Come on, Just How Bad is Calvinism?, Part I

Reformed systematic theology is a beautiful thing: clear, congruent, and tidy. It makes theologians drool all over themselves. Yet, systematization rarely reflects the full intentions of God or his creation. I want to point out a few inconsistencies in scriptural application among Reformed doctrine. The basics of Reformed doctrine are found in five points (TULIP): Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Summarized, it looks this way: humanity, because of the fall, is utterly incapable of saving itself. God in his sovereign will elects certain individuals and God gives faith to these individuals for repentance. Christ’s atonement redeems only the elect and secures them for salvation. The grace that God extends to the elect is irresistible. Those saints who are elected by God for salvation are kept by this grace and endure until the end. If you missed it, read the background for these posts here.

Does scripture support this approach to God and humanity? I don’t really think it does, at least not any more than any other doctrinal approach. Rarely does it tie up all loose ends in the Bible, contrary to Reformed opinions. The loose ends are found in what scriptures implicitly assume rather than in some black and white approach to scripture. Take the creation account for example: the origins of Calvinistic depravity. If total depravity is one of the consequences of Original Sin, we would surely expect to find some mention of it in the Genesis account. Yet, we find none. There are other curses listed: physical death (Gen. 3:19), “thorns and thistles” to make farming difficult (v.18), and pain in childbearing (v.16). These curses are trivial (sorry ladies) compared to what would be the most destructive curse of all: loss of ability to respond to God. Also, though there was initial innocence in Adam and Eve, that does not denote moral perfection – something to be lost in the fall. Similarly, God said the all he created was “good”, not perfect.

Also, passages describing sin “from the womb” are found in prophetic passages and the Psalms. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, passages like Psalm 58:3 and Isaiah 48:8 use exaggeration as a literary tool to promote repentance and reflection, not for systematically exploring the Western theological notions depravity of humanity. Sorry Augustine, God was not writing for your benefit when he inspired the book of Isaiah. He inspired the words of Isaiah for the Israelites who heard them. The understanding of biblical literary techniques like those employed in the prophets didn’t arrive on the Western theological scene until the early 1800s, so it’s rather difficult to assume that Calvin and company had that interpretive method available to them. And doctrinal bias keeps hyper-Reformists from acknowledging this today. In the NT, Ephesians 2:1 can be understood only in light of the OT understanding that mean who are “dead in their sins” are mean who will certainly die. Check out Exodus 12:33 and 2 Samuel 19:28. The meaning is that they were as good as dead. If the original context makes sense, why divorce it for doctrinal purposes?

So, what about that whole “election” thing? Confusing huh? Yep. God certainly “elected” Israel in Deuteronomy 7 and He did choose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:11-13). Yet, to apply particular historical moments of election in these texts to a universal plan for individual salvation is to read into it. God showed us how he dealt with Israel in order to reveal the extent to which he would go to offer salvation to everyone. This is called corporate election. God “elects” – desires, chooses and hopes for – all humanity’s salvation. Everyone that wants to can get in. But like the parable of the feast, just because you invite someone doesn’t mean they will accept the invitation.

Reformists often butcher other passages like Jesus’s prayer not for the world, “but for those you [the Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). The context of that prayer was for the strengthening of the disciples for the days ahead, not for cosmic salvific purpose. Some disciples passed the test while others, like Peter, failed. Yet Jesus took the time to restore Peter around a camp fire – just like the one around which Peter had denied him days before. Paul’s verses about God “choosing us in him before the creation of the world” and “predestining us to be adopted as his sons” (Eph. 1:4,5) certainly can apply to corporate election. Plus other verses like John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, and even OT scriptures like Ezekiel 18:23 speak of God’s desire for universal election. That doesn’t mean everyone will choose God, but he did make it a possibility.

