Flowers Vs. Salads

The garden, somewhat the worse for the rather ugly buildings we have mentioned, was laid out in four intersecting paths round a drainage trap, and a fifth path ran round it flanking the white boundary wall. The paths enclosed four square plots bordered with box. Mme Magloire grew vegetables in three of these, and the bishop planted flowers in the fourth. There were a few fruit trees. Mme Magloire once said teasingly to him: ‘Monseigneur, you believe in making use of everything, but this fourth plot is wasted. Salads are more useful than flowers.’ ‘You are wrong,’ replied the bishop. ‘The beautiful is as useful as the useful.’ Then, after a pause, he added: ‘More so, perhaps.’

- (Hugo, Victor. Les Misérables. Trans. Norman Denny. London: Penguin, 2012. Print.)

Do I understand beauty?

I like to think I happen to have a great appreciation for the finer things - an artistic eye, keen to aesthetics, that exceeds the norm in society. I strive to absorb God’s decorative creation and the subcreated art from millions of human beings who have all sought to express something, whether a feeling, an idea, a perception, a worldview, or any of a vast multitude of items worth expressing.

Sometimes I think I may try too hard to feel that “intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind” that my dictionary defines as the result of beholding a beautiful object. But other times that shiver runs down my spine and I get goosebumps when I’m not even waiting for it. I smile inwardly and I lose myself in my thoughts at the mere suggestion of something beautiful. There are moments I am keenly aware of the tremendous miracle of life, and maybe all I did was glance at a snowflake. It’s times like these that I can convince myself of my love for beauty.

But do I understand it?
How is beauty useful?

Well, to precisely determine the usefulness of beauty, I imagined a world without it. And call me crazy, but at first it looked better to me than the world we live in. Imagine a world in which we didn’t have a significant portion of our pre-teen girls idolizing the image of some kid named Bieber just because he’s somehow considered ‘cute.’ Or where it didn’t matter what you look like, but your hireability is based solely on your skills. We wouldn’t have companies wasting thousands on trying to make things look better, but would be able to focus on making them work better. Kids in school wouldn’t feel dejected because they weren’t pretty or handsome enough to be popular, and we wouldn’t be distracted by all sorts of things that only take up space and are of no real value to constructing society. We, as a human race, could focus on more doing.

Isn’t that better? Doesn’t that sound good?

Well, far be it from me to innovate and critique God’s masterpiece.

I followed this image of a world without beauty even farther. The human race became overly engrossed in what they could accomplish. It was cold. Everything felt like a prison, mechanical, timed out to achieve the same, bland, outcome every time. There was no color. There was no diversity. Humans all looked the same, with the only difference in appearance being the anatomical differences between male and female. But even worse than all that, our accomplishments seemed to mean less. It was just what it was supposed to be. There was no room for creative expression or the mark of any author. It was all cinder-blocks, steel, unpainted blankness. I don’t think I can describe a world without beauty, because there wouldn’t even be language. Or at least it would be the most basic, practical form of language, like binary or morse code - but there is even an element of beauty in that. This world would be a skeleton. No flesh, no lifeblood.

Beauty...

We need beauty. Imagining a world without beauty has not only helped me see the usefulness of beauty, but also reminded me of how far beauty reaches into every imaginable aspect of life. Without beauty there is no appreciation for the uniqueness in each individual, in each little bit of creation.

Tears are a beautiful expression of grief. And that is why they are useful. They help us to feel what we feel, and to show to others the twisting knot of hopelessness we feel inside. Tears in their beauty cleanse our eyes, washing away the filth that had gathered on the portals to our souls.

Laughter is a beautiful expression of joy. And that is why it is useful. We laugh to share with others the bubbly rich feeling that starts deep within the spirit and resonates throughout the body in a way that is contagious, and what was the symptom of the emotion in one person becomes the catalyst in the next, cascading from body to body until the entire room is full of joy.

