Author: Paul Burkhart

A Theology of Acting

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

My “final exam” in this acting class I’ve been taking at VCU was on Thursday of this past week. For the class, I had to keep a “journal” to record my experiences through the course. This is one of my “entries.” I hope you all enjoy:

So where is God in acting, anyway? I really do think that all art points to and represents God in some way. So what about acting? I’ve been wrestling through this for a bit now and I’ve come to a couple of ideas:

1 – All parts of the Bible are dramatic representations of the ultimate plan of God – the Gospel. So, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph, Moses, the Exodus, the Exile, the sacraments are all dramas (“shadows” as the Bible calls them) of realities greater than the sum of these parts. SO maybe acting is true art (or more accurately, drama is) because the basic organizational structure of personality, history, and reality itself is a giant dramatic arrow pointing to God and the Gospel.

2 – Acting explores various aspects of the “Imago Dei” – or, Image of God in man. It’s purity, potential, purpose, and perversion. All these aspects of the present reality of that “thing” that makes us human are the substance of good acting. When you touch that part of us, perhaps you touch something divine. The same thing that the incarnation touched in people as Jesus – divinity in humanity – walked among us. The same thing that will be touched for all time when all God’s people adore and behold Jesus for the rest of time. This leads me to my last point.

3 – Acting could be a symbol of the Incarnation. Jesus became that which he was not (human) to such an extent He became that while not leaving the reality of who He was (divine). It is in this process of God taking on the nature of what He was not in order to redeem it, that the greatest “method acting,” if you will, was ever seen. This is a very weak and poorly developed parallel, but hopefully thought provoking nonetheless.

Indeed, these are just possibilities, but they made me think about and love Christ more, so my hope in writing this is that all of you will to.

–paul

Jesus? May I?

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

Jesus?

I sit here at this laptop, a vision bouncing ‘round my head
to write a prose to you that shows your grace, beauty, and strength.
But I’m tired and I keep typoingt ypos, over and iver again.
And you know what?  I’m not going to correct that above,
because that really was an accident.

I know, I know.  “Nothing’s new” I heard the wise one once said.
No thought, no word, no deed has the sun not shone itself upon.
Looking down, looking down upon my filthy rags, mocking and burning,
mocking and burning.  I just need to get this out!

Oh, Christ! Will thou not enable me to write these words?

He won’t.

Some may say I’m attempting some not so subtle display of irony,
trying to be original, profound, or cute; noting the use of prose to Him
as my medium for my diatribe on not being able to write a prose to Him,
but it’s not.

These words are nothing, they are filth, not fit for the King I serve.
No edits, no plans, no thoughts or “brainstorming” went into this.
Just the feeble cries of a broken man, wallowing, drowning, fighting,
losing.  It seems.

The weight of people not yet known – their souls upon my shoulders.
The sin I bear upon my back, the doubt that grows within.
I’m lost.  I’m depraved.  My futile thinking, my hardened heart,
my ignoble desires, my Glorious King! the One I have! the One I need!

Oh Christ!  Oh Sovereign Lord!  Be the God to me You are!
Oh that my tongue were loosed with the tongues of angels
to say all your Grace could say!

Let my soul take flight! Rise me into Thy Love!
Faster.  Faster!  Make me only Thine!  I need it!
I must! I lust, covet, and gluttonously gorge myself upon
the Grace I so desperately need desperately. . .

desperately.

And even with that, I end this now, not having said
what I wanted to say – what I needed to say.
Your Grace did not come, or at least in the measure I hoped.
This burden thus stays, this wineskin won’t burst,
this angst will continue to grow.

But I know, in the quietest parts of my soul, those deep whispers
and silent voices, echoing within:
my Beloved is mine and i am His, and His Grace is at His whim,
for if it were up to me, I would not need Him,

and it’s in my need I have Him most.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III, (Part 5a)

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

This post will consist of the first part (of 3) of my theological response to the fourth point of John Slye of Grace Community Church in Arlington’s message called “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” I can’t believe these posts are getting so long. I really could write a book about this.

Once again, for reference, his point and references:

4. God is not on the throne.
-“…Satan, the ruler of this world…” –John 12:31(Msg)
-“Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, ‘If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.’” –Matt. 4:8,9(NCV)
-“The devil who rules this world…” –2 Cor. 4:4(NCV)
-“…the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19(NLT)

I struggled for a while to know how to organize this, but I think I got it. This post will talk about God’s sovereignty and present authority in (1) Sin, (2) Satan, and (3) Salvation.

