My oldest daughter, @cheese_96, showed me the image below she had found on the Internet as a joke, but I thought to myself, “I bet I can make that work”.

A sharp knife or a pair of scissors and you can do use the two cradling packaging that protects the iPad in the box to cradle your iPad. Just take one, cut it in half and then cut a small slit from left to right over the existing slit. Your cut wants to go at least half way down in order to slide the iPad down far enough to give it a lean.

Now, for those of you who are thinking about it, yes the material is a cardboard like material that I’m sure will not last very long if not taken well care of. However, just to prove it works:

I had decided that I wanted to walk to a local restaurant here in Enid to grab a bite to eat for lunch. As I walked in, I wasn’t sure what I was in the mood for, but had heard that the food was good.

Upon sitting down at a table facing back towards the front of the restaurant and a window showing the street, I glanced at the menu the waitress handed me as an older gentleman wearing a WWII Veteran’s hat and what appeared to be some transitional pilot glasses came in and sat down facing me at the table directly in front of mine.

Joe "Doc" Bryant. Photography by Wess Gray.

After placing my order with the waitress, she asked him what he would like to have. I found it pure chance (and surely nothing miraculous) that he ordered the exact same thing I had ordered: country fried steak, mashed potatoes and gravy with some beans and toast. I chuckled to myself thinking that I must have ordered something that was good that this older gentleman came and ate on a regular basis.

With my father being a Vietnam veteran, I immediately had respect for the man sitting in front of me and began to wonder about his life and what branch of the military he had served in. Not sure how to start a conversation, or even why, as the waitress set my salad down in front of me and then him, I made a comment about the weather and almost without looking up from his salad, he responded, “Yeah it’s that time of year”.

Figuring the moment wasn’t right to bother the gentleman with small talk, I began to eat my salad and glanced out the window I was sitting by noting the clouds and dark sky. A few moments passed by and he asked me if I was from Enid. Looking back at him, I responded that I have only lived here for about 3 years, but that I’m originally from Southeastern Oklahoma. Interested in continuing the conversation, I asked him the same question and he responded that he had been here quite a while. He had mentioned that after he left the Air Force, he opened up a practice here in Enid. Later, I found out he moved here shortly after 1953.

I began telling him about how my wife, four daughters and I wound up in Enid three years ago as ministers and he was curious what I did for a living. I told him where I worked and that I had been there for almost three years come next July. I told him that I was in the ministry for a while and had settled in Enid while attending a Christian university and beginning an academic career to become a professor sometime down the road.

Remembering his statement about a practice, I asked him if he was a doctor and he told me that he was a retired dental surgeon. Impressed, I asked him about his military career and he told me that he was in the Air Force. He mentioned that he served first in World War II and then again in the Korean War. Doing some research this morning, I discovered that Joe had served in the Army Air Corps from 1944-1945 and then the US Air Force from 1950-1952[i].

We continued our conversation with Joe telling me about how he was also a musician. I spoke up and mentioned that I was a musician as well and have been playing most of my life. With that, he informed me that he taught music a little at Northern Oklahoma College here in Enid. Then, he briefly mentioned his family: his wife who was from Dallas and was a teacher for a while and one of his sons who lived in Enid, but did a lot of work in New York. He also told me that one of his granddaughters worked in the D.A’s office.

As I sat listening to Joe tell me a little bit of his story, I was intrigued and wanted to find out more about this man. But alas, my lunch hour was nearing an end and I needed to get back to work. When I asked my waitress for my check, I felt God give me on of those soul whispers and reminded me about the fact it was the Christmas season and that Roberta and I had been talking about wanting to give this season and first of next year instead of just receiving. I said, “God, what can I do?” “Pay for his lunch”, He said. I stood up and walked pass Joe and before I had the chance to speak, he told me he enjoyed talking with me and thanked me for the conversation. I replied that I really enjoyed speaking with him and hope to see him again soon.

Now, this is one of the very few times that I have done this (I’m a little bit of a stooge when it comes to offerings of blessings) and I’m not sharing this to gloat or gain praise for what I did. But, I knew God had been dealing with me about giving of myself over the past year and so on my way out, I paid the waitress and paid for Joe’s meal as well, leaving him a note with the waitress thanking him again for the conversation. I left feeling good and thanking God for the opportunity.

This morning, while I was at work, the receptionist informed me that I had a visitor and would like to visit for a moment. Not sure who it was, I walked up to the front and as I approached the door into the lobby, I smiled as I saw Joe Bryant standing there with a package.

I reached out and shook Joe’s hand with a smile bidding him a hello and he immediately began thanking for my kind gesture from yesterday’s lunch and handed me two CDs from the package and said he wanted to give me a gift as well. I looked down into my hands and saw that the covers of both CDs featured Joe playing jazz on his trumpet. As a musician and lover of all music, I really liked his gift and told him so. He thanked me quickly again and shook my hand. I let Joe know that I would love to sit with him again and get to know him some more and he said, “Well now that I know where you work, maybe I will come see you again soon”. I returned to my desk beaming with a joy that warmed my heart. God quickly spoke to my heart and said, “That’s a little bit of My Christmas spirit!”