Beauty is beautiful, but its expressiveness makes it more useful than the useful. Yes, a salad can provide me with the nutrients I need to keep my body breathing and functioning for a few more hours. But what is that, why does it matter without the flower? The flower which I look at and, as I see the blush of life in its vibrant colours, am reminded of the glory of its Creator.

Beauty, creation, expression. These words are all part of the everyday miracle we cannot get away from, no matter how hard we try. The miracle of the Holy Spirit breathing life into everything that exists, so that we may see undeniable evidence of God in our presence. Because that world without beauty that I described earlier? It’s Hell. And I don’t just mean ‘a really bad place,’ I mean the real, literal Hell that actually exists - the absence of our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer. But we serve Emmanuel, God with us. A God of beauty.

So, friends, surround yourself with beauty, because to surround yourself with beauty is to surround yourself with God. Let your tears flow, cry your rivers to show the world the vibrancy of emotion; let your laughter bubble out of you into that contagious air of joy. Intentionally place yourselves smack dab in the middle of the gift God has given us that we might better appreciate and feel Him.

Tend to your gardens and grow flowers - don’t neglect them for the salads.

Caleb R. Joyce

Psalms 48 + 96

A Great Misunderstanding

Today I ran across what is possibly one of the biggest misunderstandings in what I believe. Dr. William Lane Craig states on his website www.reasonablefaith.org that:

2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

For one, what I believe isn't that the direction I move and choices I make are determined by 'casual factors', but by a divine and sovereign God. But still, none of the decisions I make are outside my control. I am choosing to strike the keys on the keyboard right now, and I am choosing to write this blog post. It came from me. So how was it also predetermined that I would do so?

We all have motives for the actions we take. I read that quote, and it moved me to write this reaction, which is influenced by other things I've read in scriptures and thoughts from other authors. Furthermore, God knows me, down to the last cell. He made me, and thus knows how I will react to such influences. We all have a free will. The thing is, God crafted the universe down to the very last detail, and all of our personalities and characters, so that we would each make the decisions that we do. He created everything for the express purpose to influence his children; he knows what each and every one of us will do when each and every trial comes our way.

In a sense the argument expressed by Dr. Craig can still apply. Whereas I did come to this conclusion of my own free will, it is because God decided to craft the world that way. A sort of vertigo may set it, as he puts it, but also an extreme comfort, knowing that God is behind everything, and he loves you. 

So...what do I believe?

So, I think it’s apparent that I have some clarifying to do. Some of you know, and some of you don’t know, that I’m a ‘Calvinist’. First off, I don’t really like labelling anything, because too often labels have a bad connotation. I think Calvinists have got a bad reputation of acting superior in their beliefs. If I ever do, I would greatly appreciate being told. :)

My view is one which is hard to present, and I think that oftentimes what I’m trying to say is misinterpreted. For example, I do not believe that God forces anybody to make any decision. I also don’t believe that it is only physically possible for a small group of people to achieve salvation.

Let me proceed in an orderly fashion. I’ll give a little bit of history, then take the 5 points of Calvinism one by one, and conclude with other miscellaneous thoughts.

First I’ll go way back, to the fifth century, and the conflict between Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius, a monk from Britain. Pelagius developed the doctrine of Pelagianism, which Augustine strongly disagreed with. He went so far as to say it was ‘destructive of the Gospel’. Pelagius taught that Adam was created out of sin, which by itself is very true. However, he also taught that Adam was not created in good, that he was neutral. He also believed that Adam was mortal, even before the fall, and that when Adam did sin, it did not affect the rest of humanity; we are all born in the same neutral state as Adam was, just that we are born into a world dominated by sin and surrounded by temptation, whereas Adam was not. Pelagius believed that it was possible for man not to sin, and that there were men who had lived perfect lives, and never sinned.