(1) God’s Sovereignty and Present Authority in Sin
For this I’ll focus on God’s role in (a) the first sin in the world, (b) the greatest sin in the world, and (c) a weird Old Testament passage

(a) The First Sin – Adam’s sin – was absolutely known, ordained, and planned by God. He did not do it or make Adam do it, but it was certainly part of the plan. Let’s go to Genesis 2. The first command God ever gave man, is found in verses 16 and 17: “And the Lord commanded the man, saying ‘You may surely eat eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it [alt. translation: ‘when you eat of it’] you shall surely die.” We all know the rest of the story. Adam did, and subsequently ushered in what we now call “The Fall of Man.” What part did God play in this? Notice that God did not say “you shall not eat, for if you eat of it, you shall surely die.” He said “when” you eat of it. In the Hebrew this is a statement of inevitability and foreknowledge. He pretty much says to Adam, “Hey Adam, tomorrow you’re going to eat of that fruit. Don’t do it.” God absolutely knew this was coming, and He ordained it so. Many will say, “yes He knew it was coming but because of His love for man, He let man freely decide to sin while He hoped and wished that man would not do it.” I think this is true – to an extent. Remember my last real post. God had been decreeing the Gospel from eternity past, before the world was created, and this Gospel is about saving sinners from themselves. People had to Fall according to the Will of God, that He might save them and receive Glory for it, all while God maintained His hatred for Sin.

(b) The Greatest Sin – So what was the greatest sin the world has ever known? Killing the Son of God. Surely murdering the Second Person of the Trinity – the Incarnation of all that is perfect, beautiful, and satisfying must be the most despicable act ever done. God brought it about. Isaiah 53:10 literally says of God’s role in the Messiah’s death: “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief.” Even more explicit is Acts 4:24, 27-28, where the believers all sing to God saying, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, . . . truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” His “hand,” symbolizing His exerted influence, did the predestinating here. Do not get foreknowledge and predestination mixed up. God brings about what he predestines, and most surely ordained (“anointed”) Pilate, Herod, Romans, Greeks, and Jews to freely kill the Son of God upon their own free accord, all the while being the Main Actor in the background bringing it to pass. How this works is a profound mystery I will not even pretend I understand.

(c) On a final note, I’d like to bring attention to 1 Samuel 2:25. Eli is rebuking his sons and he tells them to stop sinning against God. But verse 25 says: “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.” They sinned by disobeying the fifth commandment by not listening to their Father (Deut. 5:16), but the text says they sinned because God was willing to do something else. So, somehow, Hophni and Phineas freely sinned, but it was according to the will of God so that God could bring something about.

Next time (very shortly) we will discuss the relationship between the Sovereignty of God and Sata.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Selah)

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

“This is not hard to see in the Bible. And it is precious beyond words! I don’t like to get angry at people who call themselves evangelicals; I don’t delight in critiquing people who have major leadership positions [who are] very popular, nice people. This is not fun. It’s heartbreaking! But what can you do when they attack the center with blasphemous cynicism? What can you do?”
— John Piper

John Piper said this concerning N.T. Wright, the British bishop who is now bringing doubt to the orthodox doctrine of Justification. When Piper said this, he was weeping. It has been haunting me these past few days. What you are reading now is my third attempt in writing this post. I keep writing a bit then having to toss it out. Each time my heart still hasn’t been in the right place.

I need to repent. My heart has not been in the right place in these rebuttals. While I feel I’ve done a good job of not letting that effect what I’ve written, sin management is still sin, and it eats you up more than most other sins. My heart has only in the past couple of days been brought to the place that Piper’s quote above comes from. As of a few days ago, I was excited. I, the “great Paul Burkhart,” have been successfully dismantling the argument of a real Pastor. I was defending the faith. I was rebuking lies. I was showing myself better suited for this task than this man. Though I never said these things, I see now this was the state of my heart. Pride. Making my theology an idol, no matter how right it may be, is still sin – and for that I am sorry.

At the end of all these posts, I intend to send them to Pastor Slye and to the person who (with glowing praise) referred me to his sermon. I let unrighteous anger and pride drive me to write, rather than love, and I need to let Slye know that I see this, and I repent. All the Bible says about us young guys is that we are strong, prideful, and foolish. The Bible knows us better than we do, and I thought I could rise above the norm for other twentysomethings. How wrong I was! “O what a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Now, I need to do the rest of this tactfully and biblically. The verses right after the verses I just quoted (Romans 7:24-25a) are as follows: “So then, I myself serve the Law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” I think I relate to Paul here. Though with my flesh I have served the law of sin with my pride and arrogance, I still believe I have been serving the Law of God with my mind. I am still certain in the things I have been writing and writing against, I just need to repent for the heart from which I wrote them.

So, I’m going to finish this series, but I hope the tone is different. I no longer look at Slye in contempt as a heretic who needs to be rebuked and shown proper exegetical and theological integrity by the punk VCU student about to go into seminary. I go through this now as a fellow wounded sojourner, seeing why he thinks how he does. I see him as a man who stands week after week in front of God knows how many people who have been burned and hurt by the church, that come to him with their broken suffering hearts needing to know why. Needing to know God has not abandoned them. Needing to know that God is still good and they are still loved. O how calloused I’ve become because of my theology! After Lazarus dies, and Mary doubts Jesus for not being there earlier. Jesus doesn’t say, “Now now, Mary, your theology is all wrong. How dare you doubt me? O you of little faith.” No. He weeps with her, and then lives out those theological truths before her.

