Falling into the trap of doing Bible study

Pretty much all Christians agree that regular time spent with our Father is an important aspect of the Christian life. There are certainly plenty of tools to help us along: Bible reading plans, daily devotional books, e-mail devotionals, etc..

While we pursue this “spending time with God” objective, there is a trap – a trap of falling into Bible study. I find that simply reading a section of the Bible or reading a devotional thought, often seems as if I haven’t really accomplished anything. Some devotionals aren’t helpful in this regard either, because they close with questions such as, “What is God telling you in this passage?” or “How can you apply this passage to your life?”

These devotionals turn “Spending Time with God” into a scheduled business meeting: I read a passage from the Bible, perhaps and associated devotional thought, and then before I leave the “meeting” I somehow must convey back to God what it is all supposed to mean. The temptation is to do Bible study, then and there: pull out the commentaries, Greek resources, dictionaries, etc. Until I can check off a few accomplishments, my “Time with God” isn’t done.

Is that right? All of us at one point have been children with parents or guardians, people that we associated with as family. Some of us are now parents or grandparents with children of our own. When we spend time with our families, do we treat our time as business meetings where each person must complete some sort of checklist activity until we are free to go? I think not!

However well-intentioned questions at the end of devotionals may be, however well-intentioned teachers may have been in instructing us in the how-to’s of spending time with God, I suspect many of us, myself included, have missed the point. It is not a business meeting where we must somehow develop responses to a set of questions, or find solutions and applications to what we just read. Often I think we do this to assuage some sort of guilt feelings about not doing enough. We feel that if we put more effort into Bible study somehow it is more “quality time” than simply reading and praying.

Most of our family conversations isn’t about teaching or searching for applications. It’s simply about sharing what is going on, finding out about one another’s lives, and communicating our hopes and fears. Only occasionally do conversations become problem-solving sessions. Even then many times we don’t just sit there and hammer away until the problem is solved. Rather, we will likely go our separate ways and perhaps sometime during the day when we are involved in something completely different, an insight may form in our minds.

Our time with God, I suspect, is supposed to more resemble our family conversations. We share our hopes and fears, our problems with God. He in turn speaks to us through the Bible, through other works of inspiration, through reminders of what we may have seen and heard in the past. Sometimes it may be good to spend some time then to figure out some things, but mostly it shouldn’t be about trying to figure out what God is trying to say to us and how what we read might be applicable in our immediate lives.

I’ve experienced some of the most insightful thoughts form long after I’ve read or heard a passage or devotional. They’ve had a chance to simmer and meld with other words, passages, and life experiences. Perhaps it can be likened to a raw carrot: it is perfectly edible and good on its own, but when it is placed into a pot, with some liquid and other ingredients (herbs, spices, other vegetables, meats), and allowed to simmer and stew for some time, the result is good in a way that is different from simply its raw form.

Bible study is good and has its place. But don’t let your “Time with God” constantly turn into Bible study.

Sermon: Peace Be Still

Today’s sermon at the Presbyterian Church.

Passages: Mark 4:30-5:20; Isaiah 9:6; Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 4:15-19
Sermon audio MP3 (26 minutes)

The passage in Mark is a parable followed by two stories: the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus calming a storm, and Jesus driving out the unclean spirit from a man at Gerasene. I see a common thread of peace (or shalom) going through all three of the pericopes and that is what I discuss in today’s sermon.

Book: Grieving a Suicide

This is a review I posted at GoodReads. The book may be purchased from Amazon.

 Grieving a Suicide: A Loved One's Search for Comfort, Answers & Hope by Albert Y. Hsu
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

As other reviewers have noted, this book does approach the subject from a strongly Christian perspective. That said, however, it contains valuable information that can be of help to survivors and to those seeking resources for helping survivors.

I recently completed a Suicide Postvention Trainers training through NAMI and the Connect Project. This book mostly tracks what was presented as best practices in the training. I only found a few minor quibbles that raised my eyebrows. The author provides a generous list of suicide prevention and survivorship resources in an appendix to the book.

As for the theological perspective I'm sure not every Christian will agree with every position of this author. I certainly had some disagreements. However, in the big picture I believe the author builds and presents a compelling case for a compassionate and loving God that suffers with those who suffer, including those who have taken their own lives.

I can highly recommend this book to Christians interested in suicide and its survivors, to pastors, to mental health professionals seeking to understand a spiritual perspective, and to all who are struggling with the issues around suicide.

View all my reviews

The Gospel - what, who, why, when, how?

An oft-asked question is this: What is the gospel? There is even a book (What Is the Gospel? (9Marks)) by that very title.

