Why Pharaoh Falls Squarely Into the Calvinist/Arminianist Camp(s)

I just read Wink's post entitled, I'm Sorting It Out, on the topic of Our Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty.  I was going to add a reply there when I realized that what I'd really like to post is my "Pharaoh list" (which is in the form of a jpg). But I generally try to avoid adding html to other people's blogs (off Multiply, that is) because more often than not it's either rejected or causes the reply to get held for moderation.  So I decided to post it here along with an excerpt from the essay I wrote on the "Pharaoh list".  This excerpt was originally written in January 2002.

- - - - -

At some point, in reading the story of Moses, I realized a little detail that comes up several times, but that had never jumped out at me before.  In fact, I’ve never heard this preached on nor have I ever heard anyone bring it up in discussion.  Its one of those little details that you don’t tend to notice when you break a story down into chunks to study and its one of those items that you tend to notice one side of more than the other (depending on your doctrinal leanings). The problem is this, when Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go, at times the text says that Pharaoh hardened his heart and at other times it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  Here’s a chart showing the flipping flopping back and forth in the assigning of responsibility (as in, who made Pharaoh’s heart hard):

So, which is it?  Does Pharaoh have free will?  Is he able to decide when he is going to harden his heart and when he is not?  Or is he just a puppet and God can pull the right strings to make him harden his heart?

Perhaps both may be true.

First of all, let me point out that in Exodus 9:34 it not only states that Pharaoh (and his officials) hardened his heart, but the statement was also made that Pharaoh “sinned again.”  Very clearly Pharaoh is responsible for his actions.  He had the choice, he made it, he sinned, and he is therefore guilty.  If he had no say in what path he had chosen, then it would be unfair for him to bear guilt.  Pharaoh had the free will to choose whether he would harden his heart or not.  

But note that just a few verses later, in Exodus 10:1, God claims responsibility for what the text just got done saying was Pharaoh’s responsibility.  

But how can it be both that God has acted and that Pharaoh has acted in the very same situation (in the same act!)?  And how can one be responsible for what the other has done?  The Bible makes it very clear that both God and Pharaoh are fully responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.  Now if that doesn’t give you a headache, you’re probably not getting it yet.

Those that say that people have free will are absolutely correct.  And those that say that God predestines our lives are absolutely correct.  Here, in one story, both sides are shown to be true.

Perhaps you could try thinking about it this way.  The Pointillists were known for painting pictures using only primary colors.  They would paint by using very short brush strokes (or points) and when the completed painting was viewed from a distance, the eye blended the colors bringing out a plethora of colors beyond the simple few that the artist used.  Imagine that any one of us is an ant and we are viewing the picture from several different parts of the room.  The ant on the far side of the room might see a spot of orange, whereas the ants that are crawling across that section of painting might instead see either only red, or only yellow.  Now imagine that red is predestined acts and that acts done of our own free will are yellow. The ant that sees the orange is the one that sees things most clearly, though really, its still a bit fuzzy.  Orange indicates that both colors are present. The ant standing on the red dot has a skewed view, as does the one standing on the yellow dot.

The analogy is certainly not perfect.  It might be more accurate to imagine an artist mixing both red and yellow paint together to create orange.  What is created is now predestination and free-will combined so seamlessly that they have formed a new color, or a new status of predestination and freedom of choice.  In orange, one could say that red is fully there and yellow is fully there.  And yet neither can be seen because they have become a third color.  Predestination can be “true” and free-will can be “true” but neither one is fully accurate on its own because they are only describing components of a more full reality.