Secret counsel verses like the famous Deuteronomy 29:29 certainly warn that the mystery of election is not fully available to humans and that speculation should be kept to a minimum. So, who’s speculating the most about election? I think it’s the Calvinists. This scripture, used for their own purposes sharply rebukes the speculation for which they use it. It’s kind of like an obsessed end times date setter quoting Jesus’s passage that “no one knows the day but the Father…” Most Calvinists take their doctrinal positions too seriously to see the irony of their misuse. More importantly, that scripture was given in a historical setting to a specific group of people. To yank it out and use it as proof of divine mysteries is to deny its original context.

Finally, can people fall away from God? Jacob Arminius (for who Arminian theology is named) didn’t elaborate on it too much. He said it was out for debate. Unfortunately, he died before exploring the topic more fully. Obviously free-will doesn’t end after you accept Christ. So I suppose you can fall away…but I suspect you have to really, really work at it. Love is only love when it’s freely given, not coerced or “tricked” by some cosmic form of compatibilism.

Lot of loose ends here for Reformists. Of course, they have nice, neat answers for all of these questions. But honestly that scares me more than comforts me. All theology is speculative – including Calvinism. Why adopt one inconclusive theological viewpoint when you can adopt another inconclusive one that at least allows God’s loving character to shine through?

So there you are. Next post, philosophical and historical issues.

Come on, Just How Bad Is Calvinism?, Introduction

I received a great comment from from a guy named Chris here. I asked him if he would like for me to respond publicly or privately to his questions/doubts about Reformed doctrine. He said he would like to see them in a public format. So, for the next three posts I will convey some problems I have with Calvinism and what impact I feel such an approach to scripture has upon believers. I’ll divide it up into three sections: scriptural, philosophical, and practical, respectively.

I will say up front that I know plenty of Calvinists who are really great Christians that deeply love the Lord. I also admire their hunger for the Word and precision in scriptural debate. I have yet to fully comprehend just how they integrate their beliefs into an understanding of God that appropriately reflects God’s nature. Maybe I am intellectually or spiritually unable to grasp Reformed concepts. I have had some Reformists who have hinted at such. If that’s the case, then please overlook my short-sightedness.

Also, I will approach this mainly as a pastoral endeavor. If something makes perfect theological sense yet fails to meet the basic needs of everyday Christians, then I’m going to question it’s practical validity. As such, I will not cover every scripture that Reformists generally use for proof texting their position. And, as fair warning, if you are reading this post and decide to give me every scripture to back the Calvinist position in the comment section, I’m not going to answer them all…but you can sure bet I’ll make fun of you for ignoring my opening remarks here. Calvinists have that much in common with the Latter Day Saints – they certainly have all their answers together. I, admittedly, do not. If you want me to expound upon a particular point I’ll be happy to oblige.

As a pastor, though I am concerned with correct theological method, I am much more interested in how that theology helps the average Christian connect to God. I will say this up front: I believe Reformist interpretations of scripture and the nature of God have inhibited that spiritual connection throughout much of Western history.

Next post, scriptural issues…

Minivan Discrimination. Someone Call the Authorities…

I’ve had a productive weekend. I finished George Linbeck’s Nature of Doctrine and took down Christmas decorations. Unfortunately, to find a time to do this, we skipped church Sunday morning. Yet, strangely, I still feel that God was delighted with our decision since he no longer has to look upon the Christmas tree in our home throughout the month of February…

I want to discuss an alarming trend in our country today: minivan discrimination. Yes. You heard me correctly. Before I stayed home full time, I used to drive a little two door sedan. But now I drive the van. Don’t get me wrong – I like the van. However, a certain stigma does follow it. Minivans are known for erratic driving and illogical traffic behavior. I used to hate minivans as well for these reasons. Until I became the van driver: handing sippy cups and snacks over the seat, spending the majority of my time looking in the rear-view mirror to referee a fight, and riffling through toys while driving with my knees. Each van is accompanied by this type of behavior, compounded with speeding since vans are late to every engagement all the time.

