The Love of God and Ephesians 1

In my last post, I introduced the idea of God's sovereignty and reflected upon the witness of Isaiah in relation to this sovereignty. My conclusion, of course, is that, even though God is sovereign, in an objective sense, He chooses to interact with His creatures in a humble and non-controlling way.

Next, I want to look at a favorite passage of "sovereignty advocates" in the NT and discuss the true meaning its author meant to convey.

But before doing so, I think it would be well to mention a few other things in relation to this topic. The first is a brief treatment of natural disasters - things that seem to fall outside the scope of direct human choice and will (though even that can be debated). What of the Japanese earthquakes, or the Hurricane Katrinas? Has God ordained for these disasters to actually take place?

As I said in my previous post, this question always comes up in the wake of such horrific events like we have just seen. But suffice it to say, I think these natural disasters are the somewhat indiscernible result of God's direct will (Gen 6:6-7; 7:10-11), Satan's interference (Job 2:6-7, and the rest of Job, as well as Matt 13:28) or man's poor choices (see Gohr, Al, An Inconvenient Truth). I think that, ultimately, God is humble enough to take the blame for such atrocities, but this should not encourage us to place the responsibility at His doorstep.

More could be said about this, but we will leave it at that.

The second point that needs to be addressed is the hermeneutic that a person uses in relation to this - and any other - biblical issue. I touched upon this briefly before as well, but the lens through which we must study scripture and explore the character of God is within the context of God's agape love. After all, John declares unequivocally that the fundamental essence of God through which all His actions flow is agape love (see 1 John 4:8, 16). With the exception of 1 John 1:5, where John describes God's fundamental essence as that of light (an idea that is closely related to love, as I understand it), nowhere else does the Bible declare God in terms of a noun equivalence. Thus, God's supreme motivation is fueled by His love, not the desire to glorify Himself.

This is a fundamental difference - perhaps the fundamental difference - between the God of scripture and the God of sovereignty-advocates. For the latter group, every action of God is interpreted through the lens of His self-seeking desire to bring glory to Himself. The God of scripture, on the other hand, throws off all self-interest and "seeks not [His] own,"(1 Cor 13:5) instead laying "down His life," (1 John 3:16) not only for His people, but the whole world (1 John 2:2), including sinners and His "enemies" (Rom 5:8, 10). This is God's primary motivation. Any glory that befalls Him as a result of this is a pure byproduct.

Of course, many will respond by saying that God is motivated by both His love and His desire to glorify Himself, but I would say that these two ideas - in and of themselves - are inherent contradictions. In order for love to truly be love it has to throw off all self-interest, as we have already seen from 1 Corinthians 13:5. Love cannot be concerned with self and other at the same time and still be love. According to scripture, it is a logical impossibility.

Any appeal to such passages as Ezekiel 36:21, where God says that He "had concern for [His] holy name," must also be understood in the context of His self-giving, self-sacrificing agape love. Thus, God is concerned for His name and reputation only insofar as they contribute to the goal of our ultimate well-being. Simply put, the sooner we can see God's trustworthiness (which is the result of His reputation), the better off we will be. And, thus, this is God's motivation in preserving His reputation.

What does all this have to do with the discussion about God's sovereignty? There are two reasons why we must have our compass straight and recognize that God is motivated supremely by His other-centered love.

For one, no matter how much sugar-coating and explaining away people try to do, insisting that God's sovereign will has elected some to be eternally lost is a direct contradiction to His essence of love. Period. There is just no way around it. God cannot be completely loving on the one hand, and yet elect some to be eternally lost on the other hand. There is just no way to slice the pie that can put those two polar opposite ideas together.

It's not as though there haven't been many attempts to do so, of course. John Piper, for one, mentions the idea that God loves people in a general way (and this is the type of love that we as humans are admonished to engage in), but then goes onto propose that there is another type of love that God has which is known as "electing love." Very little biblical support for the idea of "electing love" is given, however, with the exception of Malachi 1:2-3, where God declares that "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." No mention is made of the fact that this declaration was made nearly 1400 years after the two brothers lived and was, obviously, a reflection after the fact. Nor was there any mention of the reality that Malachi was really speaking of the nations of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau), as is apparent contextually (see v. 4).

Yet this is supposed to be evidence for God's individual "electing love," which allegedly elects some people to be saved eternally and other people to be lost eternally. (That God definitely elected the nation of Israel to be His special people cannot be denied, but such an election in no way guaranteed the eternal salvation of any of its individual members. See Rom 9:6-8; 11:19-20; etc. This is because when God "elects" a group, or even individuals - which He does do - it is missional in nature, rather than salvific. As an aside, all this talk about God's "two wills" and "two loves," gives me the impression that - with all due respect - God must be schizophrenic or bipolar. I know this sounds disrespectful to some, but that really seems to be a logical extension of God's "dual" and "cross purposes" that He allegedly possesses.)

The second reason why recognizing that love is the supreme motivation from which God acts is because of the way it relates to God's supposed election of the saved. It sounds very loving, in theory, for God to unconditionally elect some to be saved (especially if you are a part of the saved), but it takes little reflection to realize just how unloving this actually is. The corollary theory to God's unconditional election is His use of "irresistible grace," the idea that if God has elected you to be saved, He will spring His grace upon you in such away that it will be impossible for you to resist.

Obviously, this ultimately takes the choice out of man's hands and places it in God's. Again, people can try to present arguments as to how man still has a choice in the matter, but such proposals are futile. The fact remains that if a person is saved and loves God because He draws them with an overpowering grace, this implies that the man would not otherwise choose God if left to himself. In other words, he is forced to choose what he would otherwise not choose were he left alone. I am not implying, of course, that any of us would naturally choose God apart from His influence (see Phil 2:13), but God does ultimately allow us to exercise our power to choose, rather than overpowering us.

Spelled out clearly, the logical extension of such a dynamic does not sit well with sovereignty advocates. Forcing someone to engage in "love" when he would not otherwise do so is called rape, not love. At best, it is brainwashing. Again, I know such an idea offends sovereignty advocates, and they might insist that such an idea is even blasphemous, but logic demands we be faithful to where the evidence leads.

Of course, there is a scriptural basis for recognizing that God does not overpower our freedom to choose. And there is no better place to reflect upon this than to see it in the person of Jesus. As I mentioned in my last post, the author of Hebrews clearly indicates that Christ is the "express image" of God (Heb 1:3). Elsewhere, Jesus Himself says that "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), also boldly declaring that "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:19). So it is in the person of Christ that we see the very essence of the Father.

And what do we see in this context when we see Jesus?

We see that Christ refused to overpower anyone - that He instead interacted with people with love, grace, invitation, appeal, but never control. As we noted before, He lamented over Jerusalem about how He "wanted [thelo] to gather" her children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but she was "not willing [thelo]" (Matt 23:37).

Then again, we are told by Matthew and Mark, after Jesus was rejected in His hometown of Nazareth, that He "could not do" many "mighty works there because of their unbelief" (Mark 6:5-6; Matt 13:58). The word that both Matthew and Mark employ for "mighty works" is the Greek word dunamis, which literally means "power" or "ability." Thus, Christ's power and ability were negated because of the people's lack of faith. Indeed, He was powerless and unable to perform many miracles because He chose to honor their freedom rather than exert His power. How sad it must have been for Christ, who wanted their ultimate good, but whose intentions were tragically thwarted.

But now onto the NT passage that is oft' used by sovereignty advocates.