Lately I’ve been reading a book, Winning a Generation Without the Law: Essentials of the Gospel for a Postmodern Culture, where the author writes that for far too long, Christians have confused and/or combined the “what” of the gospel with the process, or the “how”, of it. The author repeatedly emphasizes that even though the “how” is not unimportant, it is not the core of the gospel that Christians are called to communicate. The author points out that Christians should extract the “what” of the gospel and make that the center of their evangelism.

I can see his point, and it makes sense. For someone who is suffering from a physical disease, it doesn’t matter how medicine, surgery, etc. works; it just matters that something is available to reverse the ailment and return that person to health. It doesn’t even matter why the doctors and nurses want to help him: it could be that they care (hopefully), but it could be for purely their job ad nothing else. The who and when of the discovery or development of the cure isn’t terribly important to the patient, either. All that matters is that right now, someone is available to administer the medication, provide the procedure, etc. to reverse the course of disease.

In a similar vein, to someone who is dying spiritually, it really doesn’t matter who, when, why, or how the gospel, the cure to spiritual death, came about. All that matters is that something is available now to cure the disease and bring life. The rest can be helpful and informative once the cure is in place.

The disease is death. The cure is the gospel. It is found most succinctly, I think, in Hebrews 2:14-15 where it reads:

¹⁴ Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (ESV)

Death is perhaps the one universal fear. People throughout the ages and across cultures have tried to escape it and stall it, through religion, through knowledge, through producing descendants, through feats of renown, etc. Through this fear people end up in slavery to all sorts of things, some more destructive than others, but all ultimately cannot conquer death.

The gospel is that death is defeated; that death need not be feared. When the ultimate fear is vanquished, people are free to be themselves, as God intended.

John 3:16 implies what the gospel is, but it is more about its “why”:

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

The accounts of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection? They answer the “who”, “when”, and “how”.

Talking to someone about Jesus, his death, and his resurrection isn’t terribly helpful without first communicating that the one foe, death, that has the potential to ultimately destroy every person, has been defeated, defanged, destroyed itself. Once the “what” of the good news, the gospel, is known, we can then go on to the why and how it was accomplished.

Plans to prosper[?] you… Jeremiah 29:11

“’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV)

The above text is frequently quoted as a promise that God has plans for each of his people, and that the plan includes some kind of “prosperity,” usually with a caveat that this prosperity doesn’t necessarily mean material riches (thought it could), but rather, a more general kind of success.

Well, this morning I listened to the text (and I must add that the speaker said nothing about “prosperity” but rather the general promise of God’s good plans) and when I looked it up in my preferred version, the English Standard Version, I saw “welfare” instead of “prosperity.”

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (ESV)

Welfare has a rather negative connotation in the United States at the present time. Certain segments of the populace equate it with government socialism. (I suppose taken literally, using today’s context, this text could be used as “proof” that God encourages “welfare”…)

That got me wondering what the Hebrew word was. When I looked up the text, the word translated as “prosper” and “welfare” was shalom. Here is a list of various English translations of Jeremiah 29:11 at Biblegateway.com. The most common word is “peace” followed by “welfare” though I see other words including well-being, success, and good.

When we see that the Hebrew is shalom, we know that “welfare” in the above text can’t mean government handouts and “prosperity” cannot mean an increase in wealth. Although shalom is most frequently translated as “peace”, even that fails to fully encompass what Jeremiah is attempting to capture.

The Holman Bible Dictionary describes shalom as a “sense of well-being and fulfillment that comes from God and is dependent on His presence… Its basic meaning is ‘wholeness’ or ‘well-being.’” Among some other explanations of shalom I have seen include: a restoration of all creation to its original, intended order; a restoration of the relationship between created and Creator; a perfect harmony.

The 21st Century King James Version seems to preserve the most literal sense of this text:

“For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an expected end.” (KJ21)

What this translation brings out is that the “plans” implied in other translations are not as definite as it often is made to sound. Rather they are more like “hopes” that parents have for their children’s future. Parents want good things for their children, but they cannot (or should not) force their hopes as definite plans onto their children. If the child freely chooses to accept, the parents provide whatever is necessary and within their means to help their children fulfill those hopes, and at that point hopes become plans. Should a child choose some other way, it (generally) doesn’t mean the parents cut off support.

The difference between parents and God is that parents are flawed themselves, whereas God is not. So parents’ hopes may be flawed and it may turn out that a child’s own decisions could turn out better than what the parents had hoped. God is perfect, so whatever he hopes for his children is the best possible outcome. Even so, God allows his children to choose the path they take and will continue to support them.