Wanting to know more about Joe and his life here in Enid, I did a little research while listening to his two CDs featuring him playing the trumpet. I found out that his wife Jimmie Frances Sears Bryant had graduated from Texas Woman’s University in 1948, which apparently was “no small accomplishment for women of that era”.[ii] Joe married Jimmie married two years later. Not long after, Joe and Jimmie moved to Enid where Joe set up his dental practice.

Joe’s son, James Sears Bryant, I discovered was the founder of the Oklahoma Storm basketball team which won the USBL championship under head coach Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 2002. He is also the current vice president of business and legal affairs and general counsel at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. I also discovered that he served as general counsel for Philips Theological Seminary here in Enid when it still existed.[iii]

I was just amazed at how accomplished Joe and his family has been and I was extremely blessed meeting and talking with Joe, listening to his music (which was an awesome gift by the way) and learning more about his family and what they have done for Enid, Oklahoma and many others. This was truly an awesome way to start the Christmas season and it warmed my heart dearly. I hope that the LORD gives you a moment of Christmas cheer like mine as well. Merry Christmas and God bless!

I have never really thought of myself as a prejudiced person. I respect, appreciate and accept people from every culture. I will admit, most of the time, I’m afraid of interacting with some because I’m afraid my lack of knowledge about their culture would prove offensive and I honestly do not want to ever offend someone because of my ignorance. However, over the last six weeks in my Cultural Diversity course, I have discovered that I do have a couple of prejudices. While they are not what I would consider the normal prejudices necessarily, they are still presuppositions that I have identified and began a reevaluation of in order that I might be a better man of integrity and honorable unto God.

The first major prejudice that I discovered is a prejudice against people from India. Especially with the media depicting India as such an impoverished country, i.e. Slumdog Millionaire, I have viewed India, and more importantly, its people as underdeveloped. I’m not sure why this is necessarily the case other than the depictions of little Indian children playing on mounds of trash and filth while houses and businesses are packed between or nearby these mounds.

This perception of the underdeveloped and impoverished people of India carried over to my perception of their intelligence. For example, when I speak with customer service representative from a company that I may do business with, and that person is from India, I am immediately frustrated. This is in part because of my hearing impairment and the difficulty I have in distinguishing what they are saying with their thick Indian accent. But the other is the fact that I assume that in the midst of my struggle in communication, that the person I am speaking with is ignorant because they are also struggling to comprehend what it is I am asking for or instructing them to do. I have to be very careful because I often times, in situations like these, find myself becoming bitter and resentful towards this person I am on the phone with calling them all kinds of names in my head simply because they are from India.

I am also a little frustrated some times when I visit a hospital, particularly when I visited the Veteran’s Administration hospital in Oklahoma City where my father was often admitted, and the doctor was from India. Again, most of the frustration came from communication difficulties, but again, I found myself thinking, “How is it that he got a medical decree coming from India?” And often, I felt that they were looking down on my father and the rest of my family because we weren’t as intelligent as they. The Slumdog-mentality was raising its ugly head and I was being very judgmental.

Important Note: This particular prejudice has been challenged for me personally due to a recent interaction with a particular client and company from India when they asked me to put a redesigned website together for their company. I quickly found respect and thoroughly enjoyed my conversations with my client from India. The experienced enlightened me and, as already stated, challenged this particular prejudice.

My second major enlightenment was of a religious nature. Being raised in a traditional Pentecostal home, as the son of a preacher, there were certain perceptions I had developed, or thought was expected of me to have developed. However, after spending 8 years in ministry, something changed. I had a paradigm shift. Now, according to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary and Wikipedia, a paradigm shift is “a philosophical and theoretical framework” [1] that has been dramatically or significantly altered.[2]

I had come to a point in my life that I disagree with many of the things I was raised in as far as the Church was concerned. Except for what I call the essential doctrine of faith in God and Christ, everything else I was taught including certain perceptions about salvation, living a holy, Spirit-filled life, proper Church government and protocol, etc., I began to view in a critical light and often times personally condemned. While my personal disagreement with many of the established Christian doctrines of the Church are not necessarily evil, I began to feel judged or see others judged and condemned because I was not holding to what I saw as the traditional, evangelical beliefs of the Church. I often times saw prejudice, injustice and social intolerance of people who were different from the establishment and it bothered me deeply.

My wife and I have felt that we were meant to be a part of and experience a group of believers that are changing people’s lives for the kingdom of God. At a certain point, I decided that I didn’t want to say church because I had seen too much stereotypical attitudes coming from the traditional churches that make up the majority of Christianity, at least here in Oklahoma in the middle of the Bible belt.

So many judgments and misuse of Scripture is what really has turned me off to church. I mean, I got in trouble once as a youth pastor for saying I didn’t care if a teenager had a body-piercing or a tattoo, that I wouldn’t turn tell them to hide or change their looks. I know I don’t want that. I want a family. I want friends. I want acceptance. I want a community of like-minded believers, not puppets trying to mimic what someone says is right or wrong.

I know what my mission is. I want to share the love of Christ with everyone that I come in contact with. Did Christ reject or condemn someone because of who he or she was, how he or she dressed, or how he or she lived? The only condemnation I can find Christ give is to the Sadducees and Pharisees. These were people who were claiming to be the people of God. The teachers of the law. God’s chosen leaders. Dare I say that this closely resembles most church going Christians?

