Election, pt. 4
Quick Notes: There are two events coming up soon that may be of interest to you. The first is a “Matthew 25” event by the PCUSA, on October 28 at 11:00am, looking at the challenge of global, systemic poverty. For information, click here. The second is a Webinar on “Creating and Maintaining Empowering Mission Partnerships” on Thursday, Oct. 29, at 7:00pm by the Presbytery of Los Ranchos. For information, click here. (Full disclosure: I’m a panelist.)
It has been said about those who believe in the philosophical doctrine of determinism, and likewise can be said about those who believe in the theological doctrine of election: “If you throw a baseball at their head, they will duck.” What they won’t do is just sit there thinking, “God has chosen everything that happens, so Imma let this ball smack me in the head.” The conversation about election is simply not that daft.
Everyone, regardless of their philosophical or theological bent, has to deal with the senselessness of chance, luck, happenstance, and unintended consequences – whether it seems to work in our favor or bedevil us. For example, one of the Scriptures that the doctrine of election is based on is the often repeated “Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated.” We can – and should – nuance the words “love” and “hate” in this phrase, but the shock value of keeping them is what forces us to take election seriously. If God chose Jacob (aka, the People of Israel) over Esau (Israel’s enemies in the OT era), the verbs “love” and “hate” bring that free act of God’s choosing into bold relief. Do we dare say something like this about God? Do we even dare say something like this about the way the world works? If God is sovereign in some way over the world, can we look at great events and say that the results were God’s doings? Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, could only look at the War Between the States and say, “The Almighty has His own purposes.” That is similar to the humble wonder that concludes the story of Job. Sometimes that’s the best one can say when believing in an “almighty” but unable to make sense of how things happen in the world.
Science offers an analogous puzzle for us. J.S. Whale once fabulously said, “The modern mind which is revolted by this doctrine of Election cheerfully accepts the modern doctrine of Selection, and is not appalled by the thought: ‘The warm-blooded mammals have I loved, but the Ichthyosauri have I hated.’”[1] The problem of randomness does not diminish just because we call it evolutionary selection rather than divine election. And the angst of the question of election arises any time we hear of a disaster that seems to strike randomly (“act of God” according to insurance claims), or anything that seems unfair and undeserved, like the death of a child. Sometimes we try to console ourselves with the words, “Everything has a purpose” or “God is in control” or “All things work together for the good.” (Friend alert: These phrases may offer comfort when we appropriate them for ourselves, but they rarely have that effect when we say them to others who have experienced tragedies.) While these words point to something true and comforting, they often feel empty and unsatisfying.
The doctrine of election aims at this feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction. I read recently that John Calvin – whom many people ‘blame’ for the doctrine of election – considered it a great mystery, to be approached with trembling and faith. He did not see it as a stern doctrine of inescapable judgment and doom for some, but as a comforting doctrine, because it did not leave salvation up to fragile humans, but to a God whose steadfast love endures forever.
I will pick up on this thread next week. There’s still a lot more to ponder here.
Cheers,
Mark of St. Mark
[1] The Protestant Tradition: An Essay in Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), p.143.
No comments:
Post a Comment