IMPORTANT NOTE: Starting Monday, Nov.2, I will be out of the office for three weeks. I will have an “out of the office” autoreply on my email and any concerns that you may have should be directed to Sue-Ann Wichman (sueann@stmarkpresbyterian.org) or Hayes Noble (hayes@stmarkpresbyterian.org). Thanks to the HR commission, session, staff, and many of you who have helped to make this sabbatical space possible. Our Saturday livestream worship will show reruns for those Saturdays, but the Sunday ‘in person’ worship will continue per normal.
SECOND NOTE: November 15-22 is Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. If you or someone you know is a rental property owner in Orange County, United to End Homelessness has an incentive program to help provide Permanent Supportive Housing that may be of interest. Feel free to check out this description or pass this information along. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/welcomehomeoc-property-owner-workshop-november-tickets-112888566742
Last week I left off by noting that, for John Calvin, the doctrine of election was not about speculation, but more about taking comfort in God’s steadfast love. To continue …
One big concern among Calvin and his followers – which seems to be the what hardened this doctrine of comfort into a doctrine of judgment – was the need to avoid human pride, particularly the arrogant assumption that we can do anything to “deserve” God’s favor. For them, ‘grace alone’ means that it is not up to us to earn salvation, not even in making the critical decision to believe. In other words, faith is a gift from God. Think about that for a moment. Most people would not react against such a notion, but most of us do not follow that belief to its logical conclusion. If faith is a gift from God, that means that the faith I have is something that God freely chooses to give. God freely choosing to give is exactly the language of the doctrine of election. It is a way of holding on to Paul’s language, “It is by faith that we are saved” while not assuming that faith is some form of accomplishment on our part, but a result of God’s grace.
I believe that the real challenge for Calvin and others was something like, “Why in the world would someone not believe in a loving and just God?” Imagine them asking that question while contemplating the cross, where the cruelty of human rejection is met with God’s loving act of sending the beloved son even to die on behalf of that cruel human race. A conclusion might be, “I have faith because I have received it as a gift that God has freely chosen to give. If others hear this message and do not respond with faith, then for whatever reason God did not choose to give them the gift of faith.” Suddenly we have a doctrine of “double predestination,” which – taken out of that context – sounds horribly judgmental and depicts a capricious God. But, within the context of humility in our own standing before God and joy in trusting in God’s grace, even the doctrine of “double predestination” loses some of its edge. Don’t get me wrong – this doctrine is still problematic, because Calvin and particularly his followers expressed this belief in the rawest of terms, that some are predestined for salvation while others are predestined for damnation.
I think a better expression of divine election comes from Karl Barth, who argues that, in Christ, God has elected humanity for salvation. For Barth, Paul’s language of Jesus as the “second Adam” and those long conversations about Jesus being “fully human and fully divine” are intended to show that when God raised Jesus out of death, God issued a divine “yes” to humanity, overriding even humanity’s “no” to Jesus. It is God, in utter freedom, choosing humanity, even over our own resistance. That is the kind of confidence and joyful hope that the doctrine of election is intended to capture.
I’m sure that these reflections have raised more questions than answers, and perhaps have even dredged up some nightmares among those who were raised among hyper-Calvinists. I think it is unfortunate when people simply dismiss the language of election or predestination as if the Reformers were either idiotic or cruel. But, it is even more unfortunate when people take those doctrines and use them as oppressive tools of judgment against others. I’ve tried to show that the motive behind election was not to deny human freedom or pretend that everything that happens was charted out before creation, but to provide a doctrine that says, even in a world where cruelty and pain are always part of the story, God’s steadfast love is the story itself.
That’s all I got. Cheers,
Mark of St. Mark