Ephesians 1

Though there are definitely other passages in the NT that might be relied upon more heavily to "prove" the idea of God's completely deterministic and controlling sovereignty, Ephesians 1 is right up there with the rest of them. Among other elements of the chapter, Paul tells the believers in Ephesus that God "chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world," (v. 4) and that He "predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (v. 5).

Thus, it is supposed, that since God "predestined" and "chose" Paul and the Ephesian believers, it must necessarily follow that these individuals have been unconditionally elected for salvation, unable to "undo" what God has decreed. Such is the conclusion that sovereignty advocates draw.

There are, of course, other interpretations of this passage that have merit but may not quite hit the nail on the head. One interpretation is that God, based upon His foreknowledge, does truly "choose" and "predestine" people to be saved. In other words, God looks into the future and sees who will ultimately choose Him, and then "chooses" such individuals ahead of time to be saved.

For obvious reasons (I believe), this view seems superfluous! What is the point of God choosing people from the very beginning who, based upon His foreknowledge, He knows will ultimately be saved? Is it suppose to impress us that He can do such a thing?

Another view, which may have significant merit, is that God has "predestined" and "chosen" everyone to be saved but that, ultimately, only those who choose to respond to Him will be saved at last. This interpretation seems to rely heavily upon Paul's statement elsewhere that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4).

Like I said, I think this view - in a general sense - has a lot of merit, but I am not sure that this is what Paul has in mind in this specific instance. I say this because Paul uses some very "charged" words (though, admittedly, they may simply appear to be charged to our ears now, as we live on the other side of this "predestination" debate) like "chose" and "predestined" that go beyond God's simple desire for "all" to be saved.

So how do we interpret Paul's words here?

First of all, we have to recognize the significance of Paul using the word "chose" in verse 4. The Greek word is eklego and it is used 126x in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT that the NT writers relied upon, also known as the LXX) and it is often used for a very specific purpose - that is, to describe how God has "chosen" Israel to be His people (see, for example, Deut 7:7; Psalm 78:68; 135:4; Isa 44:1; etc.). Though the LXX definitely uses it to describe how God "chooses" individuals (though with no reference to their salvation), Paul obviously has the corporate concept in mind because He informs the Ephesians that God has chosen "us" (v. 4).

Of course, we need to identify the "us" that Paul speaks about. This is really the crux of the matter when we deal with Ephesians. Who are the "us" that Paul says have been "chosen" and "predestined"?

Paul starts the book in the first person plural, talking about "us" and "we." He does this until 1:13, where he all of a sudden switches to the second person plural and for the rest of the book he talks about "you" (the Ephesian believers). But who, specifically, are the "you" to whom Paul writes?

He answers this in 2:11: "Therefore, remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called Uncircumcision by what is called Circumcision made in the flesh by hands - that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." He also goes onto say in v. 19 that "you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God."

Quite clearly, Paul is writing to a bunch of Gentile believers who were - at one point - on the "outside" looking in, ones who were not "chosen" in the OT to be God's people but now clearly are.

This is why Paul says that God chose "us." Paul, a Jewish writer, announces that God not only chose "him," but He chose "us," and that this was God's plan all along, having predestined, not only Israel, but also Gentiles. So Paul is not speaking here about individual election, but about the fact that, just as God "chose" Israel in the OT, really His plan all along was to include Gentiles as well. After all, God is the "Savior of the world" (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14), as well as the "Savior of all men" (1 Tim 4:10).

Similarly, it is very clear, as I said above, that Israel was chosen in the OT for missional purposes, not salvific ones. It was not God's purpose to choose Israel for salvation, per se, but to announce His salvation to the world and invite all nations into fellowship with God (see, for example, Isa 2:2-3). They did not get it, of course, believing that God had chosen them exclusively for salvation. In this sense, they ultimately made the mistake that sovereignty advocates make, thinking that God's "choosing" them meant salvation rather than mission, also believing that God had "unconditionally" elected them simply because they were of Abraham's literal seed. Clearly, Paul flipped this idea on its head in this passage in Ephesians, as well as in others, like Romans 9:6-7.

Of course, this Jewish/Gentile conflict was often at the heart of Paul's epistles. Paul took on Jewish believers for feeling like they were superior to Gentile believers and actually God's exclusively chosen people. So he comes along and says, "No, no. Hold on a minute. You know how the Old Testament says that God 'chose' Israel to be His special people? Well, God's eternal purpose all along was actually to 'choose' anyone and everyone from all nations, and the only reason He did 'choose' Israel to begin with was for the purpose of announcing to the whole world that God wants - and has 'chosen' - everyone to be saved." Furthermore, he even went so far as to write to the Galatian believers that "there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus," boldly proclaiming that if anyone was Christ's, then he/she was of "Abraham's seed" (Gal 3:28-29).

Thus, Paul, in many senses, was accomplishing what the nation of Israel was originally designed - yet failed - to do: that of announcing to the whole world God's desire to save all.

This, to me, is very clearly what Paul is saying contextually in Ephesians 1. He is not talking about individual unconditional "election," he is talking about the fact that God has chosen Gentiles to be among His people just like those who were Jewish by birth. This does not do away with the good news that he announces in the surrounding verses - about how we have been "accepted in the Beloved" (v. 6), or how we have "redemption" and "forgiveness," (v. 7), etc. It just places into context what Paul really means when he uses the words "chose" and "predestined."

Simply put, there is no room to interpret the passage as sovereignty advocates do so.

Is God Sovereign?

For many Christians, the most vital aspect of God's character is His sovereignty. They cling to this attribute without reservation. Everything in scripture is interpreted through this lens. Ideas such as unconditional election, predestination, and irresistible grace flow from this foundational hermeneutic.

This topic is especially relevant in light of the earth's latest disaster, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan that has left thousands dead. In the wake of such disasters, many people ask questions about God's character and often come to the conclusion that God willed for such a thing to happen to achieve some greater good. Indeed, they cling to His sovereignty.

But is it truly accurate to say that God is sovereign? Or, at the very least, is it appropriate to emphasize this attribute over and above all of God's other attributes?

First, let me assure you: I do not subscribe to "open theism," the idea that God does not really know the future (I recognize that "open theists" do not put it in these terms, insisting instead that God, being omniscient, does know the future - but saying that He knows the future as possibilities and, in fact, knows all the possibilities of the future. However, this way of putting it is meaningless, since there are, in theory, an infinite number of possibilities for the future). But it seems to me, based on the witness of scripture, that emphasizing God's sovereignty as the supreme message of scripture, is not only misleading, but also dangerous.

Let me explain . . .

To begin with, let's be clear: the Bible does not use the word "sovereign" at all - at least not the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or many other responsible translations. The NIV, NLT and NRSV do use the word, but these are not based on anything particular in the Greek or Hebrew of either testaments. (For example, the NIV often translates the Hebrew word adonai as "sovereign" when it precedes yahweh, thus making "sovereign Lord." The KJV translates this phrase as "Lord God," though this is not necessarily a literal translation, either. See Gen 15:2 as just one example.)

This, of course, does not necessarily amount to a whole lot, since we do use words (like "trinity") to describe biblical ideas, that are not themselves biblical words. But, at the very least, one must recognize that when one talks about God's sovereignty, he/she is not using biblical language, per se.

More importantly, what does one mean when he/she talks about God's "sovereignty"? The literal definition of the word "sovereign" means "having supreme rank, power, or authority," a definition that I am not sure anyone would disagree with as it relates to God. To be sure, God, by very definition, stands over and above all others.