Though I am certain that Slye’s view on suffering is unbiblical and ultimately only leads to more cynicism and pain on behalf of the sufferer, I know that as a man who was reluctant to become Pastor in the first place (as their website says), it must have been hard when faced with the weight and realities of real life that I have yet to experience. But experience aside, the Bible is the greatest commentary and authority on true reality, and as such, I believe I have Biblical warrant to honestly and humbly show where Slye has erred in his theology.

This process now for the first time hurts me and breaks my heart. Please pray for me as I continue in this. I no longer want to do this, but the Gospel of Christ compels me, as I have seen that there is only one true comforting view in the midst of the hardest pains. And that is the view of a loving Father who lets nothing touch you that does not first pass through his loving, ordaining hand such that all things that come our way have been ordained and brought to pass ultimately by a God working for our good – building us into the strong, persevering, hope-filled, Glory-loving, broken clay vessels that we need to be to truly enjoy Him and fully worship Him when He finally takes us home.

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.”

Selah

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Part 4 of 7)

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

This entire post will be dedicated just to the point of Slye’s sermon that made me the most frustrated. Actually, the next two posts will be. This will just cover my problems with his method of Biblical Interpretation. The next post will be my theological reasons. His point is as follows:

4. God is not on the throne.
-“…Satan, the ruler of this world…” –John 12:31(Msg)
-“Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, ‘If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.’” –Matt. 4:8,9(NCV)
-“The devil who rules this world…” –2 Cor. 4:4(NCV)
-“…the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19(NLT)

My problems with this point are three-fold: Exegetical, Theological, and Psychological/Spiritual

I: Exegetical: This word “exegetical” is just a big word for “Bible Interpretation.” That’s my first problem with this point in the sermon – Slye’s methods of Biblical Interpretation. Here are some fatal flaws in his methods to consider.

– Translation jumping: First off, one should be wary of an any preacher that jumps around among different translations. On this point alone, 3 out of 4 of the quotations are different translations. In the whole sermon, he jumps among 5 different translations. Many times when translation jumping is done it can be a sign of a pastor that has an opinion first and then tries to find Scripture to support that opinion. He will then try and find the translation that best “fits” his opinion. This is not the sign of a preacher that has submitted himself to Scripture as the authority over his own opinions, but rather a man who sees Scripture as the most widely accepted authority he can appeal to bring validation to what he wants to say. I don’t know if this applies to Slye specifically, I’m simply giving the reader something to look out for. One more little read flag: always be scared of a preacher using a shotgun smattering of Biblical quotes with as many ellipses (the dot dot dots…) as Slye uses. All Scripture should be used with consideration given to its context, not dotting it away.

– Ignoring the original language: This is related to translation jumping. I’m not even close to having had any real training in Greek or Hebrew, but with the tools available to anyone on the internet, there is no excuse for pastors blatantly ignoring the original text. Some ways this damages this message:

[“ . . . Satan, the ruler of this world . . .” –John 12:31(Msg); The word “Satan” is not found in the original language, and the word “ruler” in the Greek is actually only “prince.” More on this later]

[“The devil who rules this world . . .” — 2 Cor 4:4(NCV); The original reads “the god of this world has blinded the mind of the unbelievers . . .” The words “devil” and “rules” are not in the Greek. In fact, the word “god” in this passage is the word “Theos.” Out of the 1330 times this word is used in the New Testament, all but 10 of those times it is translated in a way referring exclusively to the true God of the Bible. So while there is some disagreement as to which translation is best in this passage, we can be sure that the seeming “clarity” of Slye’s translation is not the clarity that the passage actually gives us.]

[“ . . . the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19; The original reads word-for-word “we know that we are from God and the whole world lies in wickedness [or evil, or the evil one].” Based on the translation of the previous verse (5:18), it seems that the translation of “evil one” is right, but there is the chance this could be just “wickedness.” Nevertheless, “lies” is still very different in connotation than “under the power and control of”]

Sorry folks, translation matters.

– Ignoring context: I talked some about this in my ellipses comment earlier, but none of the verses he quotes actually means what he’s trying to have them mean. None of them!

[John 12:31 – This is in the middle of a statement by Jesus about his crucifixion saying “now will the prince of this world be cast out.” Hardly a statement of Satan’s authority.]

[Matthew 4:8,9 – Slye argues this would not be a legitimate temptation if all the kingdoms of the world were not Satan’s to give. Except one problem: Jesus. Our Lord’s response to Satan after this temptation is “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only you shall serve’” (4:10[ESV];the next verse). Jesus pretty much tells Satan he has not the authority to give what he’s trying to! This is not Slye’s use of the verse.]

[2 Cor 4:4 – verses 3 and 4 say, “even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god or this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (ESV). In context it seems that the actual power of the “god of this world” only extends to those perishing, not to those who have been redeemed. On a funny side note, the verse before this is describing pastors who are pure in their preaching before God, and he mentions how these preachers refuse “to tamper with God’s word.” I find it interesting that Paul mentions this just two verses before our verse that was taken out of context by a preacher.]