I realized that I started not liking the word Christian, however not because of what the word means. The Greek translation of the word Christian means to be Christ-like. There’s definitely nothing wrong with being Christ-like. However, I believe that because of the Church’s failure to safeguard the faith and its relationship with society, and remain truly transparent and human in our faith, we have allowed the word Christian to be associated with judgmental, egotistical, homophobic, religious, and political zealots. Strong words that I have been on the receiving end of just because I claimed to be a Christian.

I don’t want to be remembered by a name, but rather by who I was. While salvation is certainly not attained by works,  “Actions speak louder than words”. I once heard my best friend Nick Waters state that he wanted to be known as a Christ-follower. Turns out, there’s a word for this. Christian. In this Cultural Diversity class, I began to listen to my classmates list the typical prejudices that most people have, especially Christians. As I listened, my heart began to turn cold and that cynical and resentful part of me began screaming, “judgmental, egotistical, homophobic, religious, and political zealots!” listening to their intolerance and being sickened by it.

Then, ever so gently I felt the Holy Spirit prick my heart and say, “Despite their shortcomings and possible misconceptions of My will, My grace towards people, [theology], they are My children, and I love them. You are to love them too. You are being intolerant of their intolerance.” As I thought about that and realized that my turn was nearing to state my prejudice, I chuckled and asked God to forgive me. My prejudice was against the Church because I disagree with how we treat people in response to God’s overwhelming grace. While personally I believe this is still true, we have vastly underestimated God’s grace and love and try to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner as Christians, I realized that I have to be careful because I was becoming just as intolerant of my more conservative, traditional, fundamental brothers and sisters as I believed they were being of others; or more specifically, me.

But, what if we didn’t have all the goodies at the table? What if the banquet was absent? What if, on Thanksgiving, the only thing you had in this life was just that, your life? No money, no food, no friends, no family, no banquet table, no health, no home. Would you still be thankful? Think about what that would mean for you? Think about the family you have now. How will you be celebrating this Thanksgiving? How about the traditions in your family? How would you feel if those weren’t there to pass on? Who would you even have to pass them on to?

While you are sitting around your table full of all the good things God has given you, think about this. There are many people in this world experiencing the things I described. You may even know a few. They are spending Thanksgiving alone. They may be homeless, have no family, or no food. They may be laying in a hospital bed, unable to share thanksgiving with anyone. They may be poor and had to pay the electric bill instead of buy food.

This Thanksgiving Holiday, it is important for us to stop and pay attention to the less fortunate. It is not enough for us to merely pray for them, or send good thoughts their way. When we have been blessed with so much, and they have so little, it is a travesty when we do nothing to help them.

We can not be truly thankful to God without helping our fellow man. If we say to God, “Thank You for all You have given me,” yet we do nothing about the suffering and misfortune of others, does God really think our thanksgiving is sincere? Or can we show our thanks in a deeper, more sincere way, by helping someone less fortunate?

The Bible says in 1 John 3:17, “But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him-how can God’s love be within him?” May of us go through life throwing up our I’m-a-Christian card, yet we do nothing to show we are Christ-followers. Our lives don’t reflect the love that is supposed to be evident in us when we accept Christ into our lives. God has called us to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Proverbs 28:27 says, “If you give to the poor, your needs will be supplied! But a curse upon those who close their eyes to poverty.

Wow! A curse. That’s harsh. But there it is. God has told us in His word what we must do for those less fortunate. He has laid it out for us. We cannot continue to turn our eyes away form the poor and expect God to bless us. What we do here on this earth matters in eternity. Here is what Jesus had to say about it:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.  “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’  “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’(Matthew 25:34-40)

So, this Thanksgiving, if you haven’t been doing it already, start a new tradition in your family. Help someone less fortunate to have a happy Thanksgiving. It’s easy to only think of ourselves. But when we are able to step outside of our comfort zones and give with a thankful heart to someone else, that is when we are truly blessed.

If you wish to help others this Thanksgiving but don’t know how, you can go to http://feedingamerica.org/ and make a donation. May you and your family be richly blessed as the Holiday season begins.

A great example is the idea of divine sovereignty and free will. This has been part of a debate for centuries, “Can God be in total control while at the same time allowing man to have total free-will?” I wrote this as a college paper to examine and address the paradox of predestination, or divine sovereignty, and total libertarian free will and the possibility of how these two can coexist without contradicting one another.

I was recently thrust into this debate when the pastor of the church we were attending at the time asked for my opinion. A gentleman began attending our church and was teaching pre-destination in a small group. The pastor called and asked me, “Are you a Calvinist or Arminian?” seeking my advice on how to define the church’s stand and how to possibly address the situation. My answer: both. Now for most people who are familiar with the terms, which I will define soon, this would seem to be a contradiction or a paradox and therefore cannot be. However, I would beg to differ. But before I can offer a clear explanation of why I apparently believe in a paradox, I must first define the terms.

The first term is Calvinism, which was effectively started by a French theologian and pastor named John Calvin, also known by his French name Jean Cauvin, during the Protestant Reformation. Calvinism subscribes to the idea of total divine sovereignty, or in other words that God is in complete control of everything at all times and creation has no choice but to follow that plan.