The next three verses in Jeremiah (29:12-14) contain the conditions under which God’s hopes for his children become plans. The condition is to seek God and to pray for his will. When his people do that, God promises he will be found, his hopes will be made known to them, and he will provide the means through which his hopes become their plans.

What is God’s hope for his people – for us? To brings us back into shalom with him.

Sermon: Life Is Belonging

Text: Luke 18:9-30
Sermon Audio (45 minutes)

“Who are you?”

“What do you want?”

How can we enter the kingdom of God? How can we inherit eternal life? How are we accepted into God’s family, his community?

Luke records three ways in which Jesus responds to these questions in Luke 18: the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector; Let the Children Come to Me; and the Rich (Young) Ruler.

This sermon was given at the Lighthouse Assembly of God in Petersburg.

A Short History of Ordination

An e-mail from the Ministerial Dept. of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists included a link to a lecture video on a short history of ordination in the Christian church. It’s good to listen to it (viewing is optional since the camera doesn’t pan to the slides) but for those not inclined to spend the 36 minutes, here are my notes.

Darius Jankiewicz (Yun-kye-vich) is an Australian of Polish birth. He emigrated from Poland to Australia in 1986 and there attended Avondale College. After a few years of ministry in Sydney, he and his wife moved to Berrien Springs, Michigan, to continue his education at Andrews University, where he first completed an MDiv and then a PhD focused on historical theology and specifically Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Following his studies at Andrews, he returned to ministry in Australia (Tasmania) and then became a missionary teacher at Fulton College in Fiji. From there, he was invited to become an associate professor of historical theology at the Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He has been married to his lovely Australian wife, Edyta, for over 22 years and has two wonderful daughters, Caitlin (13) and Ashley (11).

This presentation was given at the 2012 Women Clergy Conference sponsored by the NAD Ministerial Department. nadministerial.org/

• There is no clear, unambiguous support for ordination on any kind in scripture.
• Laying on of hands, when found in scripture, is most often associated with healing, and then with granting of spiritual gifts.
• Ordination is derived from political practices of the Roman empire where individuals were granted entry to a higher class of society.
• Tertullian was the first to introduce the practice of ordination into Christianity.
• He wanted to show that Christianity was a reasonable religion acceptable to pagan Rome because of similar practices.
• He knew exactly what he was doing - that he was introducing hierarchy into the Christian religion.
• Bishop/pastor, elder, deacon - threefold distinction traces back to Iganatius - in Acts, there is no distinction.
• In name of unity, power is centralized in one person.
• Prior to this time, each local church had multiple "bishops."
• Hippolytus - each office requires separate ordination.
• Iranaeus - in the name of unity, introduces concept that ordination confers a special spiritual gift of truth and discernment; i.e., infallibility; and this gift granted by succession of ordinations.
• Tertullian - introduces distinction between clergy and laity.
• Cyprian develops concept of Christian priesthood where ordained priests are now mediators between laity and God; i.e., ordained clergy required for sacraments; authority of ordained clergy increases.
• Augustine introduces the concept of an "indelible seal" of ordination, raising ordained minister to a higher spiritual level, a privileged order, and becomes channel of grace to laity.
• In three centuries, Christian ministry changes from functional to sacramental.
• Absolute ordination; ca. 4th-5th century - ordination (laying on of hands) assigned to person, rather than task. Ca. Council of Chalcedon. Prior to this, ordination was for a person to accomplish a task in a particular community.
• Towards end of 5th century - Pope Gelasius irked by reports of (impl. ordained) women ministering in churches.
• The practice of ordination only being allowed to be performed by ordained ministers dates back to Hippolytus. In Acts, all believers lay hands on Paul and Barnabas to set them aside for a specific ministry task.
• Jerome - utters that Christian community cannot exist without ordained, male ministers.
• Reformation did not alter ordination practices.
• First face of Adventism - no priests, no organization.
• Adventism realized some organization necessary for mission.
• Adventist ordination was originally functional. But has it changed to become sacramental?
• Two models of the church - both have organization - but function in different ways.
• 1) Church as an organization; 2) Church as a missionary movement.
• 1) Organization is essential for the existence of the church. Organization understood sacramentally - salvation comes from the organization. Dedicated to preservation of the organization, in the name of unity. Goal of church is mediation of salvation to its members. Ordination is a big issue.
• 2) Organization is not essential for the existence of the church. Understood functionally. Organization does not save anyone. Organization seeks to preserve mission. Goal is mission to the world. Organization can be changed and adapted to mission. Ordination is not an issue.
• The longer an organization exists, the more it is tempted to become sacramental.

