Re-Thinking God: How God's Will Relates to Man

The real question is: What is God's will? I mean what does God want?

The assumption in traditional theology is that what God wants is to control everything so He has every molecule doing exactly what He wants. If you haven't figured it out yet, I passionately reject this idea as being too much like our own definitions of will and power - control is not the highest use of power.

In many real ways God expresses that the highest use of power is stewardship over what one is responsible for with an eye on development of that person or thing into something better and higher. I believe God defines his power and will in this way. His will then is to develop, grow and make better the people and things under his care.

That has some implications. God is not trying to control everything because he does not have to control everything to get his will accomplished. In fact, letting a person grow and stand on their own may be part of His will and objective.

You can also throw anything revolving around FATE right out the window. What then matters is our wilfully lining our wills up with God's stewardship of us. It means an interaction of God's will and our own.

That of course leaves one last question.

Next: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

The Book of Revelation - Part 21 - Doom and Reapers

OK, now a third angel appears and pronounces doom on those who receive the mark of The Beast (back in revelation 13) and worship his name. People start to talk about eternal torment in this passage but there are two problems with this idea. 1) The torment is connected to a specific group of people, not universal punishment for all sinners and 2) It does not say they will be tormented but that THE SMOKE of their torment goes up forever and ever. I am simply saying there is enough doubt to raise an eyebrow or two.

Going back to how the seven churches would have looked at this, I see specifically verses 12 and 13 where the emphasis is on perseverance, obedience and faith. All things that Christ stressed back in chapters 2 and 3.

The next section chronicles two harvests 1) the first is the earth and 2) the second is the grapes of God's wrath. In each case, both are commanded to reap but the results are different. One thing is for sure, nothing good is about to happen, God is about to let loose with something terrible. Terrible to the point of bridle high blood for 200 miles.

Next: Back to the Throne of God

Marriage and the Bible - Part 30 - Malachi and Marriage Treachery

Malachi introduces a new concept in a sense to the issue of marriage. That of the relationship between intimacy with God and intimacy in the marriage. That is, that God regards sacrifice and prayer through the filter of how a man treats his wife in marriage. Malachi chapter 2 verses 13 through 16 express that God isn't listening to the prayers of his people because the men have dealt treacherously with the wife of their youth. In what way? Two issues:

1. The passage continues that divorce is that form of treachery. In short, men were using the Law's provision for divorce to set aside wives for whatever reason. But God through Malachi reminds the people that marriage is supposed to be a covenant, but they have reduced it to a contract.

2. What is striking is God bold faced statement that he hates divorce. Now, there is no statement that God is forbidding divorce but from this passages perspective there is nothing that God likes about it. It is treachery to a person becasue it is done for reasons that God finds unrighteous. It seems to be an attempt to get people to return an understanding of one flesh as marriage not contract.

Next: Looking Back at the Old Testament Marriage Issues

Theology for Dummies - Process Theology

Process theology is a school of thought that is connected to two men -- Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne although others are still developing the concepts involved. Basically, process theology is the product of metaphysical concepts developed by the above two men and using those concepts to look at theology.

The big thing in process theology is that process theologians do not look at God's power in terms of God being coercive, that is dominating others. Instead God's power is persuasive. God uses his power in a way that brings people about wilfully not forcing anyone to do anything. God is not about control.

Other key concepts are that reality is more about experiences that material substance, self-determination of all persons, and God is changeable because he interacts with a changing universe.

If there is a distinct difference between this and other theologies is their view of the Bible. Because revelation is an ongoing process and a changeable one that means the Bible while helpful to understanding God is not authoritative as much as other Christians would see it.

For myself, I have found reading process theologians to be helpful in looking at things another way, however their view of Scripture turns me off. This is actually probably the dividing line between open theism and process theology. The open theist (such as myself) is going to hold Scripture dear because they believe their case is biblical, but the process theologian will go against Scripture if they feel that God has changed in his relationship to the universe from where the Bible was in the process of revelation.

Next: Christology

Re-Thinking God: God is Just

Justice - the quality of being just, impartial and fair.

God's justice comes into play because of the other two qualities of God's character - love and holiness. Justice balances the two factors of both - mercy (a product on his love) and righteousness (a product of his holiness).