Calvin differed with the established Roman Catholic view of soteriology or redemptive salvation. In 1536, his book Institutes of the Christian Religion was published which challenged several current Catholic views, one part of which was the doctrine of salvation. Out of Calvin’s teaching came what is known as the five points of Calvinism, or as it later became known by an acronym, which list the doctrines in English rearranged for ease of memorization, as TULIP. These five points were formulated as heads of doctrine as a direct rebuttal against the Five Articles of Remonstrance during a national synod, a group of Dutch churches, in Dordrecht in 1618-1619, but will be listed first. The five heads of doctrines declared by the Canons of Dort are rearranged in English as:[2]

1.)  Total depravity of man (or inability of man, slave to sin and/or unable to believe the gospel without Holy Spirit or God)

2.)  Unconditional Election (God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation/damnation before the creation of the world.)

3.)  Limited Atonement (Christ’s death was for the elect only)

4.)  Irresistible Grace or the Efficacious Call of the Spirit (call from the Holy Spirit to the elect cannot be rejected)

5.)  Perseverance of the Saints (Eternal Security)

Those who agree and subscribe to Calvin’s view of theology, especially soteriology, are called Calvinists. Calvinists ultimately believe that the events of the whole world, including the salvation of the believers, and damnation of unbelievers, were pre-determined by God before the foundations of creation. Thus, God’s predestination took affect after the fall of man which rendered man totally depraved, or unable to accept the righteousness of God in the Gospel, without direct irresistible action of God’s Spirit.

Calvinistic thought says that salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of God alone through the Trinity. God the Father chose His people before even the foundations of creation were laid. God the Son came to earth and died for them as the atoning sacrifice for their sins. Then finally, God the Holy Spirit came and makes Christ’s death effective by convicting or bringing the chosen elect to faith in Christ and causing them to repent of their sin. The entire process of election is the work of God and is by His grace alone. Thus God, not man, is the instigating agent and will determine who will receive the gift of salvation. This is known as monergism.[3]

The opposite view of pre-destination is called Arminianism or libertarian free will. This is the soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity that came from a Dutch Reformed theologian named Jacobus Arminius and his followers known as the Remonstrants in the late 16^th century and early 17^th century. After being taught by Calvin’s son-in-law and successor, Theodore Beza, Arminius rejected Calvin’s teaching and began to formulate his understanding of the Scriptures.

As a result of Arminius’ writings and teachings, in 1610, the Remonstrants, the followers of Arminius, formulated what was called the Five Articles of Remonstrance. The five articles are as follows:[4]

1.)  Conditional Predestination

2.)  Universal Atonement

3.)  Saving Faith

4.)  Resistible Grace (of God and the Holy Spirit)

5.)  Uncertainty of Perseverance (Falling from Grace)

According to Arminian thought, salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God the Father who initiates the process, and man who must respond, or more accurately accept or deny the gift of salvation. It is man’s response, his faith in Christ or rejection of Christ, that is the determining, or conditional factor. This is also known as synergism.[5] This is the thought that act of salvation is completed by the cooperation between to two efficient agents in regeneration: initiated by God and completed by man’s accepted faith in Christ.

God has provided salvation for all mankind, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to believe in Him and accept His gift of salvation. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role. This does not diminish in any way the sovereignty of God, but rather He gave man the ability to choose between salvation and damnation. He then commanded us to choose between salvation and damnation. Regardless of our choice, we have done exactly what we were commanded to do, and doing what one is commanded is in no way usurping the commander.

So, here lies the struggle and debate between pre-destination and free will. Can God’s sovereign will be accepted or rejected by man’s free will? Is it a monergistic effort by God alone or a synergistic effort between God who instigated salvation and man who willingly accepts? As stated earlier, I believe that the answer is both: God’s sovereign will is applied to our lives as He plans it and He gives man the free will to make choices over his own destiny. Again, there are some who would call this a paradox and I would agree with them in the sense that these are two seemingly contradictory statements, but they are both true.

For years, I have thought about God’s sovereign will and my free will and how much grace God extends to me in my life in regards to sin and my choices. Finally, one day, I read a book entitled Blink by Ted Dekker. In the book, it is revealed that God has given the main character, Seth, this newfound, yet temporary ability to see anywhere from two minutes up to a couple of hours into the future.[6]

The interesting thing is Seth sees multiple choices he has available during a given situation and the outcome of each decision. At first, it’s just a couple, but then it’s hundreds of thousands of choices and outcomes, each different whether slightly or great. These situations that Seth experiences are laid on a path and each path has different decisions or turns. Ultimately, Seth wants to choose a path that will accomplish the same desired destination with the least amount of resistance or trouble. Now, granted, some of the outcomes result in his death and that is a destination he tries to avoid, but the concept that Seth is given the choice to determine how he gets to the already determined or desired destination was very intriguing.

Now, I know for some this concept of precognitive thought sounds a lot like telling the future and therefore must be witchcraft, but I was really intrigued by the concept that God was giving Seth insight into how He sees the choices and outcomes of man. Therefore, this concept was archived in my controversial thoughts as potentially helpful to understand how God has predetermined an individual’s life, yet gives the individual the ability to choose the different turns to make on life’s path.

My Calvinist friends would say, but if you’re given the ability to make the decisions of your turns, then God is not ultimately in control and therefore His Sovereignty is lessened. However, I would look to the example we have as parents giving our children the ability to make their own decisions and choices knowing that sometimes their decisions will be a mistake and that they will learn from those mistakes and will ultimately make future decisions that will be acceptable to the parents’ will. Does the parent give up complete parental control in this situation or does the parent ultimately remain in control because when the child learns from the mistake, they listen and take heed to the parent’s will? Or does the parent limit their involvement so that the child may have free will?