But those who emphasis God's sovereignty do not primarily have this idea in mind. For them, God's sovereignty inherently means that He controls everything that happens in the universe - and, in fact, He has willed and predetermined every single thing that has ever happened or ever will happen. Or, as The Westminster Confession of Faith (which is the de facto "creed" for many who align themselves with this understanding of God) puts it: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (3.1).

Thus, not only did God ordain for there to be an earthquake in Japan last week, He actually ordained and intended for 10,000+ people to die in its wake. This goes beyond God simply

"allowing" bad things to happen; He actually "wills" for it to happen to accomplish some greater good that we cannot quite figure out as finite human beings - though many do maintain that some how, such events will ultimately bring glory to God.

This concept elicits obvious questions about God's character - especially in the minds of those who recognize that God's fundamental - and overarching - essence is that of self-giving, self-sacrificing love (see 1 John 4:8; Rom 5:8; Matt 5:45; etc.). Nevertheless, such a paradox doesn't seem to deter many from embracing the picture of an all-controlling God and, in fact, actually gives some people great comfort.

For the rest of us, however, the two concepts seem irreconcilable.

On What Basis?

So if the Bible never explicitly mentions that God is "sovereign," on what basis do people make such a claim?

First of all, let me make something clear: I believe that in an objective sense God is sovereign - that He does stand over and above all else and that He can, if He so chooses, control absolutely everything that happens. As a free moral being who has every power at His fingertips, God could choose to interact with His creatures at this level.

But not only do I gather from scripture that God does not try to typically interact with His creation with an inferior-superior attitude - but instead chooses to approach us with humility (see Matt 11:29 where Jesus, who is the "express image" of God, according to Heb 1:3, describes Himself as "meek and lowly in heart," or John 15:15, where Jesus announces that we are no longer His servants but His friends who get to "know what [God] . . . is doing," or Phil 2:6, where Christ is described, as The Message puts it, as not clinging "to the advantages" of being God) - but I especially do not find any scriptural basis for the idea that God chooses to ordain and control absolutely everything that has happened or will happen in the universe.

This is not to say, of course, that there are not passages in scripture - often appealed to - that "sovereignty advocates" rely upon. There are, admittedly, scores of passages in scripture that seem to point in the direction that God's will is absolutely and always followed no matter what. And though there is obviously not enough time to examine each and everyone of those in their context, I do want to address two passages from scripture in the next two posts - one in the OT and one in the NT - that are often considered "slam dunk" passages for those who advocate God's complete and sovereign control over everything that happens in the universe. I do believe that by demonstrating how these passages are often misunderstood by sovereignty advocates, it will be enough to demonstrate that the hermeneutical approach by such individuals in dealing with the rest of scripture is, at best, questionable.

The Witness of Isaiah

One of the passages that is often appealed to in relation to God's alleged "omni-control" comes from the prophet Isaiah. Actually, to be fair, there are a number of passages in Isaiah that allegedly lend themselves to this concept, so I will quickly cite a few of the examples that come from this important Messianic book.

As just a small sampling, God describes Himself as "I [who] form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things" (45:7). Elsewhere, God repeatedly makes it clear that "besides [Him] there is no other God" (43:10; 44:6; 45:5-6, 14, 21). But perhaps most significantly, God declares "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure'" (46:10). Similarly, God announces that just as the rain and snow fall out of heaven and touch upon the earth, never returning to heaven, instead bringing forth buds and giving seed to the sower, "so shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (55:10-11).

The last two verses are especially impressive, giving clear - and undeniable - evidence that God is all-powerful and able to do whatever He wants.

But, as always, we do great disservice to our biblical study when we divorce a verse from its context. (I find, just as a side note, that whenever I come across a verse that bolsters my presuppositions, I very rarely study its context; however, whenever I encounter a verse that contradicts my presuppositions, I always study its context! I can't help but think that many - if not most - biblical students do the same thing!) And, in this case, the overall context of Isaiah points to the undeniable reality that God, instead of flexing His muscle and insisting that everything has happened or will happen because it was/is precisely how He wants it to happen, chooses to honor the freedom of His creatures.

After all, isn't this the precise reason God sent, not only the prophet Isaiah, but every biblical prophet? We usually think the primary purpose of a prophet was to tell God's people what was going to happen in the future. To be sure, this was one of the prophet's roles. But, more significantly, the chief purpose of a prophet was to inform God's people that they weren't listening to Him or doing what He desired, and to "return" to Him. Not surprisingly, we see God using this precise language ("Return to me") in Isaiah 44:22, as well as many of the other prophets (see Jer 3:12; Joel 2:12; Zech 1:3; Mal 3:7), often times without much success (see Jer 15:7; Hos 7:10; Amos 4:6).

Furthermore, Isaiah plainly spells out the reality that God's people were not "listening to" or "obeying" Him (see 28:12; 30:9; 42:24; 65:12; 66:4). These last two passages are extremely significant because they spell out plainly how God's people were not doing His will at all, but instead following their own will. God essentially repeats the same thing twice when He laments, "When I called, no one answered, when I spoke they did not hear; but they did evil before My eyes, and chose that in which I do not delight" (66:4).

The last clause of the verse is highly significant and must not be quickly brushed aside or discounted. In language that turns my mind back to that great messianic prophecy, where all humans are described as sheep that have "turned, every one, to his own way" (53:6) rather than God's way, Isaiah unequivocally declares that Israel had "chosen" what God did not "desire."

Interestingly, when the OT was translated into Greek, the LXX translators chose the word boulomai to describe God's desire that had been thwarted by the choice of His people. This is highly significant because many sovereignty advocates point to the NT's usage of the noun form of this word as evidence that God ordains everything to happen (see, for example, Acts 2:23 and 4:28).

But from this single passage in Isaiah we see very clearly an interesting dynamic: that is, that God often has definite plans or desires (Hebrew, chaphets) that are sometimes negated or neutralized by the choice of human beings. This does not deny the reality that God can overrule the choices of His people, but it is to say that God will not overpower the choice that He has freely given individuals.

Of course, the response from many sovereignty advocates often goes one of two ways: they either insist that God's sovereignty does not negate man's responsibility, or they propose that God has "two wills" (see "Are There Two Wills in God?" by John Piper, as just one example of this explanation). In other words, the first explanation tries to reconcile God's complete control over us as human beings and our alleged choice in the matter, while the second explanation insists that God actually desires one thing (for all men to be saved, for example, as 1 Tim 2:4 maintains), while at the same time desiring a seemingly - though imagained, as the advocates say - contradictory thing at the same time (desiring that some of those "all" actually be lost).

Besides the fact that either explanation lacks true biblical support, perhaps the biggest problem and frustration with them is that, no matter how many verbose elucidations are given or logical gymnastics are engaged in, such explanations defy and contradict simple logic. So, when all else fails, some simply appeal to God's words that "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways" (Isa 55:8), and that seems to settle it. But more on this in the future . . .

Besides this telling passage that comes at the end of Isaiah's book, however, the stage was actually set in relation to the God-human dynamic at the beginning of the book. Instead of insisting that His desires would be unconditionally achieved, God makes it plain that He would honor, and not overpower, the free choice of His people. And one does not have to read very far into the book to recognize this truth!

After inviting His people to "Come now, and let us reason together," (1:18) an interesting invitation in light of the fact that many people want us to turn our reasoning off in relation to this subject, God then goes onto to plainly state, "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword" (1:19).

Can it be any plainer? God uses that very important word "if" (Hebrew im, used 40x in Isaiah) to denote the conditional nature of His desires - not because He is incapable or powerless to truly achieve His will, but because He chooses to interact with the world on this level and honor our free exercise of the will.