When God looks at a person through love He stretches his hand of mercy, but His holiness demands righteous action and violation of the Law of God (sin) means that He must punish the sinner. God's justice is what balances the two and allows him to act in both simultaneously.

Probably the greatest thing I learned from my chronological journey through Scripture is that God wrestles with justice. That He too, struggles with how to act so that action is both holy and loving. This is greatly seen the best in Hosea where God, in conversation with himself, wrestles with what to do with his unfaithful wife Israel. He on the one hand feels that he has every right to divorce her and throw her to the wolves (Holiness), but on the other hand He loves her and wants to extend his hand of mercy (Love). It is this wrestling that God must do to achieve a just decision -- he will punish her but then extend his hand of restoration to her afterwards.

What troubles most people is by God wrestling with these decisions, it makes him seem all to human. I say it has nothing to do with with humanity or divinity, but is simply a matter of person hood and relationships. It is simply necessary in the relationship God has with his creatures that he has created with the power of choice. Because of this the God to Mankind relationship is a messy affair that means God must balance his holiness and love in the context of what is right for both. It is not easy for anyone, even God to do this. Even God struggles with what is 'fair'.

Next: How God's Will Relates to Man.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 29 - Hosea's Marriages

Now here is where marriage and God's message to his people really get intertwined. I want you to put yourself in Hosea's shoes for a minute. In today's terms God is asking Hosea to go down to the red light district and find a prostitute who is herself a product of prostitution and then marry her. Why? So God can use Hosea's marriage as an illustration of what God's relationship is to his people. Hosea playing the role of God and Gomer playing the part of Israel. Hosea is further instructed to have children with this woman and each of them is given interesting names to illustrate the situation completely.

In chapter three, the situation gets even more interesting when Hosea is asked to enter into a second marriage with a woman who is loved by her husband and yet an adulteress herself.

Both marriages are symbolic of how a covenant relationship can go completely wrong. How faithfulness in marriage and the relationship God people have with Him is so very important. God loves his people but they play the harlot and commit adultery with other gods.

What follows is God yearning for Israel's return much like Hosea will for his wife. Love that is unconditional is illustrated here because both God and Hosea have every reason to divorce their wives, but both refuse to do so. There is a powerful image of sadness, longing and love that refuses to look at the situation but transcends it.

Next: Malachi and Marriage Treachery

The Book of Revelation - Part 20 - 144,000 Again

When we get to chapter 14 we see another reference to the 144000 that were originally seen in chapter 7. The vision shifts back to heaven and the throne area. I made the comment that in chapter 7 that these men are clearly identified as Jewish men: 12,000 from each tribe. But in this passage they are remarked on, not because of who they are, but how righteous they are. They are chaste, blameless and lie free.

I also want to remark at this time about the two angels. One spreading the gospel in verses 6-7 and the other talking about the woe that will befall those who follow after Babylon who is fallen in verse eight. The whore of Babylon does not appear until later and it seems odd to place a reference to it here unless we concede that some visions are not in chronological order at all. It also means that it also could be that the whole thing is possibly not in chronological order either.

What gets interesting is that themes appear, disappear and reappear and if we are honest there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to it at times. The effect is that the message of Revelation may simply be one of hope, correction, encouragement and faith to the seven churches. If so how much still has to do with the future and what has been already fulfilled may not be known. We may as interpreters be left only to speculate.

Next: Doom and Reapers

Theology for Dummies - Liberation Theology

Wikipedia - '... is a Christian movement in political theology which interprets the teaching of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political or social conditions."

This movement was originally started in the 1950s in Latin America as Roman Catholic movement. The Vatican frowned on liberation theology because of its obvious Marxist connections. In short, this seems to be an attempt to join the ideas of some of the teachings of Jesus with Marxism and the idea of revolutionary overthrow of governments in order to ease poverty and political injustice.

This movement has had many influences including various movements in the United States such as black liberation theology and other movements that promote a overthrow of what is to establish a more socially responsive government.