With respect to God, this known as God’s self-limitation.[7] Just as a parent will limit his or her direct involvement when trying to allow a child to be a free agent, God allows man to make decisions and then He modifies the path of life to fit the decision made by the free agent. Does this mean that God’s will “bends”? If one chooses to look at this in a negative sense, even then, the answer must be yes. Before screaming blasphemy, I would ask you to look at examples of when God’s will, or mind, was changed by the direct intervention of a righteous individual.

For example, we can examine the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18, God has determined that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are so wicked and evil that all who live in the city shall perish by utter destruction. However, we see that even God Himself, considers His actions before destroying the cities.

17 The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”20 Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (Genesis 18:17-21, ESV)

Starting in verse 22, we see that Abraham begins to intercede for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on behalf of his nephew Lot to change God’s mind. God had originally determined to destroy the whole city with everyone in it. However, Abraham, through successional inquiries of the Lord, asks God to spare anywhere from fifty to even only ten people from His wrath.

I suggest the same is also true of David. David obviously made many, many mistakes. While he respected and honored God, there were times where David’s own decisions and actions went against God’s perfect will. Does God throw up His arms and condemn David to eternity in Hell because of his mistakes? Surely not! Because of David’s repentant heart, God allows the path along David’s life to be slightly modified after David cries out and repents.

It is easily seen here then that while God is still sovereign and the just judge of all, He allows His own will to be limited by the faith of the righteous. Again, as a matter of semantics, it is not man who limits God’s will, but God Himself who limits His will. Man’s feeble requests are powerless to actually change the mind of God in and of itself, but a loving and merciful God has predestined that those who have faith in Him also have His ear.

I propose that it can even be simplified further. If I was to travel on the path of life and God wanted me to ultimately reach a certain destination, He starts me on the path pointed in the right direction. However, I believe that God’s permissive will and His self-limitation allows for me to walk off the path, or even when faced with a crossroads, I choose to turn right when God’s perfect will would have wanted me to turn left. It is possible that God then, through His permissive will, allows this turn and just as a global positioning system would do, recalculates the route so that I still head for the destination He wants.

However, in His own self-applied limitation, He allows me to completely walk off the path if I so choose and thus why I believe it’s possible to backslide or fall from grace. However, I would argue that this is extremely hard to do, and therefore improbable once you’ve experienced the love and acceptance of Christ. Notice I said improbable, but not impossible. Paul the apostle even suggests this when he says,

38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39, ESV)

This would ultimately include man’s own actions. Nothing that I do can separate me from the love of God. God’s love, and therefore His grace and mercy, is extended to me no matter what just as a father will unconditionally love his child[8]. This would also include my own decisions and actions. I can choose to reject God, but God’s intention is to win me over, and if I accept His salvation, will never choose to “leave me nor forsake me” (Hebrews 13:5, NIV).

As mentioned earlier, there are some who would take offense to this possible suggestion that God would debase Himself by lowering his superiority to allow man to make such decisions and adjust the threads of fate to fit man’s choices. However, in his book, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, Hendrikus Berkhof describes God’s self-limitation not as defenselessness, but as superiority.

“So everywhere in revelation we meet a God who retreats to give us room in our rebellion against him. He is like the father who gives his possessions to his rebellious son (Luke 15). That is what we tried to say in the word defenselessness. Yet we have to save that this cannot be the final word, though it can be a first. It can provide an adjective, but not a noun. God would not be God, and we would not even have encountered him in the space which he has created for us and which we have reserved for ourselves, if his defenselessness would have been the defenselessness of powerlessness. The opposite is the case. The defenselessness is the expression of his superiority. He can yield because he knows that he will win. Therefore yielding is only the first visible sign of a movement which is rather the possessive of a retreat: a new and hidden active presence. The creation of man means freedom for man and delegation of authority from God. But God keeps accompanying man as his sustainer and lawgiver. When man has fallen into sin, God does not abandon him but goes after him with his invitations and warnings, his favors and his judgments. In Israel he enters anyway into a covenant with man who is estranged from him, a covenant which man continually breaks through his disobedience, but which God in his faithfulness permanently maintains. This disobedience does, however, compel God to be present differently that was his intention. But he is never absent. He is present in his judgments when he allows his unfaithful covenant partner to walk his self-chosen path all the way to the bitter end. But when man has reached that end and stands there with empty hands, he discovers that God is there waiting for him as his redeemer.”[9]

Another possible bridge between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is called molinism. Molinism is a theological and philosophical look at God’s sovereignty and man’s free will that was formed by the 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. Molina’s doctrine is based on the concept of God’s middle knowledge. As the term suggests, middle knowledge is between two existing, traditional categories of divine knowledge, or epistemology, as lined out by Thomas Aquinas, called natural and free knowledge. It is important to note that most molinists view these three separate moments of God’s knowledge as logical moments, not necessarily sequential or chronological moments.

Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of everything that could be, or in other words, the possibilities. Middle knowledge, therefore, is God’s knowledge of everything that would happen or the probabilities. Another way of thinking of middle knowledge is that it is God’s knowledge of “how a free being would freely act if placed in a certain total set of circumstances”.[10] Free knowledge then is God’s knowledge of everything that will happen or the actual reality.

A leading thought that opens the door for middle knowledge is that if God only knows what will happen, the reality, then He’s reacting and not in control. Therefore the molinist approach is what if God knows what possibly could, probably would and ultimately will happen? An example used by Dr. Ron Nash, formerly a professor of philosophy at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, is Judas’ betrayal of Christ. “God controls the [situational] circumstances that prevails when we come to make choices, but leaves the choice up to you.”[11] Nash gives the example of Judas betraying Christ for 30 pieces of silver.

Middle knowledge says that God actualized the situation in which Judas would be offered 30 pieces because He knew what it would take for Judas to betray Jesus. What if Judas was only offered 10 pieces of silver? Would Judas have decided that it was not worth it to betray Christ? Prophecy stated that Christ must be betrayed so God actualized the situation where Judas would be offered exactly 30 pieces of silver. However, God didn’t cause Judas to make his decision. He simply put Judas in that situation to where he had to make a choice and God knew that Judas would have the highest probability of choosing to betray Christ for 30 pieces of silver. It was Judas’ choice, not God’s. The probability is not that God was not sure if Judas would make the choice, but rather the most feasible situation where Judas himself would make that decision.

Nash brings up the question of entrapment and how this is where he personally questions middle knowledge in regards to true molinism and God’s sovereignty. Entrapment is where authorities, such as the police, lure an individual into committing a criminal act when under normal circumstances he would not have committed the crime. Nash questions the fact that in order for God to bring about the state of affairs where Judas betrayed Jesus, God had to “manipulate” the world affairs to where both Judas is there and the Jewish leaders offered him exactly 30 pieces of silver.

Again, this is where Nash begins to have problems with molinism, but why would a Calvinist would have a problem with this because God’s sovereign will still takes effect. God forced the situation that a decision needed to be made and prophecy was fulfilled. On the other hand for Arminianists, it was the free will of Judas to betray Christ; God did not force Judas to make the decision he made. Nash’s point is, “A sovereign God shouldn’t have to become this involved … to make sure His sovereign will is accomplished.”[12] Or should He?

Paul Helm, a professor of theology and philosophy at Regent College, was quoted by Nash to have said “unless God possess Middle Knowledge, He can’t be in sovereign control of the whole world.”[13] I would agree with Helm. Further, I do not see that it takes away from God’s sovereignty to become involved to make sure that His will is still accomplished by allowing man to freely make decisions and then altering the path based on man’s decision. I say alter because we have to live with the decisions that we make, even if they were bad decisions. But ultimately, God will alter, or manipulate, the path after my decisions for His will and our good. Romans 8:28 tells us, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” This is how we take encouragement during hard times such as tragedies and believe that some good will come out of this.

There is another question that this raises. If I am placed in a situation where I must make a choice to sin or not to sin, and I choose to sin, and therefore fall, but then ask for forgiveness, do I still suffer the consequences of my sin? The ultimate eternity consequence answer is no because I chose to repent of my sin and God through Christ has forgiven me, but does God allow me to suffer any immediate consequences of my actions? I believe the answer is yes He does.

This is ultimately a debate over what is considered God’s perfect will or His permissive will. We can see examples of God’s permissive will with Abraham and David as mentioned earlier. A great personal example is what my wife went through. Before marrying me, she was working very hard as an independent, single woman to accomplish things herself such as owning her own home. She prayed for a long time that God would let her buy a home. She lamented because while she dearly wanted to purchase her first home, God would not allow her to do it. Then, finally when an opportunity presented itself for her to possibly buy a home, she instantly grabbed at it and got a loan at a bank to purchase the home. Then after we got married, through a series of events, we lost the home. God allowed my wife to purchase the home even though it may not have been in His perfect will.

We had to live with the decision she made even though it was a mistake. Through a long series of events, we were eventually forced to declare bankruptcy, but out of these events, we came to live near my parents for a while and became their youth pastors at my dad’s church. From here, my call into the ministry continued. God’s destined plan still took affect, even if slightly detoured. Everything that we lost in the bankruptcy has been restored in God’s timing.

So, how does God’s middle knowledge tie in to salvation? Dr. William Lane Craig talks about this on his website.

“Reformed theology [Calvinism] can make no sense at all of this wonderful, universal call to salvation. Whosoever will may come.

Paul’s burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God’s election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation.

Of course, given God’s total providence over the affairs of men, this is not the whole story. But Molinism makes good sense of the rest. John 6. 65 means that apart from God’s grace no one can come to God on his own. But there’s no suggestion there that those who refused to believe in Christ did not do so of their own free will. God knows in exactly what circumstances people will freely respond to His grace and places people in circumstances in which each one receives sufficient grace for salvation if only that person will avail himself of it. But God knows who will respond and who won’t. So again the fault does not lie with God that some persons freely resist God’s grace and every effort to save them; rather they like Israel fail to attain salvation because they refuse to have faith.”[14] (Craig 2007)

While contemporary molinism may not be the most comfortable and rational answer, the concept of middle knowledge does lend some truth and credence to the argument of the coexisting systems of divine sovereignty and free will especially in regards to salvation. But, does it effectively build a bridge between God’s predestined will and man’s free will? Does molinism answer this age-old dilemma? A respected philosopher and personal friend of mine told me recently, “if we ever truly say we have it totally figured it all out, then we’ve lost the mystery of God. And God uses His mysteries to show us His beauty and glory”.