However, as you become what I am now – a “van ninja” – you can do all these things without signalling to the outside world what is going on. Van ninjas look as if they are driving calmly down the road, never steering into the next lane by accident. Yet, this state of perfection is more difficult than the game of golf. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend now that I have achieved van excellence. People pull out in front of vans constantly. At least 90% of the time, though there is no car behind me, a driver will pull out in front of me without hesitation.

Most other drivers assume that all van drivers are slow and incapable of efficient driving. That’s hardly the case. I drive my van like Jeff Gordon. Chances are we are doing twelve things at once – something that most regular drivers could never do. And there’s a good chance that there are no children’s songs blaring in the background. I may be listening to the newest praise and worship CD…or I may be listening to Cheap Trick or the Foo Fighters.

So, this is plea to all other non-van drivers in the world. Give the minivan a chance, bro. There are ninjas out there everywhere just looking for the chance to show off their mad skills. Don’t pull out in front of the van. Pull out behind it, knowing that the driving you will be witnessing is a work of art.

A Goat’s Lesson in Community

I was driving down the highway earlier today and saw about twenty goats jump a fence and bound into the median. Fortunately, none of them were hit by cars. There’s a dairy right off of the highway and evidently the goats desired more freedom than they were given (which leads me to believe that they would adopt some type of liberation theology if asked…).

Now, seeing random animals in the road is not too uncommon – I live in the South. However, the response of the other drivers is what intrigued me. There were about seven cars with me that pulled over and began to redirect traffic, corral the goats, and contact the dairy owner. Everyone immediately assessed the situation and weighed in with their own gifts. You may not see any Christian parallels there, but (as a self-proclaimed nerd) I do. I see a genuine example of Christian community.

Christians interested in ecclesiology spend a whole lot of time attempting to show other Christians why they should get along. As a charismatic, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come across a well-meaning theologians warning charismatics that their quest for the gifts of the Spirit focuses on individuality rather than community. Their answer is to tell everybody (over and over again) that Christians should like each other and find common ground with one another. But as a pastor, I have rarely seen this happen. Telling people they should “connect” with each other doesn’t make it a reality.

I believe that people (like those on the highway) are more than willing to unite upon the introduction of an individual experience that commonly unites them. No one had to tell me or any of the others to work together. Our common experience individually informed us that we should react in community. We experienced the “great goat escape” from slightly different angles and worldviews, but the basic experience was the same for all of us. So why doesn’t that happen more often? We see it in times of tragedy like New Orleans. But rarely on a daily basis. Honestly, an opportunity rarely presents itself to us.

And that’s why Spiritual gifts are so important. It’s not a issue of elitism or holiness. The gifts are meant to edify but also to provide common spiritual experience that operates in every season of life. There’s nothing quite like finding someone who has had a similar experience to you and the immediate kinship you feel with that person. You know much about them intuitively without discussing specifics at all. Though the unity on the highway was external, internal experience can unite as well. When people discover that another person has had the experience of a word of knowledge or speaks in a private prayer language, they open up to each other. “You’ve had that happen? I have too!” That’s when unity occurs – not around a specific doctrinal belief but around personal experiences that are shared in common.

Those interested in church community should never deny the validity of spiritual experience for Christians. They should be begging Christians to seek experience. Experiences “connect” Christians to each other. It is a powerful unifying force.

Thus Saith the Lord: “Hey Jerks, Leave Joel Osteen Alone!”

Now that I’ve got your attention,  I’ll address my choice of title towards the end of this post. I need to get this off my chest…

There are a lot of people giving Joel Osteen a bad time these days. Although Joel certainly doesn’t have everything figured out, from the comments I hear it seems that everyone that criticizes him thinks they do. So, I want to expose some practical problems with this type of Christian “watchdog” behavior and then address a much larger and dangerous theological problem reflected in the actions of Joel’s critics.