Christians and the Environment

Two years ago, in a gals Bible study that I was leading, one of the gals went off on a completely unprovoked tirade against the crazies who believe in global warming.  (More details on what happened can be found here.)  That incident lead me to try to find a book that we could perhaps study in Sunday school that would help us wade through the topic of Christians and the environment. (Several of those books are reviewed here.)  After choosing the book that I thought would work best given our congregation, and then having the book shot down by the session (ruling body in the church), I decided that rather than giving up, I'd just write a Bible study on the topic.  I have high hopes that with the Bible as the primary source for the study, and our congregation as the primary audience, we might finally be able to tackle this topic in a positive way.  (I personally believe that not tackling it is only leading to disunity in our church and dealing with it will not only bring unity but a better witness of our church to outsiders as well.)

I'm just beginning the 9th chapter of the study.  I have, for the most part, kept the introductions to the chapters very short, wanting the Bible to do most of the talking.  But I'm coming to the point where I want to "pull it all together."  Part of what I hope to address in this 9th chapter is the non-Christian environmentalists' take on non-environmentalist Christians. (Wow, say that 5 times fast.)  In re-reading the introduction I've written, I wonder if my characterization of environmentalists is fair.  I "pick" on the New-Age-y environmentalists a bit, primarily because these are the only type of environmentalists that exist in the minds of many of the people in our congregation.  (You know, all environmentalists are tree-huggers and goddess worshippers right?  ... Right.  Whatever.  Let me just tell you, when they met me and my husband, and we weren't singing love songs to the flowers, they really couldn't figure out how we could call ourselves environmentalists.  We've really been a mind bend for them.) My goal, therefore, is to still "pick on" the tree huggers, but I want to do it fairly.  Does that make sense?  In other words, I want to zero in on them still, but I want to do so in a way that's still fairly accurate and fair to who they are and what they believe. 

So I thought I'd post the intro. here and get some feedback.  I'm looking specifically for first reactions.  How does what I say about non-Christian environmentalists hit you? Is it a fair representation?  Am I missing anything?  

Feel free to throw in your thoughts on the questions I ask at the end as well.  

- - - - -

Peter wrote to the Christians in what is now Turkey, saying “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” (1 Peter 2:12)  

Think about the pagans (or non-Christians) that we regularly come into contact with.  Given that they’re not Christians, it’s quite unlikely that they’d know anything about how we worship or what doctrine we believe in.  Those are things that they’d really only know if they attended church events with us.  On the contrary, what they see of us is the day-to-day, mundane choices that we make in life.  Non-Christians might not know which hymns we sing on a Sunday morning, but they know what car we drive (and how much we drive it).  They might not know what topic we covered in Sunday school, but they know what food we eat (and how much we eat it).  They might not know our opinions on the fall of man and the salvific work of Christ, but they know how we treat our misbehaving kids in the grocery store and how we deal with a difficult client at work. These little things that we might not even give a second thought to go a long way toward informing non-Christians about who we are and what we believe.

The purpose of this Bible study has been to focus primarily on the environment – what the Bible says about it and how we as believers should think about it.  But it’s important to know also what non-Christians have in mind when they consider environmental issues, because more often than not, no matter why the non-Christian is interested in these issues (whether they think it’s because we’re all connected to some great Mother Earth or because they recognize that environmental issues today have physical repercussions to the future of humanity), there are certain overarching values that environmentalists hold dear and that are intimately linked, in their minds, with living a moral life.

One of these is justice.  In the mind of the environmentalist, pollution is not just a nasty by-product of industrialization, it’s morally wrong. It causes sickness, deformities, even death.  People who are being polluted against their will (such as those whose drinking water has been affected by a nearby factory or children growing up in high traffic areas with higher rates of asthma) are the recipients of injustice.  And those who contribute to that injustice are themselves unjust. So when a non-Christian sees a Christian who doesn’t seem to care about pollution, they believe right away that Christians have no care for justice.  Whether accurate or not, that is the perception.

Another important value environmentalists hold to is love. They tend to get mushy gushy when they talk about it (“We are all connected.”  “We are all children of the Earth Mother.”) but the value itself, love for one another, is admirable. [D] All people hold love to be important. Whether it's family, friends, faith or even the environment, everybody values some thing greatly.[/D] So think of what they see when their Christian neighbors spray pesticides on the peach tree in their own yard and the poisons float down onto the non-Christian’s raspberry bushes. The environmentalist non-Christian is immediately convinced that the Christians don’t even take seriously their own belief that they should “love their neighbor” because they didn’t take into consideration the damage their actions would cause to their neighbor.