It would seem to me then that it is not so much a question of if we have the answers or have totally figured out the issue, but rather can we come to some kind of a seemingly balanced and moderate, or thought-out, approach to grace and salvation as well as other matters of theology and life? If so, then the matter would be, if not resolved, feasibly put at rest in the mind and heart of the believer, and I believe God would honor and respect this approach.

[NOTE] I wrote this originally a year or two ago on YouVersion.com.

In his article, Women in Ministry: Practical Application of Biblical Teaching, Randy Stinson presents the concept that because women aren’t allowed to have authority over men, they are only ordained by God to be teachers and given authority of other women and children.

Stinson states that there are two meanings to the word leading in relation to women in ministry. One is having authority over a group of believers such as a pastor or elder. The other is having the responsibility to coordinate group efforts. In this regards, it’s his belief that women should be able lead other women and children, but should not instruct men.

He quotes 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as proof that women should not have authority or leadership in the church.

Stinson interprets this passage of scripture as Paul restricting women from being able to teach men and having authority over men. He then goes so far to say that “a woman is prohibited from holding any office or position in the church that would require her either to teach Scripture or Christian doctrine to men, or to exercise authority over men.”

He also goes on to say that because of his findings that a woman cannot be an adult Sunday School teacher or Bible study leader because “given her position in the class, it is likely that class members would view her as having a position of authority over the group”.

This concept is carried over to praise and worship services and women leading those services. Stinson says that we should question if she would provide doctrinal commentary, biblical, and/or theological reflection between songs?

He seems to focus on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as his reoccurring primary support for his findings. I find it odd that he keeps revolving around this sole passage of Scripture. He does mention Titus 1:9 and 1 Peter 5:1-3. He mentions them only because he’s trying to outline the biblical definition of an elder, overseer, and pastor. He also mentions Titus 2:3-5 saying that if a woman was to co-team a Bible study or Sunday School class, it would “diminish the effort she gives to ministering to women in accordance with Titus 2:3-5.”

I find several things hard to agree with in Stinson’s article, but his main argument is the foundation for the rest. The foundation he lays with 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is out of context.

One must examine the words submissiveness and man mentioned in this passage using Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance along with Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary. The root of the Greek word used for submissiveness is ὑποτάσσω or hupotassō. It means to obey and submit self unto another. The next word ἀνήρ or anēr is defined as man, but also, fellow, husband, and sir.

A reoccurring theme in Paul’s letters is the relationship between a husband and his wife. God’s institution of marriage is so powerful and meaningful that Paul brings it up with almost every church that he interacts with. If we were think back to the Corinthian church, we see that there was a specific problem of women usurping their husbands’ authorities. I believe the same is true in this case with Timothy. Paul even directly mentions Adam and Eve’s relationship in verse 14.

So, a wife is not to instruct or rule over her husband. This does not rule out a teaching ministry. Nor does it rule out preaching or pastoral ministry for women (Titus 2:4), but, rather, their ministry and leadership should come under the protection and direction of their husbands. A fine example of this is in the book of Acts with Aquila and Priscilla. We see this couple throughout the book of Acts as working together to minister as the Holy Spirit leads them. Priscilla, no doubt, has her own contributions to the ministry. However, she always performs this ministry in conjunction with her husband’s approval and support.

A woman should always remember to remain submissive to her husband while in leadership, not because she is inferior or is inadequate intellectually. However, it should be observed in obedience to God’s institution of marriage and as a means of avoiding confusion and maintaining order.
——————————————————————————————-
UPDATE: I was playing in a worship band for a Women’s Conference not too long ago when Lisa Bevere was the speaker. One night during her sermon, she was talking about submission and I love her definition. If we look at the word submission, there are literally two words in it “sub” which means under and “mission” which means an assignment. God wants men and women to work in submission to each other, or God wants a man and a woman to be under assignment together. My wife and I led a small group using Dr. Emerson Eggsrichs’ Love & Respect video teaching. In the group, we taught that in whatever situation a couple may find themselves in, a woman is working with her husband under assignment from God: for example, they are under assignment from God to work together to raise their children. In all situations and in most decisions, she may defer to her husband’s judgement out of respect for him.

While some of the churches Paul was visiting and instructing did have some specific troublesome women who were being extremely disrespectful of their husbands in their time and culture, this is one of those areas that I’m sure God did not intend the same thing to be applied worldwide for all time. He expects us to use better wisdom and judgement.

What are your thoughts about women in ministry? What about submission? Leave a comment and start a discussion …

When Jesse and I were first married we moved to Elmore City, Oklahoma to live near his parents and be the youth pastors at the small church where his dad pastored in Foster, only a few miles away. We made $200 per month. We still had to pay the rent, utilities and buy groceries for a family of five.