Working out your own salvation

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)

How many interpretations and applications of this particular two verses have you heard and read in your lifetime? Has it ever troubled you on reading it? It certainly has been a source of confusion and contradictions in my mind.

I heard it read over this past weekend and that prompted me to look at the passage again. By following a few basic rules of interpretation, I hope to bring a little more clarity to this passage.

Perhaps the most egregious error is simply lifting the two verses out of context and trying to make them say something they were never meant to say.

A second problem is trying to interpret the verses in the Western, Modernist, Individualistic context rather than the Middle Eastern, Ancient, Collectivistic context. Here I am indebted to Reading the New Testament series of commentaries on pointing out that “salvation” does not necessarily refer to individual salvation when found in the New Testament. (It should be noted that particularly in Paul’s writings, “salvation” is often NOT in the personal salvation sense that we Western Christians have been conditioned into thinking.) Rather it can have something to do with the community and how it experiences salvation.

When the verses are lifted out of their contexts and words are assumed to mean something they don’t, we end up with misinterpretation and confusion.

Two typical, traditional, and polar interpretations of the passage above are as follows:

1. You, as a singular Christian individual, must do your part in the process of salvation. God provides the power, but you have to provide the effort. You will do this with fear and trembling because you never can be certain if you are doing all that you are capable and required to do.

2. You, as a singular Christian individual, can never do anything to work out salvation on your own. To do so is futile; hence the fear and trembling. You must rely completely upon God to work in you to accomplish your salvation.

I suggest that neither of the above is a true and accurate interpretation of the text.

Let’s first deal with the issue of context. Verse 12 begins, “Therefore.” This is always an indication that what follows derives from what came just before. In this case what came just before was Jesus’ attitude of humility in comparison with how the people of the world relate to one another – with selfish ambition and conceit. This section on humility is an exhortation to the Christian community to follow the example given by Jesus in how they relate to one another, and through humility achieve unity of love and purpose. Notice that there is nothing here about individual salvation – that of “getting saved” that a modern Christian might typically associate with the word “salvation.”

But even that preceding passage, beginning in the first verse of chapter 2, begins with a connecting word, “So.” That means the context for 2:12-13 begins some place in chapter 1. A good place to set the flag for the start of the context is 1:27.

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.”  (Philippians 1:27-28 ESV)

Notice that Paul is speaking to the entire church at Philippi. His concern is that they stand united and to work together for the gospel, and that they not be frightened by hostility and threats of those that oppose them. Notice that he is also concerned about his absence from the church at Philippi, but that he is confident of their Christian walk regardless. Notice, too, that the word “salvation” is used in verse 28. Given that 1:28 and 2:12 occur in proximity and within the same contextual setting, we ought to interpret the two occurrences of “salvation” to mean the same thing.

In 1:28 “salvation” is not being used in the sense of “getting saved” or “getting to heaven” but rather in the sense of “external displays of the reality of belonging to God.” These external displays include: standing firm, unity in spirit, striving together for the gospel, courage in the face of threats.

The Philippian church is experiencing conflicts against them (1:29-30). Paul writes that this is to be expected. Paul’s exhortation (which follows in chapter 2) is to continue in the manner they have already shown to be living their salvation life. As a reminder Paul then describes how Jesus lived his life and faced the ultimate conflict of his life.

It is in this context of living life in the present, within a community, one that belongs to God, that Paul writes “therefore… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” He is writing not about individual salvation but about living out a saved life, as a church, as a community. He is writing that a saved community, living its daily life with courage and unity in the face of conflicts and threats, demonstrates the love and power of God for the world to see.

It is in this context that “fear and trembling” must be understood. It is not indicative of uncertainty or cowardice, but rather a sense of profound humility and respect in that the church has been given such an awesome responsibility for portraying God to the world.

Paul writes that such a life is not necessarily easy. He writes that he wishes he could be with them, but because he cannot he expresses confidence that they can “work out your own salvation” without his immediate presence. But Paul adds that his presence isn’t really necessary, because God will provide all that is necessary to make sure the church will not fail in its mission.

It’s Not That Simple - 2

Question: What is LIFE?

Ah… such a simple question. And a simple answer, too: “Life is ______.” Wait… okay, so how do you define life? Hmm… Maybe it isn’t so simple. I have a sneaking suspicions that the answer for most people is “life is what I think (or believe) life is.” Yup, a rather circular, incestuous reasoning.

“Wait a minute,” you protest, “I know what life is because ______ describes what it is.” That blank could be filled in with any number of options: a branch of science, a religious text, a school of philosophy, among others. But ultimately is comes down to, “I know what life is because of what I have chosen to accept/believe as an authoritative source.” Guess what? Your authoritative source isn’t necessarily accepted by every single human being.