So as you read through the following Scripture passages and examples from current news stories, put yourself in the shoes of your non-Christian neighbors.  What values do they see in you as they’re reflected in your day-to-day decisions and activities – especially as they pertain to the environment?  How does your church come across to environmentalists who live in the same neighborhood and see the regular meetings and activities of the church body?

What Social Networking Site Would Jesus Buy?

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/journal/item/158/What_Social_Networking_Site_Would_Jesus_Buy
There's a rumor going around that the Mormon church made an offer to buy Facebook. I thought I'd run with the idea and have a little fun with it. Click through to read.

The Sacraments -- From the Shorter Catechism of Craig

The Larger Catechism of Craig was first printed in Edinburgh in 1581.  The General Assembly (that's the ruling Presbyterian body) endorsed it and asked John Craig, the author, to shorten it a bit.  This catechism was then used until the Westminster Catechism became the standard in 1649.  (The Westminster Catechism is still used by most Presbyterian (and Anglican/Episcopalian ?) churches today.)

I thought the bit on the sacraments in Craig's catechism was interesting.  I'm not a huge fan of sacraments, mostly because they seem utterly meaningless to me in the form they're often administered in now-a-days. But I found John Craig's take on them worth a double take.  I wonder if most Presbyterians would agree with him today.  The following is taken from Philip Schaff's book, The Creeds of Christendom. The bolded parts are the bits that intrigued me most. 

Q: What is a Sacrament?

A: A sensible sign and seal of God's favor offered and given to us. 

Q: To what end are the Sacraments given?

A: To nourish our faith in the promise of God.

Q: How can sensible signs do this?

A: They have this office of God, not of themselves.   

Q: How do the Sacraments differ from the Word?

A: They speak to the eye, and the Word to the ear.

Q: Speak they other things than the Word?

A: No, but the same diversely. 

Q: But the word doth teach us sufficiently?

A: Yet the Sacraments with the Word do it more effectually.

Q: What, then, are the Sacraments to the Word?

A: They are sure and authentic seals given by God.

Q: May the Sacraments be without the Word?

A: No, for the Word is their life.

Q: May the Word be fruitful without the Sacraments?

A: Yes, no doubt, but it worketh more plenteously with them. 

Q: What is the cause of that?

A: Because more senses are moved to the comfort of our faith. 

If a Sacrament is a "sensible sign" I wonder what an insensible sign was? 

In the 3rd question, he refers to the Sacraments almost as if they have a life of their own. They're not the ones that have authority, God is.  They're just followers of God's orders.  And later he says the Word is their life.  What an organic and dynamic way of referring to what many make obscenely dull and lifeless!  

I love how in the 6th question his answer begins with "yet."  Today we'd say, "Yeah, but...." It's like a little teeny slap in the face to anyone that wants to diss the Sacraments.  

And in the end, why are Sacraments so important?  Because they take the truth of the Scriptures and make them physical to the rest of our senses.  God made us sensual beings, craving taste, touch, sound, sight and smell.  Our faith should be appealed to throughout all of our senses, not through our intellect alone.  How many Presbyterian churches today would believe as much?  Not many that I know of. (OK, so they're big on music and preaching, but sight, touch, taste or smell?) 

The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (a book review)

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/30
Click through to see my review of Dan Kimball's book on the Emerging Church.

Believers

I'm reading Charles Baxter's book of short stories called Believers: a novella and stories.  I hit this quote and hurt.  Any time that happens, I think, is a time to stop and reflect. 