I’ll try to run through these quickly, numbering each one:

1) Joel’s success is partially due to his ability to preach an “Americanized” gospel that focuses on success in life. I find it funny that those same people who bash Joel will proclaim the virtues of other preachers (no names, please) who are just as “Americanized” in their doctrine as well. American Christians usually love capitalism, yet when it expresses itself in spiritual terms, critics start building the gallows. Why kill a messenger when we all enjoy the benefit of that same capitalist mentality in other ways. Slightly hypocritical don’t you think? You do live in America, don’t you? What did you expect?

2) Pragmatically speaking, Joel influences around 40,000 people at Lakewood and countless more through television and books. Critics, do you influence that many people? Could you do it better? If he’s not “worthy” of ministering to that many people, who do you suggest (no dead theologians, please)? How many people is appropriate for Joel’s ministry? Just a ballpark figure will do. Yet, somehow, 40,000 people give Joel their vote of confidence each week. Can you even begin to imagine the weight and responsibility associated with that? Sometimes, it helps to not only step in someone else’s shoes, but also imagine what it may be like to have their feet.

3) Lakewood’s website states their doctrinal beliefs. They are completely orthodox. Yet, most critics cite doctrinal reasons for their disapproval. So he’s a little heavy on the “just stay positive” side of things. Does he deny the resurrection or the virgin birth? Oh…he’s too inclusivist in his evangelical beliefs. Is that grounds for heresy? Hardly. Last time I checked, the Apostolic Fathers took three centuries to hash out the nature of Christ. And, above all, when is doctrinal clarity more important than sharing the basics of the gospel of another human being? And he reaches people that most of us will never touch. Honestly, unless you attend there, you have no idea what additional biblical training their members receive. That makes your criticism uninformed to say the least. Yet, you jabber on, assuming that the people who attend Lakewood are too stupid to determine what Christianity looks like. That makes you sound like an anthropologist from the 1800s observing the “uneducated and unenlightened” behaviors of primitive peoples.

4) Sadly, the church’s willingness to spend its time beating each other up confirms the suspicions of every non-believer on the planet. Yet, the same critics can turn on a dime and launch into a full exposition of the fruits of the Spirit. If even half of the sermons, devotionals, and face time that has been devoted to Lakewood’s criticism was directed at more suitable endeavors, the church might actually convince a few people that “hair-splitting” and “safeguarding” were not its specialties.

Finally, some theological musings. The Bible has plenty say about this – that’s why I titled this post “Thus saith the Lord.” He already has. We just aren’t paying attention. Obviously, Joel’s critics are knee-deep in judgment, the exact kind that Matthew 7 warns about (Jesus also said something about a plank in your eye). But more importantly, those who criticize and find blame prove the truth of the Genesis story everyday. There’s this little book writer – Dietrich Bonhoeffer (you’ve heard of him?) – that addressed the critic’s problem. In Creation and Fall/Temptation, Bonhoeffer makes the point that when we judge we seize the position of God. Only God can judge. But there’s are reason why he’s the only one. Humans don’t have the full omniscience with which to make a sound and reasonable judgment of anybody. We simply don’t have all the information. That’s why eating from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was such a travesty. We were never made to exercise knowledge of good and evil over others. We are supposed to love and serve one another. When we judge others, we ignore our limits and act as God. Subsequently every judgment we make is based upon partial knowledge - a knowledge God never intended for us to exercise. And don’t “proof text” me about “testing the spirits.” Testing means observing its fruit, not bashing other people. Honestly, whether anyone likes it or not, Joel’s ministry seems to bear fruit.

Fortunately, the same God that judges also shows mercy. So, how about we let that be God’s call? I don’t agree with everything Joel says…and I’m sure he would disagree with things I say. But Christians criticizing other Christians is like biting the Hand that feeds you.  To the extent that we have received the benefit of the doubt with God, we should extend that same preference to our brothers and sisters in Christ…especially Joel Osteen.

How Can I Know the Will of God?, Part II

I just finished reading John Wenham’s The Goodness of God. I felt kind of let down by it…

Okay, so now that we’ve covered sovereign will and individual will, let’s explore God’s moral will and how God’s individual plan for us relates to that moral will. This is the part you’ve been waiting for, people!