There are some problems with this theology from my perspective, chief among them is the fact this theology seems to be very selective about which teaching of Christ it follows. It embraces any teaching about helping people but it ignores such teachings that involve passive resistence of evil action. Other things as historical theology would point out as well: the early Christians; for instance, never used aggressive or violent revolution to take out the Roman government for example. It also assumes Jesus taught Marxist communism, which I don't see either with some of Jesus' teachings on landowners and master servant relationships.

In many ways this theology is an attempt to have Communism and Christianity hold hands in unity and as far as I can tell that has some difficulties. It also overemphasizes social responsibility over individual responsibility to the point it justifies anger and even hatred toward people in government. In many respects, it has a tunnel vision on justifying revolution in Christ's teachings more than anything else.

Next: Process Theology

Re-Thinking God: God is Holy

First people have to understand one things bout what the definition of holiness is not and what it is: it is not 'wholly other' and it does indeed have to do with behavior and righteousness. See the following posts and then come back, don't worry the post will still be here.

The 'Wholly Other' God and Other Nonsense

Definition of Holiness in response to a guy named Michael

You know today it is the fifth anniversary of the 'Wholly Other' post but I still feel the same about the subject. Imagine that, guess I have been re-thinking God for a long time.

That said and having read all that (you have read it haven't you?) I began to see God's holiness not as something different but something follow as an example. God becomes the definition of what it means to be morally pure and right in action.

This remains the one attribute that defines God more than any other. In heaven around the throne this is what is said -- "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is filled with his glory." It is this attribute that saved the God of the Bible for me. Why? Because i began to realize that it is because of this purity God has the right to define what is pure and what is not. When he places the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden He knows exactly what is what. It is not for me to define it but Him. Letting God define evil means that His actions are not evil and if I were to do those same actions with the same motivation as Him, it would be without sin.

Simple put, we as people like to play games with the definition of evil so that we can paint God as evil. But if we let God define evil and good then we have to submit to the fact that the highest likelihood is that when we look at God in the Scriptures and say "God is being evil" we are wrong in our understanding of evil. If we accept the fact that in all God's Biblical actions there is no sin or authoring of sin then the definition of sin we often use of "missing the mark" is wrong. God's actions are good and holy - morally pure.

So when God gets angry and destroys a nation of people or orders genocide, it is holy action. God is not being evil because his holiness would not allow him to act if the action were evil. Holiness defines who He is and what He does. That of course, leads us to God's Justice

Next: God is Just

Marriage and the Bible - Part 28 - The Major Prophets and Marriage Imagery

In the prophets there is no real changes in the rules of marriage although some things are reemphasized. In the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) some marriage imagery is used to illustrate the relationship God has with his people.


Isaiah 54 has some sharp marriage imagery where God talks to Israel calling her a forsaken wife but then he has restored her. Chapter 50 talks of divorce but saying that there is no certificate of divorce barring his way to his servant.


Jeremiah is far more in your face. Over and over he likens Judah and Israel to unfaithful wives who have become whores to foreign gods. This is particularly seen in Jeremiah chapter 3. He uses it again at the end of chapter 31 where he says he would create a new covenant unlike the first one - one in which he would change them to be faithful.


If Jeremiah was harsh, Ezekiel is off the chain. Chapter 16 of Ezekiel is completely about how God's two wives were not only unfaithful and whores but how they went out of their way to outdo the other nations in their harlotry. God even uses the death of Ezekiel's own wife as a sign of what is about to happen to the nation of Judah if they do not turn from this (Chapter 24).


Daniel does not invoke this imagery at all but does mention the whole wives/concubines issue.


In looking at all the imagery of the major prophets regarding marriage the one thing that is emphasized is faithfulness. God uses the image of what is supposed to be the hallmark of any marriage and then shows how Judah and Israel both have been like unfaithful wives. None of the major prophets will compare though to the singular image of Hosea.


Next: Hosea's Marriage

The Book of Revelation - Part 19 - Two Beasts

Revelation 13 is undoubtedly the most troubling to some people most because of verse 18 and the 666 thing. That is not what is most troubling to me. What is most troubling to me is who these or what these beasts represent. It is not as easy as you might think.