Whitman's poetry is about love you don't have to earn.  It's about love that you just have or that you just get or you give but not the kind that you did something to earn. It's not Protestant love.  It's love for being itself. If you're a father, you love your kid, no matter what.  In jail or out.  That's what I mean. 

It's a beautiful quote.  Except the hating part.  

The very name, Protestant, is a name of "against."  Granted, it's a name that, like many names, was given by the opposition.  Still, we often live up to our names, don't we?  

What is it with Protestants that we insist on continuing to protest, even when we've run out of things to protest against?

Sermon styles

While looking for a pastor, one of the things you start thinking about is sermons. Though sermons weren't a definitive factor in choosing a candidate for our church, I do believe that a pastor's sermons can tell you a lot about the person. And I realized that sermons can vary on more than just a good or bad spectrum.  There are different styles of preaching that not only reflect upon the personality of the preacher but that can be received in very different ways by the congregation as well. 

Pastors who value feelings are more likely to include stories that appeal to the listener's emotions. Pastors who value knowledge are more likely to refer to metaphors that conceptualize a point. Neither means of communication is necessarily better or worse than the other.  They're simply different. That said, I believe some people resonate more deeply with styles of preaching that fit their own personalities more closely.  The intellectual may walk away from a very good sermon that was full of stories thinking, "That was OK, but he mostly just told stories."  While the person who values feelings more highly might walk away from the same sermon thinking, "Wow!  I finally understand God in a way that I never have before.  That was a fantastic sermon!"   Likewise, the intellectual may hear a very organized, detailed, point-by-point sermon and think, "I could really connect with that.  That was well laid out and argued."  Whereas the feeling person slept through the sermon because they found it to be dry and lifeless.  Both sermons might have had great things to say, including valuable truths that would help a person in life, but if they weren't relayed in a way that the people could connect with, they might go in one ear and out the other. 

This, I believe, is one reason why certain types of people are drawn to certain types of churches.  Philip Douglass studied this in detail in his book, What is Your Church's Personality?: Discovering and Developing the Ministry Style of Your Church (which I haven't read yet, but it's on my "to read" list). After studying churches specifically in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) he determined that 80% of the churches in the PCA were either ISTJ/ESTJ (which he calls "Organizer" churches) or ISFJ/ESFJ (which he calls "Fellowship" churches) in personality (and the people both leading and members in these churches were often also predominantly these personality types.  This holds true in our church where our two elders are ESTJ and ESFJ and our incoming pastor is an ESFJ.  I'm an anomaly as an INTJ as is Rob as an ESTP.)   ... Wow, I'm rather digressing here.  I'll have to tackle this topic again in another post.  Back to sermons....

There were essentially three styles of sermon that I came across in the many sermons that I listened to from our candidates: 1) Loud, 2) Lectured, and 3) Personal. The Loud style reminded me very much of our youth group pastor when I was at a church in Colorado Springs. He had very simple messages to get across, but he spoke very loudly and with great enthusiasm that gave his simple messages more grandeur than they otherwise would have carried.  As an intellectual teenage brat, I didn't think much of them.  I discovered during our pastoral search that I still don't think very much of them.   The Lectured style is what I predominantly hear from the pulpit.  It tends to proceed according to a series of points that, if you were to take notes, would fit neatly into an outline format. It addresses the Bible very much as a professor would address a textbook. The Personal style seems to center around the preacher's interaction with the Biblical text. The speaker often begins from a point of "When I first looked at this, this is what struck me."  Preachers using this style often delve deeply into context (historical, social, theological and personal).

I think this Personal style is the tack Dan Kimball is calling for in his descriptions of preaching in his book on the Emerging Church.  And I find that I agree with him that it's an engaging and relational style of preaching that I find really refreshing.  Ironically, when I described it to my mom, especially Kimball's suggestion that pastor's need to lose the "fill in the blanks" sermon notes, my mom looked shocked and cried out, "But I love filling in the blanks!"  Like I said earlier, different preaching styles appeal to different personality types differently.  It's not good or bad, it's just different.