[1 John 5:19 – verse 18 and 19 together say “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (ESV). Not only do these verses tell of God’s power over Satan to not let him touch any of His children, but the “whole world” is established as the contrast to the “we.” I don’t think the “we” is talking about the institution of the church. If that were the case, one could argue the “whole world” meant the actual institution of reality we call “the world.” I think the “we” is referring to a group of people that are Christians, which would make the contrast here at the people level, not the institution level. This means the “whole world” probably only refers to people that are unsaved, not the world itself.]

I’ll just give this all to you now to hold you over while I really wrestle through the real meat of this post.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Part 3 of 7)

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

3. Suffering is not the will of God.

-“Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way.” –Gen. 1:31(NLT) If He wanted it there, He would have put it there in the beginning.


Once again, I see his point, but his logic is off. It makes sense at first, but how disastrous would this be if carried to its logical ends? So much was not here at this “excellent” (or “very good” as most translations say) state, the most important being Jesus. This creates a problem for Slye’s view. This makes Jesus’ death an after thought or plan B. Ephesians 1 tells us that God chose and predestined us for adoption before the foundation of the world. This means God at least knew (if not purposed) that we would be found at some point alienated from his family and in need of adoption. Also, we see in 1 Corinthians 2:7 that the Gospel is “a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” God decreed the Gospel before he created all things. The word for “decreed” in the Greek “proorizo” literally means to set limits to beforehand, predestine, determine beforehand, or ordain. God did all this to the “Gospel.” So what is the Gospel? It is not, “God created all things good and that was it.” That was not the plan. Before God created, the secret wisdom he set forth to reveal and get glory from was not a creation that was “excellent” and stayed that way. I would go far enough to say that he never intended on his creation to stay “very good.” He intended the Gospel to be put into action, so he might be glorified in it. So once more, what is the Gospel? It is “the power of God for salvation” (Romans 1:16), the justifying of all peoples through the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:8), and the repentance of sinners (Matthew 4:17, 23). This plan God intended all along before he created that “very good” world was the wisdom of saving fallen men and women that they might be freed from their bondage to sin and suffering to glorify and enjoy God for all time. The Fall of Man was intended from the beginning, as part of God’s master plan, the Gospel. That glorious Gospel that would have been unnecessary if sin had not entered this “very good” world.

But why would God do this? This is difficult, but I think there are hints in the Bible. In Luke 15:7, Jesus says, “I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” In Revelation, God is worshipped for being the lamb that was slain that saved from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Here’s the key to this whole thing, I think: as Luke shows, there is something that brings more glory, joy, and worship to God about something that was good falling and Him redeeming it than if it had never fallen at all. Think about it: if the Fall had never happened, God would never be worshipped as Savior and Redeemer, as He desires to be. I hope this helps some.

I hate leaving this post here. I know it seems all I’ve done is taken the discussion too far to the other side of the spectrum and presented an image of a cold, unfeeling, unloving God who is not worth of our worship. I must tell you now this is not the case! This God is infinitely beautiful, glorious, loving, satisfying, and worth all praise and adoration, you must know that. I just hate I have not the room in this post to show how this all fits together. I intend to do this at the end of these three posts, to wrap up all I’ve said and root it and found it in the beautiful Gospel. If you can’t wait, and still have questions, feel free to drop me a line or read my previous blog posts on this topic (part 1 and part 2) for a full treatment there.

I hope this has been edifying, and expect many more updates, much more frequently. Have a wonderful and glorious day.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Part 2 of 7)

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

This begins my three part rebuttal to a sermon preached by John Slye called “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” His sermon is comprised of seven points, and I will respond to the first three in this post. Here are his points followed by my response:

1. God is all powerful.

Surprisingly, I actually disagree with Slye here — in a way. I agree with the statement in and of itself, but I disagree with him saying it. This isn’t actually a point in his argument. Rather, this is his “pastoral reasssurance” to his people. He’s pretty much saying, “God has no control or power over people, Satan, or nature that results in suffering. But don’t worry. God is all powerful.”

What?

Is this really the comfort we try and give people going through the inevitable pain and suffering this world will bring our way? That God is either unloving (has the power to stop pain but won’t) or totally impotent (would stop suffering but can’t). Either God is all powerful, or He isn’t. I just don’t see how you can be honest with the people entrusted to you and preface your message with this statement and then deliver to them what the rest of this message does.

2. God uses suffering, he does not cause it. God does not send all things. Scripture never says this.

-“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” –Romans 8:28(ESV)

Slye is saying that God does not send all things. Rather he takes the bad things that happen due to sin and Satan and then “rearranges” and/or “works them out” for the good of all people. Bad things don’t come from a good God, only good things. Many, many pastors and laypeople think this. They preach it, they believe it, and counsel with it. It is an understandable opinion about how God works, I must admit. As I said in my previous post, Slye has a complete “theodicy,” or justification of God for suffering. The problem is, it just isn’t biblical. Let’s start general and get specific.