What gets interesting here is most people's interpretations. For the most part these symbolic representations can either represent persons or political entities or both and the problem is I believe the symbolism is deliberately designed to conceal these things to all but those who understand the symbolism. The problem is those that probably would have understood it are long dead.

What's left; I mean, what can we then know?
1. Neither of these beasts are good guys. They defy God and worship Satan (The Dragon).
2. Secondly there is a hierarchy in this relationship: The Dragon over the Beast from the Sea; The Beast of the Sea over the Beast from the Earth. A kind of unholy trinity.
3. They are on a mission to destroy the saints and exalt the Devil.
4. They have real spiritual power.
5. The have both political and economic power.

The whole number of the beast issue has lead some to believe that the Beast is every thing from Nero to George W. Bush. The problem is that the people who would have truly understood this are dead and so what ever it will be or is, I think will be made apparent when genocide is declared. What the actual number 'is', has been speculated to be anything from micro chips to tattoos. No hard clad answer on any point is really available as all we really can do is speculate. It does make for good Chrisitan science fiction but it is all completely specualtive.

Next: The 144,000 Return

Theology for Dummies - Dialectical Theology

Dialectical Theology is also known as Neo-orthodoxy. It was in large part the child of two theologians -- Karl Barth and Emil Brunner although Barth himself felt uneasy about being labeled. Dialectical theology is in large part a reaction to the liberalism of the 19th century and basically sought to reevaluate the teachings of the Reformation.

In Dialectical theology there are basically four main themes: 1) A rejection of natural revelation in favor of completely embracing special revelation; 2) A emphasis on the transcendence of God with a strong critique of systems that belived in immanence of God; 3) Existentialism -- the idea that the decision to become a Christian is not a rational decision but a 'leap of faith' and 4) a renovation and re-emphasis on the doctrine of original sin.

I have studied this one a lot in seminary, I became fascinated by Karl Barth and his work. The ultimate problem I had was that this is basically a reformation of the Reformation but it seemed to be contradictory.

1. By rejecting natural revelation and placing emphasis on special revelation Barth still did not reject the liberal criticism of part of the bible itself. (Jesus' miracles not being real for example). That's what leads him to the whole 'leap of faith' idea. So we can only trust special revelation but that special revelation is untrustworthy?

2. The emphasis on the transcendence of God puts God out there and not with us which seems to be the whole point of the gospels.

3. The 'leap of faith' concept has its weaknesses could one not have a 'leap of faith' then to become a Buddhist or any other religion for that matter.

If you notice though a lot of their concepts still exist today. People still in many respects believe in a God who is out there somewhere, that they can't help themselves when they sin and that parts of the Bible are myth but still remain the only way to know God. Crazy but true. The whole 'leap of faith' concept still exists in many forms.

Most of this I rejected ultimately but the idea of a faith beyond the use of reason and religion did have its appeal to me once upon a time.

Next: liberation theology

Re-Thinking God: God is Love

No definitions on this one because the Bible has THE definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and there is a declarative statement in 1st John 4:8 "God is love". In short, if you look up the definition of love in the dictionary, what should be there is the word: 'GOD'. I think however the implications of these two passages escape people. To start with: If God is indeed love; then the definition and qualities of love as described in 1st Corinthians apply to him.

The first implication of this is that all the definitions we like to put here for 'love' do not work. This is especially true if we create a definition of 'love' that is self serving. The one thing we can say about the definition of love in 1st Corinthian 13 is that there is absolutely no self serving idea in it. That means when God defines himself as this kind of love, there is nothing about him that is self-serving, even when He adds to his own glory or protects his name, it is not from an attitude of self-service but one of love.

The second implication, or in this case a set of implications, is on the nature of God itself based on this definition:

1. Love is patient, therefore God must be patient -- what sense though does patience have for God if He is given the traditional definitions of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. To be patient means to have forbearance under strain or to not be hasty. But if traditional omnipresence is maintained then God is everywhere at all times so how does this makes sense. God being patient only makes sense if He is just as much a part of time as the rest of us, or as I have defined it because time is part of his nature. Also why be patient if your the one absolutely being everything about or you know the absolute outcome? Neither makes sense in the light of God being patient.