The LXX version of this passage is also interesting because it uses the word thelo to translate the word "willing" in Hebrew - significant because the noun form of the word is what Matthew uses in the Lord's prayer when Christ invites us to pray that God's "will [thelema] be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10). Thus, these two passages, coupled together, show us that God's heavenly will can be frustrated on earth by man's will - since it is clear that God's will and desire was for Israel to be a "special treasure" (see Exo 19:5) upon the earth.

Clearly, though, this desire of God was never realized in the nation of Israel, as is evidenced by Christ's lamentation over Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted [thelo] to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing [thelo]!" (Matt 23:37). Again, any appeal to the idea of God having "two wills" in this context lacks scriptural and logical support. (It is also interesting to note how Christ Himself describes the role of prophets - that of attempting to gather Israel into relationship with Himself - but how they were clearly rejected by the will of man.)

Of course, what are we then to make of the alleged "sovereignty" passages in Isaiah? To begin with, let us admit our humility. Though I fully believe that God does want us to understand His mind and not leave us in the dark, we need to recognize our limitations and the fact that we don't know everything God knows (again, this does not mean that God doesn't want us to know - nor that we should stop trying to understand His mind. See John 15:15).

Secondly, there is a definite sense in which God does act sovereignly in the affairs of universal history. He does act independently of our will and choices at times. One simple - yet important - example of this is the cross: none of us asked for God to come down in the form of man and die the death we deserved. In fact, if the choice had been left up to us as to whether Christ would come down to take our place on the cross, we would have rejected the very initiation He took (though we wouldn't have even been around to begin with anyway).

Thirdly, when God talks about His word not returning to Him "void," but "accomplishing" what it pleases, I believe there is a tension going on that deserves thought. Some rightfully interpret such passages in light of God's "foreknowledge," recognizing that God can look into the future and - though not determining it - see that some will, in fact, respond to His word. Thus, He can say with confidence that His word would not come back "empty-handed," so to speak, but would find a residence in the heart of human beings (though not all human beings, even though this is His desire).

This parenthetical statement does not limit God's power in any way because, truly, all those whom God desires to respond could respond if they chose to - which speaks powerfully to God's power, though, sadly, many will choose not to. But this, in no way, diminishes God's power; rather, it highlights His love all the more. (I realize the idea that God's power is not diminished by the fact that some do not respond, though He wants them to, is almost incomprehensible - even illogical - to "sovereignty advocates," but, just the same, we need to be faithful to scripture.)

I believe there is also another dynamic going on with this idea that may seem foreign to many. Nevertheless, it deserves attention. That is, when God declares that His word would not return to Him "void," He is saying that with faith - in other words, God actually has faith in what His love, word, and faith can accomplish - and, indeed, God actually has faith in us. In some senses, we might say that God has "faith in faith."

As I said, the idea that God actually has faith is probably foreign to many people but, nevertheless, it is a biblical idea. The NT writers - and Christ Himself - actually talk about the "faith of God" and the "faith of Jesus," though most versions do not translate it as such. But it's there. See, for example, Mark 11:22 (Young's Literal Translation, which translates the "subjective genitive" accurately), Romans 3:3 (KJV), 3:22 (KJV, YLT), 3:26 (YLT), Galatians 2:16 (KJV, YLT), 2:20 (KJV, YLT), 3:22 (KJV, YLT), and Revelation 14:12 (KJV, NKJV, NRSV, YLT).

Though this topic deserves a whole post itself, and will more than likely get one in the future, suffice it to say, instead of overpowering His creatures with His "sovereign" will, God, instead, chooses to interact with them from the motivation of love and through the eyes of faith - both of which can be freely spurned and rejected should anyone want to respond with "unbelief."

Equally true, of course, is the reality that we can - by His grace - respond with faith and freely choose to have His will accomplished in our lives. And such a reality is far more a reflection of true sovereign power and influence than if He were to be an "omni-controlling, micro-manager" whose will could never be resisted (because logically it cannot truly be resisted).

None of this, in anyway, undermines the reality that "all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28) and that, ultimately, God will get His way, but, again, the way He accomplishes this is not by controlling and ordaining every single thing that happens, but by influencing the world, through His love, towards the grand accomplishing of His ultimate goal of complete and true universal safety (see my previous post entitled, "Safe to Save?")

Of course, there are other passages in scripture that need to be grappled with, but that will have to be in the next post.

Still . . . the Sabbath

(Note: this post is a message I shared with a friend of mine who asked me about the Sabbath. He/she has been a lifelong Seventh-day Adventist and sees the importance of the Sabbath, but wonders about its endtime significance and whether those living in the last days must be Sabbath-keepers in order to be "saved." This is a question that often arises and so I thought it would be helpful to share it publicly as well. Since it is not a simple issue and needs a lot of background information, the post is long - though it is not definitive in any sense. It is a pretty "raw" explanation of the issues and is in no way scholarly/exhaustive. It is my attempt at giving a timely response!)

I want to share my thoughts with you about your Sabbath questions. This is a very important one that cannot be answered hastily or without a great deal of deliberation. There is no quick, easy answer that can be given without a great deal of misinterpretation by the listener. And thus, I have written a long, long, long response that might be intimidating! I will understand it if it takes you a long time to read it and/or respond.

But here goes . . .

You specifically asked the question this way: “I believe Saturday is the correct day, but I dont think that in the end times it will really come down those who worship on Sunday will be wrong and not be saved as I have been taught as an Adventist? thoughts?”

Whatever answer we come up with, we need to make sure, of course, that our views are based on the Bible and not people’s opinions, or human emotion, or speculation. We also need to listen to Jesus’ warning: “Take heed that no one deceives you” (Matthew 24:4). The devil is a “liar” and the “father of lies” (John 8:44) and it is his goal to “deceive the whole world” (Rev 12:9) and he wants nothing more than for us to be confused about God, His character, and His plans. Similarly, Revelation 13 – which is where this whole Sabbath discussion centers around – makes it plain that the devil is going to use an earthly power to “deceive those who dwell on the earth” (Rev 13:14). So we need to take Jesus’ counsel seriously that we make sure “no one deceives” us.

As a foundational thought, though, I think it is important we recognize a few things that are paramount to this whole discussion. First of all, it is vitally important to note that there are basically three conflicting principles that are being fought over between God and Satan. Those three are: truth (God) vs. error (Satan), freedom (God) vs. slavery (Satan), and love (God) vs. fear (Satan). Every battle in life revolves around these three principles.

Simply put, God is all about truth, freedom, and love, while Satan is all about error, slavery, and fear. And this is the war that is being waged between God and Satan—that which we call the “Great Controversy.” (Interestingly, Satan is actually accusing God of engaging in the very things—ie., error, slavery, and fear—that is true of himself. We see this right in the very beginning in the Garden of Eden, in Gen 3:1-5, when Satan spread his first lie to humankind through Eve).

How does all this relate to the Sabbath?

Well, we need to take a step back and realize a few basic facts about God that are outworkings of His character of love. First of all, it is clear from Scripture that God loves the whole “world” (John 3:16). It is also clear from Scripture that He wants EVERYONE to be saved (2 Peter 3:9). It is also abundantly clear that He is trying to make it as easy as possible for everyone to get to heaven, and that there is no reason why anyone should not be in heaven, by virtue of the fact that He has already paid the penalty for every human beings’ sins (1 John 2:2). And, in fact, the only reason anyone will NOT be in heaven is not because they didn’t follow this rule or that rule, but because they resisted God’s love and lived a life of “unbelief” (Heb 3:19).