First, Slye actually says, “God does not send all things.” he quotes the above oft quoted verse to try and show this, but if he had only read Romans for three more chapters, he would have found Romans 11:33-36 which says “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (emphasis added). This verse not only says all things are from God, but that this is the foundation of praise to Him!

Second, Slye says God does not send acts and deeds of suffering. Job 1:20-22 tells of Job’s response to the acts of suffering he endures. Scripture clearly says that Satan was the orchestrator of all the things that took Job’s most precious things away from him. In response to these deeds of Satan, Job “arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshipped. And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (emphasis added). Once more, Scripture tells us these deeds originated in the will and intention of God Himself, and that this is a foundation and grounds for praise! I will get to a more comprehensive theology of Satan in suffering in the next post.

Thirdly, Slye says that God is not the cause of the evil power that suffering acts stem from. In perhaps one of the most striking verses of Scripture, God says through the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 45:6b-7, “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the lord, who does all these things.” The word translated here as “calamity” is the Hebrew word “rah.” The same word is used in the phrase “tree of the knowledge of good and rah.” Over 80% of the time this word is translated “evil.” Of the three verbs presented here (“form,” “make,” and “create”), God chooses “create” to describe what he does to darkness and evil. Of the three verbs, not only is this the strongest and most intimate one, but it is the only one that is only ever applied to God and to no one else. Not people, nature, rulers, or Satan.

I hope these verses show that the whole of Scripture is clear in God’s role is suffering. It is ordained, purposed, used, and willed by our loving Father for our good. I will expand on this in coming posts.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Part 1 of 7)

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

As said in the previous post, I’m in the process of writing a rebuttal to Pastor John Slye’s sermon on suffering. You can look at that post for more background.

Before this discussion begins, I feel I must give a few background comments giving the context in which this debate takes place. The theological study of evil and suffering in the world and how it relates to God is called Theodicy (pronounced “Thee-ah-di-see”). This word comes from the Greek “Theos” meaning “God,” and “dike” meaning “justice.” So the study of theodicy is very literally a justification of the goodness of God in spite of the evil and suffering in the world. From that perspective, both Slye and I have a comprehensive and good Theodicy – we both have justifications of God that make sense and fully answer the questions raised on this issue by those that raise them.

Thus, the only thing that makes one Theodicy better than another is not how it “makes sense” or “sounds good” or “appeals to our senses,” it must be on how it fits with God’s objective revelation of himself, Scripture. You may say to me, “but . . . Slye has Scripture to support every one of his points!” Yes, he does, which makes my job more difficult, because I can’t just throw more Scripture at him that opposes what he says. A basic tenet in logic and debate is that it is not enough to expose the weaknesses in your opponent’s arguments; you must show your’s to be superior as well, else your’s can be thought to be just as invalid as the argument you just effectively dismantled. So how will I need to do this?

I will have to appeal to the totality of Scripture as God has revealed Himself, not just do as Slye has done and find bits and pieces of Scripture that support notions he already has. My argument must be founded upon the Nature of God as He has revealed Himself in the totality of Scripture, not just here or there. It is from this background of who God is that we will move forth into looking into how he acts, because His actions are preceded by His nature.

I think this is something Slye has missed. Slye has found a system of thought that, with all due respect, will help him and his people sleep well at night, but is disingenuous to God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture as the all-reigning, all-sovereign, all-living God of the universe that we can trust and rest in even through our darkest, most difficult times in life.

Believe me, I’m living it.

Part 1 to come. Anyone that actually wants to gain a comprehensive insight into these things is encouraged to re-read my previous two posts, especially part 1, as I will reference much of the content of those posts in my arguments against this sermon. Here they are: Part 1, Part 2

God bless all, and please know I do this not for argument’s sake, but to defend the name, honor, and Glory of my amazing, beautiful, sovereign Savior Jesus Christ. I truly believe a truer picture of Him is the key to abundant life and the “renewal of your mind.”

I love you all,

–paul

p.s. – these posts will be the strangest birthday gifts I’ve ever given.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III (Intro)

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

I really hope I do this in gentleness and truth, though I may get fired up a bit. I recently listened to a sermon by John Slye of Grace Community Church in Arlington, VA. It was entitled “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” You can listen to it yourself here and can download it and the outline here. Here’s the basic outline of the sermon and his Scripture points:

1. God is all powerful.2. God uses suffering, he does not cause it. God does not send all things. Scripture never says this.
-“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” –Romans 8:28(ESV)

3. Suffering is not the will of God.
-“Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way.” –Gen. 1:31(NLT) If He wanted it there, He would have put it there in the beginning.