For each person, what really counts with God is his moral will. Though God can guide you towards a job that is a good fit for you, you won’t be out of his “will” if you choose another job. I actually know a person that chose one job over another because their favorite Christian song was on the radio when they received a call-back from an employer. Honestly, that just makes Christians sound like crazy people! One job over another really doesn’t have that much spiritual significance. God can bless you in either one. What God really cares about is how you treat the people at that job and if you respect those in authority. What about which college to attend? If you’re not sure, pick the one you think is right for you. But above all, let your life reflect the goodness of God while you’re there. Should I go to Africa? Well, if you don’t sense God telling you “no,” and you have a passion to do that, then go. But if you choose to go, allow the compassion of Jesus to consume you as you minister to other people groups. No matter what choice you make, adhere to God’s moral will.

And here’s the best example of all - marriage. Who should you marry? Sorry, that’s not in the Bible, people. It’s your choice (but at least make sure that person wants to marry you, too ).  BUT, what is in the Bible is how you should treat that spouse once you marry them. Moreover, knowing it’s your choice (not God’s) to marry your spouse places the responsibility to make that marriage work where it belongs: upon you and your spouse. God may help steer you towards a spouse that “clicks” with you, but you are responsible for making that marriage work. But what about your “soul-mate,” that “one perfect person”? Don’t you think that enough divorces have occurred by now that everybody is married to the wrong person anyway? Your “soul-mate” is the one to whom you’re married right now. Treat them like they are and your marriage will drastically improve.

Here are the questions everybody is afraid to answer. Ready? Say you make a decision that is not popular with Christians who think they already know what’s best for you. Did you “hear” wrong if other people disagree or if things don’t go according to plan? Not necessarily. Just because things get difficult doesn’t mean you have chosen incorrectly. It just means things are difficult. Jesus had a rough time, too, you know. Nor does abundant blessing mean that you “heard from God” anymore than someone else. There are plenty of people who are successful despite their ungodly lifestyle. Most of all, just because you feel God leading you to do something sacrificial doesn’t mean that other Christians will not take advantage of your generosity. You can bet they will. But, since when does their self-centeredness make your decision wrong? You must decide that doing the right thing won’t change when other people see differently.

Can God “speak” to you deep inside so that you feel that he is leading you in a particular direction? Sure. But that doesn’t happen all the time. If you are unsure about what to do, then make the choice that reflects these timeless biblical truths: love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself, lay down your life for others, and if there’s a sacrifice to be made, don’t wait for someone else to “step up” - make it yourself.

Lastly, as a “charismatic” Christian, I believe God can break in with divine revelation. This is his primary means in helping you make decisions. In contrast to some Christian theology, I believe God would rather speak to your heart than use natural circumstances any day. But we have to be listening. And “fleecing” (like Gideon) is always a bad idea.  Does that mean that a personal prophecy should guide your decisions? No, but it can serve as a spring board – a call to investigate your options for the future.

Don’t be afraid of the idea that God wants to speak to you. After all, he does love you, you know. He doesn’t want to make all your decisions for you. He wants to walk with you through the decisions you make. When fear of acting outside of God’s will paralyzes you from making life decisions, it may be time to reconsider your view of God’s will. Don’t let fear of “missing God” keep you in a state of indecision. Move forward with life, knowing that God’s ultimate will (desire, intention) for you is to be in relationship with him. 

Trusting Your Spouse into God’s Hands

My wife is on a business trip for a few days.  She travels pretty often and I’m fine with that, although I hate to not have her at home. In the past, I have prayed with people who ask for God to be with a person and give them “travelling mercies” (whatever that means). One day, it dawned on me that such prayers were not really prayers for protection a much as they were resignations to be okay with whatever God chose to do with the travellers. They were trusting their spouses to God, not knowing whether God’s providence would lead their loved one into safety or distress.