This last idea is very important: the only reason someone will not be in heaven is because of their unbelief—because they have refused to respond to God’s love by faith. If we are not saved “by works” (Ephesians 2:8-9), this also means we are not lost by a lack of works.

What the Bible does present, however, is the idea that a person who is actually living by faith has works in his/her life. In other words, doing good works are the “fruit” of one’s faith. James is very clear on this when he says that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17) and then goes onto say, “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (v. 18).

So I like to put it this way: we are not saved BY our works, but we are not saved APART from works. In other words, the reason a person will go to heaven is not because of anything good they have done, but every person who does go to heaven will have good works reflected in their lives.

But does this mean that everyone who goes to heaven will have been a Sabbath-keeper on earth?

Not at all!

There will be millions upon millions of people (I would imagine) that are in heaven who never kept the Sabbath on earth. This is because when it comes to participating in good works in our lives, all of us are a “work in progress” and God cares more about the direction we are going, rather than how far we got by the time we die. This is why we should be careful in judging people. We may not see some things in their lives and assume that they are not living by faith, but they may be at a different place in their journey and God has not yet convicted them of the same things He has convicted us of. This is the case with many when it comes to the Sabbath. They are living up to the best “light” they have been given, but for whatever reason they have not yet been convicted of the beauty of the Sabbath. (This does not mean there is no place for lovingly encouraging people in righteousness and using discipline with people when they persistently refuse to follow something God has plainly revealed to them—especially those who are in leadership and “claim” to subscribe or teach one thing, but refuse to or downright deny its truth or importance.)

Does this then mean we do not worry about whether they come into the beautiful joy and rest of the Sabbath?

Well, there is where the “end times” comes into play as revealed in the book of Revelation.

What the book of Revelation essentially shows is a group of people, living in the “end times” right before Jesus comes, whose spiritual maturity and growth has “sped up,” so to speak, and find themselves a long ways down the road towards what God has been trying to do all along with humanity.

Remember, Satan has accused God of being unloving, fear-driven, and controlling. He furthermore has insinuated that God’s people are merely following Him for these reasons, and when the going gets tough, there will be no real reason why anyone would want to follow God (we see this in the story of Job). Furthermore, He has claimed that God’s law is arbitrary (think back to what He told Eve in the Garden about God’s restriction of not eating from the tree) and there is no reason for it, and that when people really understand this they will not want to follow it.

Then think about this scenario for a second: imagine that you are an angel or another created being in the universe and everything is right in the world. Everyone loves one another. There is no such thing as hate, violence, or anger. Then, all of a sudden, God creates this place called “earth” and a short time later, this thing called “sin” is introduced into the universe and there are created beings that display anger, hatred, violence—people killing one another, stealing from one another, etc. If I was a perfect being, living somewhere else in the universe, a thought that would come to my mind would be, “What in the world was God thinking when He created that place??”

Furthermore, think about this: at some point, in the near future, God will announce that these sinful/hate-filled beings are going to be “released” from their little corner of the universe and coming to a neighborhood near you! These imperfect beings are going to inhabit perfect heaven.

Wouldn’t such a thought be a frightful proposition? It would be like a neighbor, bringing home notoriously violent dogs, training them, and then announcing to everyone that he is going to release them to roam around freely in the neighborhood.

Wouldn’t you want some assurance that these dogs—or humans—could completely behave themselves before being released? After all, your safety is at risk!

And so this is the dilemma that God finds Himself in. His actual plan and character is on the line because of the fact that He brought us into existence, not to mention the fact that Satan has made claims against Him that He is unloving, arbitrary, controlling and manipulative.

In a word, the Bible teaches that GOD is actually “on trial” and being judged, and He is waiting in these last days to be “proven right” through His people (see Romans 3:4). This is what the “great controversy” that we speak of is all about. There is something far greater than my salvation and future that is on the line; God’s future is actually hanging in the balance.

This is hinted at through the Bible whenever you come across the word “mystery.” Paul, in the book of Ephesians, touches upon this when he says that “from the beginning of the ages” there has been this “mystery . . . hidden in God” that people cannot quite figure out (see Ephesians 3:9-11). Other created beings from the universe are scratching their heads and saying, “What is God up to?”

Amazingly, Paul goes onto say that “now the manifold wisdom of God” is being “made known BY THE CHURCH to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” In other words, God is trying to reveal His character of love, truth, and freedom through us. (After all, a testimony is more powerful about someone when it comes from others, rather than yourself. This is what Jesus says in John 5:31, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not valid.”) Paul elsewhere talks about this “mystery” when he says that “God will to make known what is . . . the glory of this mystery . . . which is, Christ in you, the hope of glory.” So when we allow Christ to live “in us” and through us, and His life and love are reflected in our lives, God’s mysterious plan that He has been working on from the beginning is revealed.

Most importantly, the book of Revelation talks about how, in the very end, this “mystery of God would be finished” (Revelation 10:7). This, again, is what God is trying to bring to completion right now.

All this seems to relate to the Sabbath in a very simple and logical way. God’s people are defined in the very end as “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12). They are also defined as those who “follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (v. 4). In other words, they follow Jesus and do exactly what He wants them to do.

But the only reason they do so is because they have a “love affair” with Him and are responding by faith. They do not follow Him and His commandments because they want to earn salvation, or because God is controlling or manipulative (like Satan maintains), or even simply because they want to go to heaven. They follow Him completely because they have been so blown away by His love and faith in them as shown in His crucifixion, that they would rather die than not do what He asks of them.

Of course, the Sabbath is one of those “commandments” they keep (and it just one of them; we cannot neglect the other ten to overemphasize the fourth—nor can we especially neglect God’s greatest commandment to love Him and love others [see Matt 22:36-39], which is what the whole really law boils down to [see Romans 13:10]). But the Sabbath does have special significance because the book of Revelation gives it special significance. Chapter 13 actually mentions the word “worship” five times, each time pointing to the fact that the devil’s agents are going to try to force people to “worship,” even resorting to the death penalty to force people to do so (v. 15). This is a control and fear-based tactic, which is not God’s ways of worship at all.

Instead, God simply “invites” people to freely worship Him (see Rev 22:17), without any fear or manipulation, without any control or coercion. This is seen in the fact that in Revelation 14:7 God invites people in the last days to “worship Him.”

And what is the basis of that worship? We are invited to “worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea, and the springs of water.” This last clause is a direct quote from the Sabbath commandment (see Exodus 20:11)!

So this is the difference between Sabbath and Sunday worship in the last days! Satan’s minions are going to try to enforce Sunday worship as a means of control, threatening even death to those who refuse to do so. This is clearly a reflection of Satan’s tactic: use error, control, and fear. And such Christians who agree to worship on Sunday upon penalty of death are actually living a life that is a reflection of the fact that they think they can “earn” their salvation (after all, worshiping on Sunday is actually a man-made tradition).

On the other hand, those who choose to honor the Lord by keeping the Sabbath are doing so freely and by faith. This is a choice they have made and they refuse to be bullied by the devil’s tactics. Their lives bear witness to the fact that God is so loving that they would rather honor Him than follow a man-made tradition and rule—even if it means death. They have fallen in love with God so much that they would rather die than do something that would be a misrepresentation of who He is.

Believe it or not, I am sure there is more that I could write on this that would explain it more, but I trust I have written enough for you to chew on!