4. God is not on the throne.
-“…Satan, the ruler of this world…” –John 12:31(Msg)
-“Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, ‘If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.’” –Matt. 4:8,9(NCV)
-“The devil who rules this world…” –2 Cor. 4:4(NCV)
-“…the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19(NLT)

5. God’s will is not always done on earth as it is in heaven.
-“…your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” –Matt. 6:10(NIV)

6. Suffering breaks the heart of God.
-“When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. ‘Where have you laid him?’ he asked. ‘Come and see, Lord,’ they replied. Jesus wept.” –John 11:33-35(NIV)

7. Fight back.
– “This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels.” –Eph. 6:12(Msg)

Anyone who’s read my previous comments on suffering (Part 1, Part 2) knows that this sermon goes against pretty much every basic tenet of my theology on this topic. I wish to engage and oppose the notions expressed in this sermon to the best of my ability, because I see Pastor Slye’s theology as being so rampant and so dangerous to all of Christendom, as I feel it cheapens our very view God.

Seeing as I wish to challenge this comprehensively, but at the same time keep every reader sane and not feeling like they are reading a novel, my responses to these seven points will be over 6 more posts. Part 2 will cover points 1 and 2 in the sermon; Part 3 will cover just point 3, Parts 4 and 5 will be all about point 4 because I am most fired up by that one; Part 6 will cover point 6; and lastly, Part 7 will cover the remaining points. The next post will be an introduction to this topic at hand.

The Purposeful God of Eternity

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

Tonight on a midnight ride to Williamsburg, God changed my life yet again. How? With this realization: God does all things in us primarily for an eternal purpose before he ever does them for a temporal one.

The “things” God does “in us” refers to pretty much everything: How we feel in a given situation, what we think, what we desire, our temptations, our struggles, our blessings, our joys, our pains, our purification, everything.

I realized tonight that this means that when anyone asks God, “Why?” about anything, there is a possibility of three responses from God; two for the non-Christian and one for the Christian. To the non-Christian he answers either (1) to draw you closer to me, or (2) to further condemn you so your eventual condemnation is just. To the Christian God’s answer is always (3) “to make you holy.”

(1) is pretty obvious. God will put people through a lot of crap sometimes and cause feelings and desires to both come and fall away in order to bring them to him.

(2) is a little harder to swallow, but true nonetheless. God is determined to be just. He will not condemn those not worthy to be condemned, and he has committed himself to showing those not his elect that their condemnation is just (Romans 1:20 , 1: 26-27, 3:5-8). My primary Biblical support for this is in Genesis 15:16. In the context, God is laying out the conditions of his covenant with Abraham. He will punish so-and-so people and give him so-and-so land, and so on and so forth. But at the very end of these covenant promises, God makes a very interesting statement. He says that the final fulfillment of these promises will be delayed. He says, “And they [Abraham’s descendants] shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” God delayed the destruction of the people occupying the promised land and delayed His people entering it because the Amorite’s iniquity had not reached the level of deserving that wrath, thus he refrained so that their condemnation was just and He was justified in their destruction. So he does with some non-believers in Christ.

Anyway, (3) is what changed my entire perspective on God, me, and sanctification. We are generally presented with a certain situation that has pain and we begin to do what? Worry about the future and how it will resolve itself. God told me tonight that the resolution in the temporal to that situation is not the point. He gives (or allows us to feel [but if he’s all powerful, then “allowing” is just the same as “willing]) emotions both good and bad to us, and their effect in the temporal is not the point. God is preparing all of us for Eternity! No matter where we will end up in eternity, His every act toward us is to prepare us further for that end. I’ll repeat that:

No matter where we will end up in eternity, His every act toward us is to prepare us further for that end, both Christians and non-Christians.

So what does this process look like? I ask God “why do I feel this way?” He says, “to make you holy.” I say, “well, how will it end up?” He says, “It doesn’t matter. This all has eternal ramifications to it before it ever has temporal ones – THAT’S the primary point; don’t worry about the temporal – worry about how this is preparing you and those around you for eternity after these temporal things fall away.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but this gives me the key to entering into God’s rest in this life, no matter what comes your way. Being able to step back and see things from an eternal perspective rather than zooming in a focusing on the temporal creates a peace and a rest from faith that can only come from God.

No more worrying necessary, for the things I go through now are to prepare me and make me worthy for His Coming; to make sure He fulfills His commitment to me to make me His spotless Bride. Whatever temporal things that come about are merely part of the ride.

in Him,

–paul

p.s. – I’m still processing all this and have yet to actually spend a day with this perspective and see how this practically works out. I don’t really know what will happen outwardly if anything. We’ll see. I’ll keep you up to date. Now I’m off to slumber into my said first day with new perspective.

What’s Your Isaac?

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

I’ll give the thesis to all this first:
When God asks us if we are willing to give something up, it does not NECESSARILY follow that God wants you to actually give that thing up. I know, I know. Let me explain . . .