The doctrine of Calvinism, although not called that at the time, was first clearly explained in Augustine’s defence against Pelagius’ teachings. Augustine taught that man was created in fellowship with God, and if something is not evil it must be good, so therefore Adam could not have been neutral. In sinning, Adam broke the fellowship he had with God, and also brought physical death into the world. Additionally, he brought about the fall of the entire human race. (Adam and Eve were the entire human race at that time, so logically, in their sin all of humanity fell. However, it’s also true that each and every human being partook in that first sin, in and through Adam, just as we can all be reconciled from our sinful nature by being put to death with Christ on his cross.) Since we are fallen, our wills are corrupted and we will desire for sin, and will not turn to Christ on our own. Augustine taught that before man can turn from his sinful ways, God must change his heart and his nature to desire after what is right.

I’ll end this part of my ‘history lesson’ with a quote from an unknown author. He sums it up quite well, in my opinion:

“The notions so prevalent today about man's free-will are also in error. Augustine was right in his conviction that man's will was not free, but bound in sin. Martin Luther, whom the Lord used greatly to proclaim the doctrine of justification by faith, also defended the belief that man's will was not free, but rather bound in sin, in his work "The Bondage of the Will." No dear reader, God does not save anybody because he sees that they have worked up faith within themselves. God is not motivated to save sinners based on anything he sees in them, including faith! As we have seen, it is God who has given faith to those who are saved [it is not a principle by which he saves, but rather a gift he gives]. What then has the Christian of to glory of within himself? As Paul said, nothing but the cross of Christ. We see therefore, that salvation begins and ends with God. It does not begin nor end nor anything in between with man, it is all of God.” 

I am actually going to skip over John Calvin entirely as a protest to claiming the name of a single person. (1 Cor. 1:12-15, 1 Cor. 3:4-9) This situation is similar to the one Paul deals with there. Calvin merely planted; it isn’t him we follow, but Christ. So I am skipping over him to November 13, 1618; the Synod of Dort.

The Synod was convened to settle some disagreement in the Dutch reformed church, to deal with the dispute which came about as a result of the doctrine of Arminianism.

“The Synod gave a very close examination to the ‘five points’ which had been advanced by the Remonstrants, and compared the teaching in them with the testimony of Scripture. Failing to reconcile that teaching with the Word of God, . . . they unanimously rejected them. They felt however, that a mere rejection was not sufficient. It remained for them to set forth the true Calvinistic teaching in relationship to those matters which had been called into question. This they proceeded to do, embodying the Calvinistic position in five chapters which have ever since been known as the five points of Calvinism." (Steel and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism)

The five points outlined by the Synod are well known by the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Here is where I will leave the area of church history, and continue to take each of the points above one by one and reconcile them next to scripture, as the Synod of Dort did.

The first point is Total Depravity. What is total depravity? It is best described as the belief that men are dead in sin, and that left as we are, we will always essay to do what is wrong. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. We were ‘dead in our trespasses’ (v.5), but it is only because of Christ, not us, that we are saved: ‘this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,’ (v.8) David says in Psalm 51 that he ‘was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’. So it is from birth, because we sinned in Adam, that we have this sinful nature.

In both passages mentioned we see that it is only God who can remove our sinful nature from us so we can choose what is right. This brings us to the next point, Unconditional Election. We’ve already seen that we won’t reach a decision to follow Christ on our own, but by what criteria does God choose who he will bring to himself? The answer is, he chooses whomever he will. Romans 9:15 says that he ‘will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’. It isn’t because of anything in us that he chooses us, but rather that he created us to be chosen. God made two kinds of people: those who will glorify him by showing that an unconfessed rejection of him is unforgivable, and those who will glorify him by singing his praises, and showing that it is only by HIS mercy that any hope exists: it is God who saves us, not us who decide to be saved. I’d encourage you to read Ephesians 1 and 2. These chapters about reconciliation, and I think it shows very well that the one who wronged is in no place to bring himself out of his guilt; that is the place of the one who is wronged.