2. When considering verse seven of First Corinthians 13; it has much the same implications: 'Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.' For God to display all of these qualities implies a God working through love to change things, not one that exercises absolutes. A God who has hope, means he is expecting and working for better in each person, not that he sees each person's fate as an unchangeable thing, even to Him.

3. All of these qualities imply relationship with people not absolute exercise of power. It means letting the other person having the power of give and take, just as much as God does. It means God takes risks because to love is to risk hurt. God being love means his very nature is to risk relationship with each person even though each person can indeed hurt him in the context of that relationship.

Next: God is holy

Marriage and the Bible - Part 27 - Exile and Reconstruction

The End of history of the Old Testament has Israel in exile. The northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria and the southern kingdom destroyed by Babylon. During the exile, the issues of mixed faith marriages become more apparent. Not only the fact that there is less control by the people of God as a slave/conquered people class in these empires, but opportunity to keep marriages in the faith diminishes.

Ezra records the people returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple. In the midst of this Nehemiah reconstructs the walls of the city. Noteworthy for Marriage discussion is chapter 9 and 10 of Ezra where it is reported that Israelite men had married foreign women. The actions that follow are somewhat controversial.

The fact that the elders require these men to divorce their wives, even if they had children by them seems harsh as well as the fact that both wives and children are asked to leave. What makes it seem odd to me is that the Law allowed for the marriage of Israelite men to foreign women, if those women were virgins, and thus by covenant made Israelite. It also seems to violate the law requiring women and their children to be taken care of by the man.

Further complicating the issue of mixed marriage and what to do about it is Queen Esther, who marries a Persian King and joins his harem of women. Once she does this she still considers herself to be Israelite although based on the culture she became Persian the moment she slept with King Ahasuerus. So it is OK for a Jewish woman to engage in mixed marriage if it saves the Jews, but it is not OK for Jewish man to do it because it violates God's law?!

Possible what needs to be considered is this is one of those situations where Ezra records what happened but given that God himself is not recorded as doing or saying anything, it may simply be like the end of Judges. Everybody thinks they are doing the right thing, but really God's mind is unknown. Also, given the list of offenders in Ezra 10 is short, this may be a case of men marrying women who were not virgins.

If this is the case, divorce for the purpose of purity of faith is presented and we shall see if any other writer picks this idea up.

Next: Marriage Imagery in the Major Prophets

The Book of Revelation - Part 18 - The Woman, The Dragon and the Man Child

Wow! has it really been over a year since I stopped working on this series. I quit mostly because I am now even more convinced that to understand it fully we need to know what the seven churches knew as far as symbolism and some of that has been lost.

Revelation 12 has three symbolic characters and reports a war between them.

The Woman is not identified and theories abound as to whether she represents Israel, the church or Mary or whatever. The best guess I can give is Israel seems best based on what the seven churches would have known. The twelve stars representing the twelve tribes seems likely. Out of Israel comes Christ.

The Dragon is identified in the chapter itself: it is Satan.

The Man Child being Christ is most likely given the context of 'ruling with a rod of iron' which is mentioned of Christ earlier and later in the book. The child is caught up to heaven to be with God while the woman is left to face the dragon.

This vision is complicated further by the fact it seems to be an interruption to what had been going on up to this point.

What seems to be symbolized is the war between Satan, Israel (as the bride of God) and Christ and it may be a symbolic representation of Israel's history, not a future action. Taking the real events of Israel producing Christ by God's power and the war over it with Satan and putting it in symbolic form to conceal to readers what is being talked about except those who understand the symbolism is a hallmark of apocalyptic literature.

Michael and the angels drive the devil to earth and then the devil tries to kill the woman -- every attempt fails and the woman is both preserved and unharmed. The the vision abruptly stops.

Next: Two Beasts

Theology for Dummies - Covenant Theology

Wikipedia: "The standard description of covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind in all of history, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants — the covenants of redemption, of works, and of grace."

Yeah, that about covers it. It also should be noted that this forms the basis and foundation of a couple of theological systems: Calvinism and Dispensationalism.

The idea is that over time God has changed the way he deals with people. No argument there, but the rub comes when you start saying that at different times God saved people differently. That is where I say this is a dangerous theology.