What I have written could probably use some “tweaking,” and I am still working through all the implications myself, but that is the basic story as I see it.

Hopefully it makes sense to you! And hopefully I was not imbalanced with my explanation. Either way, please let me know if there is anything I can explain in a better way.

Hope this helps!!

God bless,

Shawn

PS. The reason we would want others to keep the Sabbath – especially in these last days – is so that they can, of course, enjoy the full rest that God wants to give them, and so that they do not fall into deception. Above and beyond that, though, God is looking for a group of people who will finally and forever say “yes” to Him.

Wrong About Agape?

The Greek word agape has long been considered the pinnacle of all ideas in Christian theology. This word, which Carsten Johnsen calls the "term par excellence" of the Christian faith, has ruled the roost for decades, if not millenia.

Now . . . not so much.

Scholars and exegetes have begun to call into question the traditional understanding of this word. They have further called into question the tendency to pull apart agape and eros, insisting that 1) eros has a place at the table and 2) that place at the table may be right alongside agape, rather than subservient to it and 3) agape may, in fact, include eros.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have not personally exposed myself to the literature that espouses these views. But I know they're there. And I have personally interacted with scholars who seem enamored with (or at least intrigued by) this new view. A few months ago, in fact, I submitted an article to a publication entitled "Stripping the Song of Its Erotic Reputation," that challenges the tendency to label the Song of Solomon as "erotic" (something I have written about briefly on this blog before). When I received the feedback from the blind reviewer, the person said that I did not "seem to be aware of the scholarly discussions on agape and eros" and that I seemed to interpret agape "along the lines of Nygren," whose "views have been seriously criticized as overlooking linguistic evidence that allows agape to have a broader meaning including elements from eros."

Now, even though I have read only about two paragraphs in my life from Anders Nygren, I have no doubt that my views have been indirectly influenced by him (though moreso by Carsten Johnsen). But I ultimately decided not to change anything about the article and, though there may have been other perfectly legitimate reasons for not doing so, the manuscript was not published.

This hasn't been my only interaction on this topic, however. I have talked with other scholars who have mentioned the same objections as the blind reviewer. More relevant to Adventist history and theology is the claim that many who read and interpret A.T. Jones and E.J.Waggoner often do so through the lens of Nygren as well. This may be a fair critique as well, especially considering that - according to my study - Waggoner used the word agape only once and Jones never did so. But I think all these objections miss the point.

The reason this is so is because of what I have said, am saying, and will continue to say in the future. That is: what doth the scriptures say?

Granted, this may sound narrow-minded to say, and I realize that all of us interpret the Bible through thousands of influences (either direct or indirect), but I am not so much concerned with what modern scholars, theologians or any others write about the topic. The one determining factor is what the scriptures say.

Of course, there is one little fly in the ointment. As some have rightfully pointed out, the New Testament does use the word agape in ways that don't quite jive with the traditional interpretation of it. Historically, Christian theologians have proposed that agape is completely a type of perfect, godly, unconditional love. It originates with God and is a part of His very essence.

The fly in the ointment comes when one recognizes that the New Testament uses the term a handful of times in other contexts. But that's just it: it is done just a handful of times. In fact, of the 259 times that the New Testament uses the noun agape or the verb agapao, I have counted only six instances where the word is used in a way that seems to contradict the traditional understanding of it.

Besides the fact that it seems misled to base an argument on 6 out of 259 usages of a word, I think there is also a reasonable explanation for the usage of the word in these seemingly contradictory ways. Specifically, notice the way in which the word is used in these instances:

• "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love [agapao] the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces" (Luke 11:43).
• "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved [agapao] darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).
• "For they loved [agapao] the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:43).
• "They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved [agapao] the wages of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:15).
• "Do not love [agapao] the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves [agapao] the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15).

As I surveyed these instances where agape is used in an unorthodox way, it struck me that they were, perhaps, being used in an almost ironic way. That is, the great commission for humanity is to love God and people unconditionally, as God loves us unconditionally. Instead, some in Jesus' first-century audience (or Peter's or John's - or ours) were loving "praise," "the best seats," "the world," or "the wages of unrighteousness."

In a similarly ironic way, it was as if Jesus was trying to draw a contrast between the sold-out, unconditional devotion He has towards us - and, subsequently, what we should have towards Him and others - and the sold-out, unconditional devotion some have towards things, material possessions, and recognition.

So I do not believe that these six instances warrant a totally new interpretation of the word agape. Rather, they simply point out the ironic contrast between the unconditional love and devotion to Himself and others that God wants to implant in our hearts and the unconditional love and devotion we naturally have in our hearts towards self, things, and the world.

But then there's the problem of that pesky eros - a word that simply won't seem to die its eternal death. I believe this is so because it has been natural to the sinful heart ever since the days of Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. Thus, so long as there is sin in the universe, there will be eros. Of course, such a philosophical view towards the word - and force - doesn't simply sweep away the scholarly arguments about its place at that table.

But, again, what doth the scriptures say about eros?

Essentially, nothing.

In fact, the New Testament is completely silent on it - speaking neither negatively or positively about the word or concept. Thus, any discussion on eros that is based on the New Testament is, at best, an argument from silence.

This could, perhaps, be considered a "moral victory" for the pro-eroticists.

But I'm not so sure.

This is because there is one, single instance of the word in the LXX version of the Old Testament (the version that Jesus, Paul, and all other New Testament authors quoted from) and it is anything but positive. Speaking through the mouth of an immoral woman, Solomon quotes her as enticingly inviting a young man to "come, let us take our fill of love until morning, let us delight ourselves with love [eros]." She then goes onto say that "my husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey" (Proverbs 7:18-19).

The point should not be brushed aside haphazardly: the only time the word eros is used in the whole Bible, it is used by an immoral woman who seeks to "make love" to a young man while her husband is not home.

And yet modern scholarship would have us believe that eros has gotten a bad rap, that it might be as legitimate - and attractive - a concept as agape and, more than that, may actually be included in agape (as Pope Benedict would have us believe, for instance, in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, writing, among other things, that "agape and eros . . . can never be completely separated.").

Of course, I recognize the fact that the LXX was not inspired. Those who translated Solomon's words from Hebrew into Greek were not inspired the way Solomon was inspired (though some who bring forth the agape/eros melding do not have a high view of inspiration, anyway). This is granted. But, at the very least, those who translated the LXX were some of the earliest commentators and interpreters of the Old Testament. And I would trust their understanding of the word eros far more than I would trust the view of someone who is living 2300 years later.

So this is the point: let us not ascribe to eros more than the Bible does. And let us not ascribe to the Bible any positive view of eros. And let us not paint books, concepts, or Christianity with an erotic brush.

And, last but not least, let us continue to have a robust view of agape.

The Missing Value

I don't want to belabor the point, but I just wanted to follow up on my previous post about GYC. I want to share an addendum to what I wrote.

But before I do that, I want to once again make it clear that I do not write these things with malice, envy, self-righteousness, or anything of the sort (at least that is my hope). I write as a friend and supporter of GYC. I write as someone who shares all the same values as GYC. I write as someone who has not figured it all out but just wants to continue to grow alongside those who shape, direct, and participate in this awesome and wonderful movement.

I have questioned and prayed about whether I should even voice my concerns. And, truthfully, it was not my original intention to share these thoughts so soon after the latest Conference. I know many people have returned to their homes or schools on a high, having been extremely blessed by what they have just experienced. So I don't want to rain on their parade, so to speak!

