoes C.S. Lewis’ remarks in the Great Divorce where he writes that hell is within heaven, but it is so small that it fits within the tiniest crack in the floorboard of heaven.

This then essentially sums up my position on both of these statements and of the overall debate. As I’ve written before, I would currently consider myself theologically inclined to the Neo-Orthodox or Barthian camp. This influences heavily my opinion of this debate. I do disagree with TULIP, and the overall thrust of Calvinism. However, there is also much I respect from the Reformed tradition (including Calvin Himself).

Specific Debate Comments:

The overall debate was interesting to watch. Both sides did a fairly good job at articulating their position within the limited amount of time. But just in closing I’ll mention a few of my favorite moments, and the moments I found the most ridiculous!

Favorite moments:

I really enjoyed just about everything that Brian Zahnd said. I read his book A Farewell to Mars and was stirred a great deal by it. I haven’t heard much else from him so this was really the first time I’ve ever heard him speak live. But I found his points very well thought out and well presented. He had a clear scholarly approach that I appreciated. I found especially the calvinists lacked this same approach. As a whole, the Calvinists mainly kept repeating “this is what is true, who are you to question God?” Although no entirely…

A few quotes then that I enjoyed:

“On the cross we see a God who would rather die than give sinners what they deserve.” – AF

“You can make the case that Calvinism is biblical, but I don’t think you can make the case that Calvinism is beautiful” – AF

“Calvinism confuses the election of Israel for the election of an individual for salvation.” – BZ

“If God created just one sentient being for the sole purpose of damning that person to hell, I would tell that god that he was immoral. And if that god condemned me to hell for my actions, I would console myself through the ceaseless ages of agony with this one comfort: I told the truth.” – BZ

“A plain reading of Paul?!” – BZ (in response to DM)

Most ridiculous moment:

By far the most ridiculous moment had to have been Daniel Montgomery’s statement about a “plain reading of Paul.” Here we are debating Calvinism, and so far, the logic is flowing great, when all of a sudden someone pulls the classic “it’s just in the bible, read it!” as if that’s not what we’ve been doing this entire time. This is a typical move though for the unlearned in theology, although I doubt Daniel is unlearned, which is partially what makes the remark so hilarious! As a theologian, the last thing you should say is that people need a “plain reading of Paul.” Brian’s response to this was brilliant.

Conclusion:

I guess for a conclusion I would say that I hope we find a way beyond both Calvinism and Armenianism, alike. For this I hope we can adopt the revolutionary ideas of Karl Barth, and with him T.F. Torrance, N.T. Wright, and Robert Capon.

Did any of you watch the debate? What were your thoughts/favorite moments/conclusions? Let me know with a comment! :)

Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:

Announcements: Blogging Sabbatical; Upcoming Books

Hey friends! Two announcements:

1) I’m taking a month long sabbatical from blogging!

As much as I enjoy writing articles for this website, there are several reasons why I need to take a break for about a month or two. The main reason is because I am working full time now this summer to save up for the next few years. With working so much I don’t have the mental capacity or physical energy to put the effort into writing. So it is best for me just to take a pause from blogging and come back strong in a month. So this will be the last you’ll hear from me until probably September.

The second reason is so that I can spend some serious time on editing my next book (entitled We Belong: Trinitarian Good News). I am extremely excited about this project and I want to spend as much time editing and working through this book to produce the best work I can. Which leads to the next announcement…

How do you like the cover? :)

2) Three new books!

I am currently midway through editing my second book, with two other projects in the works. The first book, as mentioned, is We Belong. This book is all about redefining the Gospel as good news by exploring some of the life-changing ideas I’ve been learning over the last 5 years. This book is a book I’ve been really looking forward to writing, and I can’t wait for you all to read it!

The other two books will remain a secret until they’re finished (because secrets are more fun). But I will tell you this. The next two books have to do with C.S. Lewis, the Atonement, Karl Barth, Jesus (duh!) and theology. I started writing one already, and I’m in the middle of gathering research for the other.

My goal is that all three of these books to be available by the end of this year (2014). We Belong may come out second or third (depending on how the editing goes). We Belong is looking to be around 200-250 pages. The other two will most likely be shorter that 200.

Anyways, I’m excited to see where God take me with my writing! As I’ve said many times, writing has always been a dream of mine. I am truly blessed to have the opportunity to pursue writing! The support from friends and family has been incredible. If you’re reading this thank you! Your support means the world to me. :)

So there it is. Going quiet for a month or so! But when I’m back, books come with me. :)

Love you guys! Cheers!

Stephen D Morrison