As is typical of most truths God lays on my heart, this truth in the hand of immature or false believers can be very very dangerous. So I encourage anyone as they pray through this to be very critical of their own applications of this principle as it could be very self-serving. Anyway, we turn to where all things started and must start, the Word of God:

“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.’ . . . When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me. . . By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.’”
— Genesis 22:1-2, 9-12, 16-18 (emphasis added)

I really want to make this short and sweet, so here goes. Two interesting things to point out in the story: (1) though God asks Abraham to give up Isaac, he doesn’t ever have to actually “give up” Isaac in the complete temporal sense we think. (2) Though Abraham, in the natural, doesn’t actually complete the “offering” of Isaac, notice that God tells him that he didn’t withhold his son, and that Abraham has done this (in the Hebrew a completed action referring to the original command of God in v. 2). God tells Abraham he fully accomplished what God ordered him to do in the very beginning. God didn’t “change plans” or lie to Abraham. Abe did exactly as God ordered him to do and completed “offered his son there as a burnt offering.” This means in God’s eyes, “giving up” something may mean something much more meaningful than just giving up on it. Just because God asks of you’re willing to give something up, does not mean, it is his desire that we do that in the typical temporal way we usually think.

In American Christianity we suffer so much from Platonic Dualism and Gnosticism. Our first response to things is to cast off the material for the sake of some spiritual ideal. Especially charismatics, who desire so much for the spiritual realm to “break through” into the material world with great signs and wonders, who build this dichotomy between spiritual and material and put such a distance between the two. So when God asks, “will you give this up?” The first inclination people jump to is that God must be telling them to give this thing up for the sake of the spiritual ideal hidden within the question. Perhaps this may not be the case.

Oh Saint. Oh Christian. Oh Beloved. We serve not a God that commands us to not love things in this world. He most certainly calls us to not love things of this world, but those are two very different things. He does not call us to remove ourselves from all things in this world we enjoy that bring us fulfillment, joy, and pleasure; rather he calls us to redeem those things in the world to reflect the spiritual Reality He is and find our joy fully in those things as they reflect Him. This how it can be completely acceptable and worshipful to God for a pastor to enjoy, love, and cherish his people, for a parent to do the same for their child, and for a husband to do that for his wife. It is because those things are designed to reflect the spiritual in their very nature.

My point is this: If God were to ask a husband, “are you willing to give up your wife?” It would not mean in any way, shape, or form, that He were insisting that man actually do so. Many times the point of the question is merely to test where your heart is in the matter, whether you are loving this thing for its own sake, or for how it reflects God. If you have been loving it for its own sake, or have been treating it in some other inappropriate way, God’s answer in this (from what I can see Biblically) is not even most of the time to give that thing up. Rather, His answer is to call you to redeem it so he can be reflected.

So, reader, what is your Isaac? Many of us have relationships, jobs, projects, callings, plans, and dreams God may have whispered in our ear “are you willing to give this up?” Know now that God many times has instilled all these things in your heart not to take them away, but to be glorified in them. What is your thing you have been called to “offer up” but maybe not necessarily give up? If I may encourage anyone out there, let it be in this: What I see in this story with Abraham and Isaac is God’s dedication to purify our love for things he has put in our heart, not necessarily to take them away (key word: necessarily).

So, Beloved, open your eyes and realize that many of the things that God asks if you are willing to give up are the very things that he plans and intends to use to fulfill promises and blessings made since eternity past for your own life and for the blessing and joy of all those around you, after you have responded appropriately to his question, not by taking the easy route of casting off that which God has called forth now for redemption, but by fighting for the reflection of Christ in your Isaac, who was “offered up” not by being “given up”, but by being lifted up for God to show his Son in for your joy and the joy of all peoples.

–paul<

p.s. – also, though God may not be calling you to actually give up in the temporal your “Isaac”, keep your eyes open for any “Rams in the thicket” God may be intending for you to sacrifice in your “Isaac’s” stead. These are things that must be sacrificed so that your “offering” of your “Isaac” can be complete and God’s blessing of it can follow. These “Rams” may be anything from insecurities, desires, lack of desires, current projects, jobs that have nothing to do with the desire God has placed in your heart, classes and majors that have nothing to do with the calling God has for you, certain ministry involvements that prevent the growth God wants in you, certain positions of leadership (or fears of being in those positions), or anything else that may be intended for the temporal altar other than your “Isaac,” which may belong purely on your spiritual altar so it can stay living and active in the temporal to bless you and those around you.

I hope you followed the metaphor enough to make sense of all that.

A Confession

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

” But you, O my love, for whom I faint with longing that I may be strong, you are not those material objects we can see, in heaven though they are, nor are you the beings which we do not see there, for you have created them and do not even count them as your highest works. How much more distant are you, then, from mere figments of my imagination, fantasy-bodies that have no reality at all! More real are the memory-pictures we form of objects which at least do exist, and more real again than these are the physical beings themselves; yet none of these are you. Better and more certain than the bodies of material creatures if the soul that gives life to their bodies, yet you are not the soul either. You are the life of souls, the life of all lives, the life who are yourself living and unchanging, the life of my own soul.”

— St. Augustine

Discourse on Desire & Darwinism: an Apologetic

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

I was at home typing all this out about two months ago. As I was nearing the end, my foot hit the power strip the computer was connected to and I lost it all. It was structured so much better than this and explained everything so much clearer. So after a couple months of being bummed out over it, I am now re-typing this out. Or rather, attempting to.