We felt in our hearts that even though we made so little, we still needed to be faithful and obedient to God’s word. So we continued to tithe twenty little dollars per month; every month before we paid our bills. Most people would call that crazy. Why in the world would anyone who didn’t even make enough money to pay their rent give money to a church? Yet, we did. And the results were miraculous. We were faithful and obedient to God and He in turn blessed us and met our needs. We were able to pay our bills on time every month. We were able to later move into a rent free house. There was always food on the table. Not one of our kids went without school clothes or supplies…or even without Christmas. God remained faithful to what He promised in Malachi 3:10. Because of our commitment to stay true to His word, God honored us. Since that time we have had our financial ups and downs. We have given out of abundance, and we have given out of need. The important thing is that we keep on giving regardless of our circumstances.

Many people will argue that they cannot afford to tithe. I argue that a person can’t afford not to. A tithe is ten percent of your income. So for every dollar you make, God should get ten cents. That doesn’t seem like a whole lot does it? The Bible says that if we hoard our money and always say we do not have enough to give, it will be as if our “money bags” have holes in them. There will never be enough. Have you ever felt that way? You work your fingers to the bone and by payday have nothing to show for it? I used to feel that way. I used to only give to God when I had a lot of money during tax season. I never gave in faith. I never gave to God when I had a need. I was afraid that if I gave to God I would not have enough to make it.

Giving when we have plenty requires no faith and no sacrifice from us. But if we give when we are in need and do not have it to give; now that’s faith in action. God honors that. Look at the woman who gave her last penny to God. Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.(Mark 12:41-44)” Jesus honored this woman for her sacrifice. She gave all she had. She gave out of her need. When we give comfortably there is no sacrifice. We slip a twenty in the offering plate and don’t think anything of it. But what if you only made $200 per month? What if that $20 of tithes would buy you gas money for the week? Would you still give it? Just as the woman who gave all she had, it takes a lot of faith and willingness to honor God and give out of your need.

Every penny we make is on loan to us from God. Our jobs are not our source of income. God is our source. It is when we believe that our source of income is our employment that we can lose sight of the true Provider. God wants us to totally depend on Him alone. He is our Provider and Protector. When we begin depending on ourselves and our abilities to meet our needs we are failing to put Him first. God never asks of us more than we can give. And he never gives us more than we can handle. We need to realize that God is not asking us to give up all of our income. He’s only asking for a portion so that His kingdom can grow and people can be reached with the Gospel. If everyone gave only ten percent just think of what could be accomplished for the Kingdom of God.

If you are struggling in the area of giving a portion of your income to God I want to encourage you to take a leap of faith. It’s not easy to take that first step, but I promise that when you do, you will be surprised at what happens next. I can’t promise that all of your problems will come to an end, but I do know that you will be richly blessed for your sacrifice.

Leave your thoughts in the comments.

What do you think? Should women be allowed in church leadership? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Check back soon for my thoughts …

This the [sic] “The” slippery slope question. It will divide us forever. This argument pits us against one another for the sake of who is right, who is causing who to stumble, who God loves more, who God uses more… You can build your own brand of legalism and many have died on this hill. Paul said for those whose conscience makes something a sin. Its a sin. Some of you have made this sin. Others have liberty but are very careful where they exercise that liberty or choose not to at all – and are probably back to the yoke of voluntary legalism.

I love what Martin Luther said

“Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”

The answer is, this is absurd. The pancake example was a good one along the same lines. Appearance of evil? Maybe you shouldnt drink pepsi because some of the cans look like beer cans. That might make someone stumble. God forbid they think you are drinking a beer! Probably shouldnt watch the superbowl either – those godaddy commercials are bad. And Disney – Oh my. They support homosexuality and I wouldnt want to identify with that. I should boycott them. Of course they own ABC and I love LOST so thats really different, right? (By the way i’ve actually been to Disney during Gay week. It was nice because fewer Christians were there and it wasnt as crowded)

As I was sitting in the pub tonight drinking a Yeunling reflecting on the sin of drinking light beer and this blog post, I asked my lost friends if it was OK for me to drink in public. At first they misunderstood and thought I was asking “Is it OK for a preacher to pull out the flask during his sermon because he had a tough week and needs to take the edge off?” When they understood what I meant about public drinking they said – so wouldn’t it be hypocrisy to do it privately and NOT publicly because of some arbitrary taboo?

Seriously – If drinking is a sin then communion has to be Welches grape juice. Thank God I was baptist when I grew up so I never sinned.

Whatever you eat or drink – do that to the Glory of God! Isnt that the bottom line? Love God – Love others. And if it took Jesus death on a cross to save you – are you really niave enough to think you can add something to your life (or take away something) that’s going to help you in the next life. Is there another heaven? A better one?

Here is the modern Christian commandment. Love God, Love Others, Go to an Evangelical church that preaches the TRUE gospel and don’t drink beer (in public) and don’t watch R rated movies, and don’t smoke and don’t cuss and don’t chew tobacco and don’t watch Nascar (cause Godaddy has one) and only listen to Christian Music and only watch shows that focus on the family and avoid all appearance of evil and dress modestly and wear long dresses and put doilies on your head and never shave your beard and don’t be worldly so cut off your electricity and get a horse and buggy.

Good grief. Lets ask this question. While people around you are dying and going to hell what do you think is the most urgent discussion we should have? Im thinking its what style of worship pleases God the most. Thats whats wrong with the church today. Personally I think God likes Free Bird because old music is more Godly. – Dave Anderson (moviepastor)

Interesting approach Dave. What YOUR thoughts? Check back soon for mine ….