The reason I did go ahead and share these thoughts now, however, is because of what David Asscherick said in his closing talk on Sunday. With his message fresh in peoples' minds, I figured that my thoughts would be more relevant.

Of course, I realize that my thoughts have been unsolicited by all and, no doubt, unappreciated by many, but just as GYC feels at liberty to independently call the Adventist church as a whole to a higher standard, I think those within leadership can appreciate the concern with which I write.

So with all that said, let me share my addendum.

As people have responded to my initial thoughts, perhaps the most prevailing sentiment is that I, as a non-attender, am somewhat speaking from a point of ignorance. Fair enough. I already acknowledged this in my first post.

Of course, as I have already mentioned as well, however, GYC makes itself pretty accessible to those who don't attend. The main meetings are broadcast on 3ABN and the plenary sessions are all recorded and posted on AudioVerse. And through the years, I think it would be pretty safe to say that I have listened to as many presentations via AudioVerse as some people have while attending GYC in person.

But here is the important part that I would like to raise, which I have already raised in some of my responses to my previous posting: one does not even have to listen to a single presentation from GYC to know where their emphasis lies and whether the gospel, love, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ is an important value that they are trying to promote.

Last evening, one of my church members who attended GYC shared the program from this year's Conference. He does so every year and I enjoy going through it, salivating over some of the programs that I would have loved to experience firsthand. But as I turned to the back of the program, I stopped on p. 39. It gave me great pause. There, one reads the "Spirit of GYC," or, as it explains, those things which "GYC will promote among its participants." In other words, these are the values that GYC upholds and wishes for those who attend to uphold when they leave the Conference. One can also find this document on GYC's website.

These are the ten values that GYC seeks to promote - values that I completely and wholeheartedly affirm:

1. A respect for scripture

2. An appreciation for the Spirit of Prophecy

3. A quest for biblical holiness

4. A vibrant worship experience

5. A passion for lost souls

6. A cultivation of godly relationships

7. An exemplary and abundant lifestyle

8. An enthusiasm for service

9. A commitment to the Seventh-day Adventist Church

10. An attitude of humility and cordiality

Like I said, I fully affirm all these values and try to promote them in my own preaching, teaching, writing, and personal interactions. But as I went down the list, I noticed there was a missing value, a glaring omission - an omission that simply supports my original thesis.

Where is there mention of the hope to promote a deeper, richer, fuller, and greater understanding of and appreciation for the wonderful love of Christ - the foundation on which all other values rests? If I, myself, were to create a list of values, I would definitely have all the above ones mentioned, but I would start at the very beginning with the desire to promote "an appreciation for the love of God and sacrifice of Christ."

I know some might argue that such a value is assumed or implied. Others might argue that emphasizing the "love of God" is merely "milk" and we need "solid food." But we, as the Laodicean church, have a heart-problem, not a behavior problem. (Yes, we do have a behavior problem, but one's external behavior is a reflection of one's internal heart-experience and merely changing one's behavior does not solve the problem.) And only a strong and balanced emphasis on Christ's agape love can change the heart - which then changes the behavior.

This is why Paul was so determined to know nothing but "Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). And when he was given an opportunity to express his desire about what he wanted others to value, he bowed his knee and prayed that "Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith," that we would be "rooted and grounded in love," and that we we might be able to "comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height - to know the love of Christ" (Ephesians 3:17-19). You talk about solid food! You talk about going deep!

This is because he knew all other issues flowed from this reality and understanding.

Of course, the response might be that Paul lived in a different context - that he did not live during the time of the Investigative Judgment or the three angels' messages. But let's let Ellen White tell us what message is relevant and important for this time then:

"Several have written to me," she wrote in 1890, "inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, 'It is the third angel's message in verity' " (Review and Herald, April 1, 1890). Again, she wrote, "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 415). Similarly, she declared, "One interest will prevail, one subject will swallow up every other, - Christ our righteousness" (Review and Herald, December 23, 1890). Again: "Our churches are dying for the want of teaching on the subject of righteousness by faith in Christ, and for kindred truths" (Review and Herald, March 25, 1890).

Thus, the message of the love of God, justification by faith, the sacrifice of Christ for the world, is not a side-dish. It should be the main course and every presentation should be seasoned with it. (This does not mean that every talk we give must simply be about the cross, but that every presentation we give should be presented in light of - and tied to - the cross of Christ and love of God. If you would like a better idea of what this looks like, see this article I wrote a few years ago called "Christless Adventists.")

So this is my friendly appeal once again: let's allow Christ to place Himself in the center of our values. And then let's allow Christ to shine forth from every other value we hold.

A Friendly Appeal to my Friends at GYC

(Note: I started preparing this blog before David Asscherick gave his closing talk at GYC this past Sunday, January 2. I was thrilled to hear him say some of the same things that I had already been thinking about. His "cautionary" words were very appropriate and, in this post, I simply want to piggy-back on what he said in that talk. I am also glad that he said it because there are a lot more people who value his thoughts than there are who even know I exist!)

I often have people ask me what my thoughts are on GYC (Generation of Youth for Christ). As a pastor and conscientious Christian, they want to know if I think they or their children should attend GYC. Without hesitation, I always encourage people to attend this wonderful annual event. Though I have not yet attended my first GYC due to various circumstances, I have greatly admired from afar what this movement has accomplished and continues to accomplish.

It thrills my heart that there is a growing group of young people (and not so young people) who want to get back to classic Adventism and proclaim the three angels' messages, aim for a higher standard of living, and steer clear of compromise. It also makes me glad that there is a group out there that "gets it," realizing that we are not called to entertain our young people but to challenge them. I share most - perhaps even all - of the same values as those who have started this juggernaut. Beyond that, I consider many within the GYC leadership camp to be personal friends.

It is within this context that I want to share one of my biggest - and perhaps only - concerns with those who lead out and participate in GYC. (I hope it is clear that I submit this concern with an attitude of humility, love, and friendliness, and that it is merely one person's perspective.)

This is my concern in very simple terms: as I have observed GYC from a distance over the years (listening to many presentations on Audioverse and tuning in live via the Internet on occasion), I worry that there is, at times, such a huge emphasis on the Adventist distinctives, standards, and - to put it simply - "doing," that there has not been enough emphasis on "the matchless charms of Christ."

To put it a different way: over the course of my short ministry I have determined that there are essentially five components that go into - or at least should go into - every presentation of biblical truth. This is not exact or scientific, but those five components are the following:

1. What Christ has done for us.

2. What Christ is doing for us.

3. What we have done.

4. What we are doing.

5. What we should be doing.

As I listen to much of the material that is presented at GYC, I often come away with the impression that most of the time is spent on numbers four and five - though mostly on number five. And I understand why that is to a large degree. As Adventist Christians, we are not called to sit on our hands or be passive in our faith. Rather, we are called to "go" and "do." Similarly, the church is presently fraught with compromise (though that could be said about any time in the history of Christianity, of course) and we need to be reminded of our high calling. We need to raise the bar when it comes to standards.

I wholeheartedly affirm all these things.

But here is the problem: whenever there is a heavy emphasis on what one should be "doing" or on what one should be believing, we often find ourselves unwittingly setting others up - or even ourselves - to lead an "old covenant" (or that dreaded word "legalistic") lifestyle. And I fear that many young people leave GYC knowing that they should not be listening to certain types of music, or watching movies, or they know that Genesis affirms a literal six-day creation, but they do not have a deeper appreciation for what Christ has done for them and what He continues to do for them.