As I was praying for my spouse last night, that idea of God never entered my mind. You see, I believe strongly that what you believe about God determines what you will ask of him. That’s why people are often afraid to pray too boldly – they don’t know what God’s gonna do. So, a simple “if it be thy will” covers all the bases.

But I have come to understand that any desire for my wife’s protection is far eclipsed by God’s love for her and desire to keep her safe. I am not trusting her to some mysterious Providence that is lost on human understanding. I am entrusting her to her Judge. She finds greater protection in God’s hands than she could ever find in mine. What if something happens to her? I know this: it won’t be because God desired her harm for some “greater good.” God has tremendous power…but it’s a power guided by his goodness toward his children. Now that’s someone I can pray to for protection.

I think this idea spills over into other parts of life as well. God really can’t bring spiritual maturity to my wife, children, or any other person I know unless take my own “talons” out of their spiritual life. Once I create an environment where that person receives no judgment or criticism, God can move in to deal with them. Until that time, he stands by patiently waiting for me to step out of the way. I believe we don’t give him access to others because we’re not sure that he will do sometimes. And, once again, that’s a character issue, not a power issue, concerning God that everyone has to confront for themselves.

I don’t mind praying specifically for God to protect my wife on business trips. I believe he wants to do that more than I do. Why reserve that right for myself when I can entrust her to the most powerful being in the universe? Oh yeah, and he happens to love her more than I could ever hope to lover her.

How Can I Know the Will of God?, Part I

I just finished reading Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn. As they say, “eat the chicken and spit out the bones”…

My wife and I have made some tough decisions in the past few years – some that have affected much about the way we live and also challenged our understanding of the “will of God.” It’s been a learning experience, so I thought that I would share a few insights we’ve gleaned. Of course, our understanding is based on our personal experiences and may be different than yours…and that’s fine. As always, feel free to disagree, but at least take a hard look at why you may disagree.

Preachers traditionally talk about three different types of divine will: the sovereign, the moral, and the individual will of God. The sovereign will is usually seen as God’s hidden agenda that quietly guides history and world events. This idea is brought up when large scale events like natural disaster or spiritual revival occur. But Christians also talk about the hidden will of God in daily events as well…after all, “God works in mysterious ways.” So, many Christians also see God’s sovereign will as meticulous and detailed within the things they cannot explain. The moral will involves moral guidelines in the Bible and the Christian’s mandate to follow them. Verses like “Love your neighbor” and “do unto others…” apply here. Finally, then there’s the one everybody is obsessed with – God’s perfect will for each individual. This determines what events happen to us in life and our particular “calling” to fulfill. Who should I marry? Should I go to the mission field? What college should I attend? And on and on they go.

The problem with all of this is found in the definition of “will.” I believe rather than some mechanistic, overly-structured, predetermined set of events, the biblical definition of will involves God’s desire for all of humanity, not just a few. That’s where the idea of “election” comes from. As we all know from politics, if you elect someone to do something specifically, they still have free will to change their mind and do something different. You hope that they won’t…but the potential always exists. God desires (wills) the best for our planet, however, our stubbornness and rebellion often side-track his good intentions. But his desire to have us near to him never changes.

So here is what I have come to understand as God’s will. As I stated here I am more Wesleyan in my theology and leave as much room as possible for free will to affect life in hopes of defending the goodness of God’s character. So, I see God as having a sovereign will but it includes broad, general goals like bringing creation to consummation and revealing himself through the work of Jesus Christ. God has cast a “net” around his creation, but it is a very wide net. Most importantly, God’s sovereign will is seen in the character of Jesus and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.  