Paul is very clear in Romans and other places that everyone has been saved by one thing - faith. He sites Abraham to prove to a skeptical Jewish population of his day that just like the Gentiles, Abraham was saved by faith. When you start saying as a certain time people were saved by works or grace depending on the time they lived it seems to counter this idea and it does. Paul's whole point is that every man and woman has been saved by the grace of God through faith and that faith leads to action through obedience and love of God. Covenant Theology departs from this and that is why I rejected it long ago and the Calvinism and dispensationalism that goes with it. More on those later.

This theology also has the problem of presupposition. If you are always assuming these three covenant times exist; it will color your interpretation of Scripture. It means your setting yourself up for reading into Scripture what you want to see.

Next: Dialectical Theology

Mozart, Metallica and Ministry - A Lesson in Musical Taste.

Nothing like music to cause a little controversy.

I think on some of the great ironies of life and one of the greatest may simply be if the late Cliff Burton, bassist for the heavy metal band Metallica hadn't introduced the other guys to classical styles from his upbringing, Metallica would probably faded from history as a footnote in the speed metal scene of the 1980s. Because of Cliff, who died in a bus crash in 1986 while the band was on tour, they became highly skilled in the art of blending different melodies with their guitars and the rest is history.

The connection between the two genres of music is actually closer than some realize. In my own life I started out as a classical guy, my mother introducing me to Mozart and Beethoven before I even started school. I loved strings especially concertos with four parts. Still do. I branched out as a child into gospel because I liked four part harmony with voices. Jazz entered because I liked the blending of sounds, but the icing on the cake came with my introduction to hard rock and later heavy metal. The electric guitar has to be the best invention to hit music since the trumpet. To me the switch was not a big deal, I recognized the connection between metal and classical almost immediately although others said I was nuts.

Others did come along and make that case for me though, a Christian band called Shout did a quick little number where their guitarist played Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in thirty-second notes. To any metal fan it was a perfect guitar solo. The Metallica came along in 2000 and played with the San Fransisco Symphony and proved not only were the two genres related but they could be perfectly blended. Music was never the same again.

Growing up though, my musical tastes always brought frowns in Christian circles. Bertha Better-Than-Yous live everywhere. (Ray Stevens is also awesome). One pastor confronted me and told me the beat of rock was demonic, I handed him my Bible and and asked him to prove it. He said the beat came from Africa where it was used to conjure up demons, I pointed out to him that the idea was not only not provable but racist and also not a Bible based argument. So he ran to First Corinthians where it talks about using our liberty to cause those who are weak to stumble. Being the smart butt teenager I was at the time, I told him that I had no such stumbling blocks in my life as music was just music to me, but for HIS sake, THE SAKE OF MY WEAKER BROTHER, I would abstain from listening to it in his presence. He never spoke to me again on the subject.

The theological point is that the Bible in no way defines one musical form as more holy than another or that some musical forms are holy and others sinful. It simple does not exist. Music gets defined this way by certain holiness groups but it is largely a matter of cultural convention not any reasonable argument. Christian culture says this music form is OK and the other NEW one is not. Unfortunate but true. I often wondered what would have happened to rock and roll if the preacher that offended Buddy Holly because he insulted his music form had instead asked Buddy if he would put some Christian lyrics to it instead. Maybe the youth of America would have more readily embraced the church in the following decades.

What I have learned though is not to confuse message with artistic value. I do not always like or agree with what singers and bands say in their lyrics, but that does not means I have to reject the artistic value of their music. Trust me there are some hymns that the theology of the verses makes me cringe a little but it still does not stop me from thinking that the music itself is not beautiful. Oddly enough though, there are some songs from the secular world that speak volumes of truth.

Music is largely a matter of taste and what often bugs me is that some Christians can't see that and want it to be a matter of their own righteousness -"I am a better Christian because I do not listen to that type of music." Why is it that we seem to always seek ways to divide ourselves from others. 'In the world, but not of it' is what Christians are supposed to be. Music gives us another way to bridge the gap between those in the church and outside it; if we are only willing to listen to what the artist is saying and appreciate his or her talent.