Limited Atonement. We are not all chosen. Matthew 25, beginning in verse 31, speaks of the final judgement, and the distinction between those who have been saved, the sheep, and those who were not saved, the goats. Speaking of the sheep in verse 34 Jesus says the King will say, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ The sheep are the sheep because they are blessed by the Father. He knew since the foundation of the world that they were the ones who would inherit the kingdom. He was thinking of them when he prepared it; he says prepared for you. It’s no mere chance that the sheep are the sheep and the goats are the goats. The sheep were blessed by God himself, and the goats were cursed. It isn’t a result of anything they’ve done. This is also seen in Romans 11:5-6. Again, just a little further down in verse 8, it is because God has hardened their hearts that they don’t turn to him. Why would God choose some and not others? Again in Romans 11, further down, in verses 11-12 we are given the reason. It is only next to hideousness that beauty truly means something.

When it is offered to us, the grace of God is so great that we will not refuse it. That is Irresistible Grace. Our God is great, and whenever he acts there is nothing that one of us, a mortal man, may do to stand in the way of that which he would accomplish, including grace when it is offered to us. That, and the thing which he offers us is so great that when he invokes in our hearts a more true understanding of what it really is, even a complete fool wouldn’t pass it up. John 6:37 says ‘All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out’. If the father has chosen somebody, he will go to Jesus. Then again in verse 45, Jesus says that ‘everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me’.

Last, but not least, is Perseverance of the Saints. Once saved, always saved. This point is often misinterpreted. I take it to mean that once truly saved, ‘no one will snatch them out of my hand’ (John 10:28)

The five points outlined by TULIP do not accurately portray the entire doctrine of Calvinism. They were merely a response to the points in contention at the Synod of Dort. In addition to what is explained above, I believe that it is indeed physically possible for anyone, elect or not, to come to Jesus. ‘that whosoever believeth in me shall not perish’ (John 3:16) But as a result of the fallen human nature, we only will turn to Christ if he does something in us.

Earthly trials and the promise of this world cloud the world’s vision. Who would choose the trials over what their flesh desires most? Likewise, when Christ takes his elect to a place where they can truly see what the final outcome is, despite what’s on the surface, who would choose eternal suffering over paradise with Christ? In both situations it is physically possible for someone to choose either fate, but it is morally impossible. God moves in the heart of those he has chosen to do so, so that they see things in a different way which will lead them to make different choices.

Many people take offense at this. It isn’t fair! Why would God choose to move in the hearts of some this way and not in the hearts of others? And I agree. It doesn’t seem fair. It doesn’t seem right; if God is love, why does he judge people unequally? The answer is, he doesn’t have to save anybody. If anything isn’t fair, it’s that anybody doesn’t get what they deserve and are allowed into heaven rather than hell. And God doesn’t judge people unequally, it’s just that with some he decides to see through Jesus’ sacrifice, and others not.

Well, reading back, I think I make this about as clear as mud. But may God use the weak to lead the strong.

To conclude I’d like to say that this is merely what I believe. If you disagree with me, so be it! I think you’d be in error, but that shouldn’t get in the way of a healthy Christian relationship. If you disagree, I’ll persist as long as you are open. The moment you say ‘enough’, that’s enough. Moreover, I do accept that I am human, and if you disagree, you could be right. In my current walk it would take some doing (and moving of the Holy Spirit), but I am opened to persuasion. Importantly though, I'd like to restate how important it is that this shouldn't get in the way of relationships. This isn't something that should pull apart, but rather draw together.

You can post a comment that tears this post apart. Tell me all the problems you have with it. But please do so respectfully, in a way that you, me, and any other viewers can benefit from. If you do this kindly, I’ll do my best to respond, and we can have a healthy debate. But if your tone is one of hostility, well, let’s just pray I won’t have to go there.

Humility, seen in the book of Philippians

How does Paul develop the theme of humility in his letter to the Philippians? First of all, Paul wrote this book from very humble circumstances; he was imprisoned. The Jews accused him of many things, including rejecting the law and defiling the temple, which led to his bondage. So, Paul has a good perspective from which to be writing about humility. Paul first speaks about humility at the beginning of Philippians 2. Philippians 2:3-8 says:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Christ provides the perfect example of humility, which Paul calls us to follow. He had everything, more than any man could obtain: he was one with God. Yet still, Jesus became a man, born in the lowliest of ways, from a lowly member of society, and the lowliest workers in the culture would proclaim his birth. Eventually, on the cross, he would even experience separation from God the Father. If Christ came in such a way, and since society reviled him in the way they did, how much more should we accept and even welcome persecution when it comes? God will reveal the glory of his kingdom in due time, but meanwhile we are his humble servants; not of this world, and therefore looked down upon by the world. Philippians 2:14-16 says:
 

Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labour in vain.”