Proposition 1: All humans seek happiness.
Regardless of culture, gender, time in history, or even religion, this desire is universal. Even the Buddhist who spends his life trying to remove the desire for happiness can never remove the desire to have no desire, thus showing the cyclical nature of that philosophy. Even the Ascetic receives happiness for his casting off of earthly things, no matter the biblical warrant, or lack thereof.

Proposition 2: Every action of every human being is to this end.
The motive behind every action of every human is to this end, even those who kill themselves. I would argue that the drive to reduce misery (even through suicide) is very akin to that drive for happiness.

Proposition 3: This drive is unique to humans.
No animal acts in a natural environment for the pure sake of the pursuit of happiness. Every action of every animal is for a definite cause of some biological interest. Every animal action has a real purpose with tangible results beyond some emotional response.

Proposition 4: This desire is never really fulfilled.
As has been duly noted by men greater than me, Thomas Jefferson noted that we can attain many things, but “happiness” we can only “pursue.” He never says we can actually attain it. No one in history (except Jesus) could have said honestly they had actually fully satisfied one’s inner desire for happiness. Sure, we experience it in great measures, but a desire such as hunger can be fully satisfied; the desire for happiness cannot.

Proposition 5: Darwinism has no answer to this.
Here’s the meat of the discourse. Long story short: Darwinism implies no previous purposeful design within human beings apart from what has been gained generationally by the experiences of our ancestors. Their experiences have learned what enables us to survive, and thus adaptations to this end or passed down and show themselves in our present physical, cultural, and psychological features. If this is true, then no desire humans have could have ever developed prior to the ability to fulfill it. To use the example above: Humans didn’t acquire this universal desire for food known as hunger, until (a) a lack or deficit was noticed, and (b) a way to fully satisfy it was found. I’m arguing that every desire or drive in humans testifies to the existence of a full satisfaction thereof somewhere in the world. If Proposition 4 is true, then, that means Darwinism’s only answer to the desire for happiness is that the desire itself preceded the object of that desire, because a full satisfaction of it cannot be found on earth, so how were our ancestors to know they were without it? The idea that the existence of a desire precedes it’s object is very intellectually dishonest, and thus Darwinism is inadequate in accounting for this universal human drive.

Conclusion: Only Christianity has the adequate, satisfactory answer to it.
Christianity teaches that we have been created with a desire for happiness that testifies to the existence of that happiness, namely God Himself. He is what our hearts were made for and thus our hearts are never fully satisfied until they rest in Him. Christianity also teaches that this world has fallen from its original glory and is in a process of redemption wherein one can experience a certain measure of that happiness in the here and now that is merely a shadow of the full satisfaction to come. This is the idea popularly known as “the Already but Not Yet.” Christ’s Kingdom has already been established in the world, but it’s full consummation has not yet happened, thus certain degrees of eternal realities we can experience now in the form of spiritual gifts, worship, a change in nature and will, and an ever decreasing dominion of the power of sin in one’s life. These are all things that our being was created to find its utmost delight in and thus when our soul does that, it is more itself than it ever could be.

After coming up with this a while ago, I was surprised, impressed with myself, and humbled all at once when I found out that C.S. Lewis had these exact thoughts over sixty years ago. I stumbled upon this quote I’d like to finish with to sum up my entire point in this here treatise. He said:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this earth can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world”

Amen, brother.

Please, send rebuttals, criticisms, or arguments over any of the above propositions my way. I feel like there are some things I haven’t adequately addressed, but I can’t seem to find the holes in the arguments. Please find them and tell me, as I eager to develop this properly.

–paul

Roller Coaster Theology

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”
— 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.'”
— Revelation 21:1-4

I’ll make this brief. There is a sequence of events described in these two end times passages in the Bible. (1) Jesus comes down. (2) The dead begin to rise first and then the living rise with them into the air to meet Jesus. (3) When Jesus comes down, He’s coming down with the New Jerusalem to establish His Kingdom on Earth. (4) Jesus will dwell with us forever om Earth.

So . . . it sounds like we are going to be lifted into the air, given our “heavenly bodies” (I imagine) and then come right back down to earth. Hmm . . .

What if God, desiring to hint at this in the way He created us, made the most exhilarating physical experience a human being could ever have be freefalling? Could it be that feeling testifies to a greater future reality that God wants us to be excited for and get a little taste of in the here and now? Could it be that Roller Coasters actually help by using this created tendency to their advantage so we may feel that rush over and over and over again until the Day we feel it ultimately? Perhaps. . .

Or perhaps it’s just late and I wanted to write this just to get “someone” excited over God because I’ll be at work all day and I’ll know they’ll read this. Perhaps.

Just something to ponder about.

The next post will be one of the following:
— A Discourse on Desire and Darwinism: an Apologetic
— Radioactive Isotopes and the Glory of God
— The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering: Part III
— Nature vs. Nurture: the Creator vs. the Created
— The Imminent-Transcendent God we Serve: Meditation on Psalm 3:7
— The Four Perspectives Necessary to Maintain Your Faith in College

Votes are welcome and needed.