For example, many Christians I have talked to explain the Holocaust as some form of God’s preordained, sovereign will. Yet, the tragedies of that time are somehow counteracted by a secret divine will that allowed “good” to come out of heartache. If that’s so, then answer this question: since when is the death of one life worth the salvation of another, much less millions of people? I just don’t buy that line of reasoning. Don’t you think God’s “will” would be for good to occur without tragedy? If that’s the case, then though there is a general sovereign will, there are a  lot of decisions humans make that fall outside of God’s intentions and wishes for them. These decisions are the ones that create disharmony, war, and tragedy in our world. The Bible is full of such examples: God’s disapproval of Israel electing a king, God’s remorse over Adam and Eve’s choice, Abraham’s bargaining with God over Sodom and Gomorrah.

So what about individual will? Well, that’s what drives most people crazy in life. Verses like Jeremiah 29:11 are thrown around in this category. And yeah, God has a “plan” for you…and here it is: to come to know him deeply and intimately, to accept Christ as the foundation of your faith, live a life that conforms to his Word, and live daily in his presence empowered by the Holy Spirit. Those are his “thoughts of peace and hope” toward you, the same as everyone else! What about all the other “life decisions” like which car to buy and who to date? Well, they’re not in the Bible for a reason. You have been given a life to live in honor of the King. Go live it in the way you think is most pleasing to him. God is happy to let you make decisions. He then works within the structure of your personal decisions to bring about good in your life. We may not be intelligent enough to do this ourselves, but God is easily resourceful and intelligent enough to work within the complexities of this world.

I’ll talk some more about individual and moral will tomorrow…

Do Children Really Need “Quality” Time?

Okay, back to reality: stay-at-home dad world. I could tell you about the time I yelled at Beth for being fifteen minutes late getting home from work because she was picking up a Mocha Moolate for me. Or, I could tell you about the time I ate an entire chocolate pie in one day as I thought to myself, I deserve to eat this. But, I’d rather tell you about something I have picked up on over the last two years that will inform my parenting style for the next twenty.

As a guy who worked full time, I believed that “quality time” with my children would convey my love and desire to be with them. That idea also kept me gone on weekends getting some “guy time” or engaging in some healthy “recreation for the soul.” Nor did I have any problem leaving my children at home while I went to Christian seminars on how to be a good father. But since I have been home, I have found that actually, it’s “quantity time” that makes for a healthy relationship with my kids. There a couple of reasons for this.

First, I assumed that I would encounter all the opportunities to love and nurture my children between the hours of 6 and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. But there’s a problem with that. Children experience moments of learning and love from sun-up to sun-down. Events that occurred earlier in the day never got my attention or affirmation. So I only had a limited understanding of how to love my children based on two hours of interaction at the end of the day.

I think our propensity to be okay with such a scenario is because we as humans generally only think about people when they stumble into our sphere of influence. We truly live “out of sight, out of mind.” But honestly, children are experiencing love (and the withholding of love) every moment they’re awake. As a parent, I can only convey my love to them and interest in them in the moments I am there. And like most things, children require a whole lot of repetition for the message to sink in.

For example, it’s common to badger our children over and over about what happened at school that day. But even with my three-year old who attends pre-school a couple of days a week, she resists my promptings. But later after interacting with me for a few hours, she tells me everything that’s on her mind. The problem occurs when parents don’t allow enough time for their children to open up.

Secondly, quantity time now affects how I discipline. A level of constant supervision staves of a lot of chances for miscommunication, blaming, and confusion – simply because I’m there to see what happens. My presence is a gentle but constant reinforcement of how we behave in our home. While with them, I model for them how humans interact appropriately. Gentle, constant reinforcement keeps parents from having to use more inconsistent, strenuous forms of discipline. Because my children know I am in the room with them them, the potential for misbehavior decreases significantly. My presence becomes a form of unassuming, non-threatening discipline. I can also catch them in conflict before it escalates to the point where Homeland Security gets a call from the neighbors. If I’m not in the room, I can’t do this, much less if I’m not in the house.

