On Election, pt. 2

As you might remember from last week, I am spending October talking about election. Last week I invited you to think of all of the “givens” in your life – the abilities, proclivities, qualities, and other traits that were given to you long before you made any conscious decisions or choices about your life. And, as I said last week, the ‘givens’ have enormous consequences for who you are, how you live, what you do in life, who you love, and how you roll. That part of your life is primarily what the doctrine of election aims to address. Paul’s question, “What do you have the you did not receive?” invites to approach our faith with the starting point of “the givens.” 

 

One implication that starting with “the givens” has for us is that our theology – our inquiry into who God is before us and who we are before God – is grounded in humility. The 19^th century Reformed theologian Friederich Schleiermacher articulated this starting point in a way that has always been helpful to me. Speaking of religion in general, Schleiermacher argued that the beginning of religion is “the feeling of absolute dependence.” The very fact of my existence, of existence itself, is a reality into which I am thrown prior to any exercise of free will on my part. Is existence itself not worthy of wonder? And not only the fact of existence itself, but the capacity that you and I have to wonder at existence is another given for us. Rene Descartes expressed the philosophical conclusion to his method of doubt as, “I think, therefore I am.” I would express the religious starting point as “I am, therefore I wonder.” 

 

To me, this starting point of ‘existence that leads us to wonder’ is the chief purpose of any doctrine of election. “But wait!” you may be thinking, “Isn’t ‘election’ all about whether we are destined to go to heaven or hell?” That is indeed how most conversations about election go. I do not think that is exactly how Augustine of the 4^th-5^th century or John Calvin of the 16^th century – the two most prominent theologians who are invoked in conversations about election – intended for it to go. But, that is how the conversation has normally played out, whether by advocates for the doctrine of election or opponents to it. I find that unfortunate, but history rarely asks my opinion about things like that. 

 

So, next week let’s look precisely at this question of whether the doctrine of election means that I am personally destined to go to heaven or hell, regardless of how I live, what I believe, or what I want. It is a compelling question in many ways, a misshapen on in others (in my humble opinion). 

 

Until then, Cheers,

 

Mark of St. Mark