By being humble servants, by being obedient, we will as a result ‘shine as lights in the world’. The world hates that light, because they are slaves to the Evil One, and he hates that light more than anyone. We will suffer for it. We will face persecution. But as long as we have faith in God, and hang on to him, our reward will come. It is better to be humble in this momentary darkness and reap the rewards in the eternal future than to indulge in the pleasures of the worlds and face everlasting condemnation. Philippians 3:14:

I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul gives us an important example to follow. He never gave up, even when things looked grimmest. We can’t take the idea of humility too far, and let the world jostle us around; we still must stand firm, remaining humble in the belief that any good in us comes not from our own being, but from the grace of God. We can’t take the spirit of humility to ends it was not meant to be taken. Our humility should cause us to stand out from the world, not to become a common part of it.

I think Philippians 4:8-9 gives a good summary of how to remain humble, yet stand apart from the world:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

(All quotations are from the English Standard Version)  

The Words to Say

…this was the real trouble -- Joseph Grand couldn’t find his words. … According to him, he felt a particular aversion from talking about his ‘rights’ -- the word was one that gave him pause -- and likewise from mentioning a ‘promise’ -- which would have implied that he was claiming his due and thus bespoken an audacity incompatible with the humble post he filled. On the other hand, he refused to use expressions such as ‘your kindness,’ ‘gratitude,’ or even ‘solicit,’ which, to his thinking, were incompatible with his personal dignity. Thus, owing to his inability to find the right words, he had gone on performing his obscure, ill-paid duties until a somewhat advanced age. … He went on looking for his words. … Without a blush he confessed to dearly loving his nephews and sister, his only surviving near relation, whom he went to France to visit every other year. He admitted that the thought of his parents, whom he lost when he was very young, often gave him a pang. … Yet to express such emotions, simple as they were, the least word cost him a terrible effort. And this difficulty in finding his words had come to be the bane of his life. “Oh, Doctor,” he would exclaim, “how I’d like to learn to express myself! - The Plague, Camus

This character, Joseph Grand, appears in Albert Camus' novel 'The Plague'.  Do you ever feel that way? When you simply cannot think of how to express yourself? I know I do. I think the problem lies in a perfectionist spirit. Grand says later on:

So you see, it's got to be flawless. 

So is that it? Must we continue in our struggle; stumbling over our words because we want to be perfect? I think that's a little counter-productive. In an attempt to be perfect, I end up sounding stupid. We can't be so caught up in trying to make ourselves so clear that the main point actually ends up being incomprehensible. Sure, we can be a little picky over our words, but enough is enough.

I'd like you to understand, Doctor. I grant you it's easy enough to choose between a 'but' and an 'and.' It's a bit more difficult to decide between an 'and' and 'then.' But definitely the the hardest thing may be to know whether one should put an 'and' or leave it out.

Has Grand gone over the edge, here? I think it's easy to say that he has. The smallest words can sometimes be some of the most important to the meaning of a sentence, but if you labour over every one of these in every single thing you write, you'll get nowhere. And if you have no headway, what's the point? Sometimes the most important thing is to simply get to the point and communicate your thought, even if there may be imperfections in the style of the phrase. Does that matter? Throughout the entire course of 'The Plague,' Joseph Grand attempts to write a novel, but never even finishes the first sentence, even though he works on it every evening.

So, in conclusion, we must all learn to sometimes ignore that inkling of doubt in the back of our mind, and come right out and say it. Now, as with any rule, you can take this too far. Of course revision is needed; of course you need to read through speeches countless times to make sure you won't miscommunicate, but in average daily conversation, it is not so important to craft each sentence perfectly. Let the Spirit guide and direct your speech.