So, staying at home has changed my mind – quantity time is way more important than quality time. That notion may go against a parent book you’ve read, but hey – I just call it like I see it. Those who adopt the “quality time” motto often do little more than employ damage control measures. And yes, I know not everyone has the opportunity for only one parent to work. And some parents do great with the limited time they have. But, for me, this approach has really helped my family stay close in times of transition and change. It’s best to love and teach in the moment. I suspect most stay-at-homers know this. But it was news to this former working dad. Something else to think about: do we need quality or quantity time with God? How about our spouse?

I Like Atheists

I came across an atheist site the other day and read for a while. Most of what I saw was standard atheist fare. But I perked up when a well-meaning Christian on the site asked the others for proof from the Bible that God wasn’t perfect. The atheists happily obliged with several answers, two of which interested me.

I like atheists. They are usually good people. And many of the questions they pose concerning Christianty are valid. I have had some of the same questions and have agressively searched for good answers to them. But in the end, religion requires faith. Even if I could “prove” ninety-nine percent of Christianty to a person, they would still have to believe in one percent. That one percent is whopper though – it encompases things like the existence of God and the problem of evil.

Most atheist writings I’ve seen are deeply concerned with the character of God. What makes God worth following? Good question. I have found that most atheists are not full atheists. Actually they would like to believe in God. But most atheists reject a particular view of God. They see him as controlling of all events, yet unwilling to take responsibility when bad things happen or refuse to alleviate human suffering. Any “educational” lesson humans could learn from disaster is immediately shallowed up by the horror of death, famine, disease, etc. Is the death of thousands worth any morality lesson? Honestly, I don’t blame them for rejecting that view of God. That’s not what I’ve come to understand about God anyway.

I have chosen to answer two objections of God given in response to the Christian on that site. The first is biblical and the second philosophical. These answers are out there for anyone to read. Unfortunately most atheists are too busy reading very angry books by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris that reinforce their predetermined assumptions. And we know everything in those books is “spin-free,” right?

Response #1: God is not good because Jesus cursed the fig tree (Mark 11).

The gospel of Mark doesn’t tell us why Jesus did this. And it does seem kind of mean – what did that fig tree do to him anyway? Mark says that Jesus looked at the tree and only found leaves. What Jesus actually saw is that there were no taqsh on the fig tree. No what? Taqsh - the Palestinian word for little nodules that appear on a fig tree in early Spring, six weeks before the real figs start to grow. When Jesus saw only leaves (no taqsh), he knew the tree would never bear fruit again. It was barren and taking up ground where a perfectly good fig tree might bear fruit to feed the people. So Jesus cursed it, not because he was being rude or showing off to his friends, but because he was being eco-friendly. Jesus, the environmentalist. How about that? The misunderstanding occurs when people don’t look for the context that informs the biblical passage. How many more of those do you think we might have missed?

Response #2: Jesus got angry at the merchants in the temple (Matthew 21).

This response philosophically assumes certain things about God, mainly that a God who gets angry can’t be perfect. God must be free of all passion since passion denotes weakness. If you believe that, you’re not worshipping the God of the Bible, you’re more into what the Peripatetics and the Stoics were into. Atheists often assume (because Christians who don’t any different have told them so) that the Judeo-Christian God is calm, serene, and unaffected by the actions of human beings. The big fancy word for this is impassibility. People who believe this way allegorize the passages in the Bible where God gets angry, changes his mind, and expresses distress over the actions of humans. Unfortunately, to do this (and everyone from Tertullian to Luther has) is to cheapen the biblical view of God. Jesus was angry because the merchants were exploiting the worship of the Jews for money – people made in God’s image. That made him very angry and he did something about it. If anything, by acting out of emotional response similar to that recorded in the OT prophets, anger supports the divinity of Jesus, not dismisses it. And that’s the reason God is so great – he cares enough about you to get angry over injustice.

I’m not against atheism in the least. Most of them (not all – those who have made atheism their religion) are open to honest discussion as to why God does the things he does. They’re inquisitive and honest and authentic in their search. Christians should run to dialogue with them. If they ask something you don’t know, please don’t tell them they are going to hell. Go look it up and answer their question! They are on a journey…just like you.