on the paradox of predestination

Today at work my friend Carly asked me my views on predestination. My answer? "I don't have one." Which, I guess, isn't true. Even a view that doesn't fit within the normal bounds ("I agree with it/I don't agree with it") is still a view. I'm not Calvinist in the sense that I believe that God chooses certain people over and against other people to save (though he would be totally merited and valid in doing this; a thing called grace, you see!). I don't believe that Jesus' cross achieved victory only for those whom God chose and everyone else has no hope (that wouldn't be a very effective victory; more like winning a skirmish line; and nor do I suppose that Jesus' death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection, means universalism is the way to go). I'm not Arminian in the sense that I believe people can make an uninfluenced choice to put their loyalty in Jesus. All this talk about "Free Will" is a pretty individualistic, western idea, given a hefty boost into modern thought with the American Revolution (the people said, "We have the choice to determine what happens; we have the choice to decide who gets to rule over us," and this mindset greatly steered the methodology and theology of the colonial churches). There is no such thing as "Free Choice", in the sense that every decision we make, even if it is (apparently) from our own determined volition, is not unfettered; there are countless variables and influences that drive us to make the decisions we make. Our decisions are largely dependent upon our environment (and I mean environment in the large sense of the word, encompassing everything from our hearts to social structures). And topping all of this, the debates between Calvinists and Arminians are entirely removed from the wrestling and struggling of the New Testament. It wasn't an issue in the early church. This seems crazy to us--"How could it NOT be an issue?!"--but we must remember that the debate itself was relatively unknown till the protestant reformation. Peeling through the letters of the New Testament to find out which reformer was right (if we can call Arminius a reformer) is like looking through a car mechanics manual to figure out which color would look best as a racing stripe. The New Testament wasn't written with this tension in mind.

So where do I stand on the whole subject? As of now, I would call myself (if I were forced to don a label) a Calminian. Embrace the paradox! What paradox? The command of Joshua--"Choose this day whom you will serve!"--and the message of the New Testament--"God has chosen you!" The paradox is that God chooses us and we choose God; we choose God and God chooses us. Asking which comes first is like asking the old question about the chicken and the egg. It's a nonsensical question. So I stand on the paradox and I embrace the paradox and I choose whom I will serve and God chooses me to be his child. If you don't like paradoxes, get over it. The Bible is full of 'em. (Of course, a paradox to us would not be a paradox to God; but when our feeble, narrow-minded minds can't wrap around something, "paradox" is a good word to use) If you don't like paradoxes, as my old New Testament professor used to say, become a Muslim. You'll be happy that way.

Now I'm going to start roasting some potatoes for dinner. Potatoes, grilled asparagus and mushrooms, pan-simmered tilapia. Oh boy!