More than that: they may leave feeling very convicted that they need to start doing certain things - engaging in personal witnessing, living a healthier lifestyle, striving to overcome sin - but they do not have the motivational mechanism nor the know-how to achieve these things. In short, they have not had their hearts compelled by the Gospel or love of Jesus Christ - which is the only vehicle by which anyone can ever accomplish the things we are admonishing them to accomplish.

And time and time again whenever people know what they are supposed to be doing but have a hard time accomplishing it, they simply get driven further and further into discouragement until, at last, they just give up on the whole thing altogether. Lawlessness is sure to follow.

This was the case with Israel of old. Whenever the book of the law was discovered and implemented by a righteous king - like Josiah - it would simply be outward conformity that was emphasized without an inward heart-change that can only be accomplished by the Gospel. And Israel ended up being driven deeper and deeper into apostasy - all because they kept trying to change their outward behavior without having their hearts changed first. And the heart can only truly be changed when it dwells upon what Christ has done for us and what He continues to do for us.

And this heart-change needs to be a daily - even moment-by-moment - experience! Thus, we need to constantly be dwelling upon the love of Christ. Or, as Ellen White says, "We must gather about the cross. Christ and Him crucified should be the theme of contemplation, of conversation, and of our most joyful emotion. We should keep in our thoughts every blessing we receive from God, and when we realize His great love we should be willing to trust everything to the hand that was nailed to the cross for us" (Steps to Christ, pp. 103, 104)."

Here is an important concept that must never be forgotten: #5 (what we should be doing) can never be accomplished without a strong emphasis on numbers 1 & 2 (what Christ has done and continues to do for us). Simply put, no talk of 1 & 2, no accomplishment of #5.

Let me repeat that: no talk of 1 & 2, no accomplishment of #5.

And we are not speaking of a "token" mention of Christ's work - both past and present - for us. We are not talking about mentioning it in passing. Everything we present - whether it's a talk on creation/evolution or entertainment or personal witnessing or "no turning back" - must be bathed and saturated with Christ's work on our behalf. As Paul reminds us, "The love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if one died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again" (2 Cor 5:14-15). This is why Paul, when writing to the Corinthians in his first letter, told them that he didn't want to know anything among them "except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2).

Don't get me wrong: I am not speaking about a shallow, fluffy, or "feel-good" presentation of God's love that doesn't challenge anyone. These types of presentations are a dime a dozen and they are generally vague in what it is truly meant by God's love. Subsequently, they don't truly grip the heart - much less change it.

What I am speaking of is a deep, balanced, heart-changing explanation of the love of God that will truly draw one into a whole-hearted commitment to Christ and His mission.

My good friend, Herbert Douglass, likes to talk about the "ellipse of truth." He explains this ellipse: "This means that truth is the sum total of its objective and subjective elements, the two foci in the ellipse of truth." Thus, in any presentation of truth we cannot emphasize one element to the neglect - or diminishing - of the other. It will result in an imbalance that is unhealthy and even deadly.

So when we see the landscape of Adventism and how there seems to be a huge diminishing of our doctrines, our standards, our mission, and an inbalanced emphasis on love, grace, acceptance, forgiveness, etc., we must resist the urge to swing the pendulum in the other direction, unwittingly forcing us into the other ditch. (I am not saying that this is what has - or hasn't - happened with GYC, but that it very easily could happen - especially considering that, as GYC grows in popularity, more and more young people attend who may or may not have a whole-hearted commitment to Christ before attending.)

What we need is a perfect and balanced blending of the two. We need to challenge people - whether young or old - to reach a higher standard and fulfill their divine calling as their hearts are motivated and changed by the love, cross, and Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, will Christ finally have a prepared bride who can truly accomplish what we have been trying to get her to accomplish for the last 167 years (but have been thus far unsuccessful because of the tendency to fall into either ditch).

So that is my friendly appeal to my friends at GYC.

Lastly, I want to share some select quotations from the pen of inspiration that emphasize the need to lift up the love and cross of Christ in every presentation we give. I ask that you give them your prayerful consideration (I would also invite you to read the book Lessons on Faith, by A.T. Jones & E.J. Waggoner, for a good idea of how a person can truly enjoy a changed life as they live by faith):

• The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. I present before you the great, grand monument of mercy and regeneration, salvation and redemption--the Son of God uplifted on the cross. This is to be the foundation of every discourse given by our ministers. (Gospel Workers, p. 315)

• It is our duty to preach faith, to present the love of Christ in connection with the claims of the law; for neither can be rightly understood without the other. In every discourse the love of God, as manifested in Christ, the sinner's only hope, should be dwelt upon until the people realize something of its power and preciousness. If this is done as it should be, it will not be said of this people that they teach the law but do not believe in repentance, faith, and conversion. We want these subjects to be blended as God has blended them; then will the truth be presented in its completeness, not as a mere theory, but as a power that will transform the character. It will then be preached in demonstration of the Spirit and with power. Then those who have accepted the doctrines of the Bible will not be unfed; they will feel the vivifying influence of the Holy Spirit. (Gospel Workers, pp. 227, 228)

• Ministers and people have lost much by not dwelling more continually upon the work of our Redeemer. We should contemplate the love that led Christ to give himself as a ransom for fallen man, and this amazing love should be revealed in every discourse. The sacrifice of Christ not only makes apparent his compassion for the children of men, but also makes manifest the love of the Father; and this love ought to draw all men to God. The closest relation exists between God and his people, and the ambassador of God's truth should ever represent Christ. He should exemplify, by precept and example, the love of God, that those who are instructed by him may be brought into a position where they shall receive the divine blessing. The servants of God are to be earnest, penitent, trustful, thankful. Their lives should be living epistles, known and read of all men. They should be continually looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. The subjects dwelt upon by the gospel minister will be of a character to elevate, ennoble, and sanctify the soul. The teacher of divine truth should present the necessity of close communion with God, and dependence upon the righteousness of Christ. When the minister fully realizes his own helplessness without the aid of Christ, the danger of his becoming exalted will be removed, and Christ will absorb everything; his presence will pervade the whole soul, and impress all the senses. (Signs of the Times, January 27, 1890)

• The Lord can do little for his people, because of their limited faith. The ministers have not presented Christ in his fullness to the people, either in the churches or in new fields, and the people have not an intelligent faith. They have not been instructed as they should have been, that Christ is unto them both salvation and righteousness. The love that Christ manifested in taking human nature, in bearing insult, reproach, and the rejection of men, in suffering crucifixion on the cross, should be presented in every discourse. It is Satan's studied purpose to keep souls from believing in Christ as their only hope; for the blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin is only efficacious in behalf of those who believe in its merit, and who present it before the Father as did Abel in his offering. (Review and Herald, September 3, 1889)

• It is true men will say, "You are too excited; you are making too much of this matter, and you do not think enough of the law; now, you must think more of the law; don't be all the time reaching for this righteousness of Christ, but build up the law." Let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa, without dew or rain. Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (1888 Materials, p. 557)

• In Christ is the tenderness of the shepherd, the affection of the parent, and the matchless grace of the compassionate Saviour. His blessings He presents in the most alluring terms. He is not content merely to announce these blessings; He presents them in the most attractive way, to excite a desire to possess them. So His servants are to present the riches of the glory of the unspeakable Gift. The wonderful love of Christ will melt and subdue hearts, when the mere reiteration of doctrines would accomplish nothing. . . . Tell the people of Him who is "the Chiefest among ten thousand," and the One "altogether lovely." The Song of Solomon 5:10, 16. (The Desire of Ages, pp. 826, 827)