Even in the case of science there is no unequivocal definition of what life is. Do chemical processes define life? Or maybe it’s biological? Or is it a combination, i.e., biochemistry? Does the branch of physics have anything to contribute? Science has come up with a consensus description of what what something called life generally shares, but that is far from a indisputable definition. It seems that even in science, it comes down to “I know life when I see it.”

If something as objective as science cannot form a precise definition of life, should we expect reliance on other sources to be any more precise and accurate? Perhaps not. Interpretations of religious and philosophical sources are far more subjective than interpretation of scientific data.

What precipitated this thought was the topic of “pro-life.” Now, if taken literally, pro-life simply means “for or promoting life.” I’d wager, except for a few sociopaths, no one is anti-life and all would agree they are pro-life. Is that how pro-life is used? We all pretty much know that pro-life is an euphemism for anti-abortion.

If the description of life was simply limited to the biological – e.g., a single cell containing growth and reproduction capabilities, ability to taken in food, ability to respond to external stimuli – a zygote would indeed be life, as well as a single cell amoeba, bacteria, spiders, ants, mosquitoes – and someone who professes to be pro-life would be bound to protect all of the above.

If the description of life was, instead, provided through ontology – e.g., the ability to think, feel, love – then only certain higher-order creatures would fit that description. Amoeba, bacteria, spiders, and ants certainly would be excluded. Cats, dogs and birds might be in an intermediate state. A human zygote… strictly would not be life, though it would have the potential for life if allowed to successfully grow and mature beyond some certain point. Ah, but what is that point?

The reality is that all of us combine the scientific and onotological descriptions of life. No two of us combine them in exactly the same manner. The result is that the description of what life is will vary between every person.

Therein lies the complexity of the pro-life/anti-abortion issue. Every person stands on a different foundation: some just slightly different, others vastly so. Even those who share sources of authority can disagree widely because of different methods of interpreting those sources and thus come to polar opposite conclusions. As I described in an earlier post, each person believes they are right and believe they are doing the right thing, but they may be in fact be wrong, and in complex cases no one can know for certain if they are right or wrong.

LIFE. It’s not that simple.

It’s not that simple

Question: Are Americans drowning in debt?

A simple question. There ought to be data from which a simple “yes” or “no” can be concluded.

Doing a Web search brings up any number of pages that attempt to answer this question. Most seem to be “yes” and rely on nearly identical data. But is it so simple?

The most frequently seen chart looks something like this¹:

[Chart 1]

Looking at this it might appear that indeed, Americans are drowning in debt and are in trouble. There is a significant increase in the rate of rise of the debt ratio between the 1980’s and 2007, whereas the ratio remained fairly steady between 1964 and the 1980’s.

The problem with the above chart is that although accurate, it is incomplete. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco provides a document with a more complete chart.²

[Chart 2]

What this chart brings in are assets: personal income, real estate, and securities. We can see from this chart that even as debt has increased, assets have also increased. Is this good or bad?

First, part of basic economic theory is that debt is required in order for the economy to grow. There is no incentive for saving or investing if there is no return on it. For there to be return on savings and investing (both are essentially the same) the assets saved and invested must be loaned out. Through the process of debt, the original assets invested are increased.

For a household we need to include in the ROI (return on investment) not just liquid assets (from savings and investing in stocks), but also intangibles such as future earnings power (borrowing for education would fall here), future ability to have a roof over one’s head (mortgage on primary residence), ability to transport one’s self to work (auto loans), and recreational enjoyment to extend the ability to continue working (loan on vacation home). This is leverage, the ability to use one’s assets as collateral to increase their assets, both tangible and intangible.

Not all debt is bad. In fact as I hope I’ve briefly demonstrated, many debts can be good. The problem is when a person or household is overleveraged to the point they are unable to meet their debt commitments. The first chart (debt to income ratio) might imply that is the case, and much commentary on this chart concludes as such. But not all agree.³

My argument is the first chart, although informative and provides tangential data toward leverage, cannot answer by itself whether or not American households are in trouble.

This third chart plots data published by the Federal Reserve.⁴

[Chart 3]

This shows the most pertinent data to answer whether or not American’s are drowning in debt. This chart shows how much of personal disposable income is going towards servicing debt. The first chart shows the growth of leverage; this third chart shows the ability to pay for the leverage.

What this shows is that the Debt Service Ratio for all Americans is today as low as it was in the early 1990’s. The same can be said of most of the Financial Obligation Ratios that are plotted. The trend peaked around 2007 but has since been declining. According to this chart then, the answer to “are American’s drowning in debt” is “No.” Americans are well within their means to meet their ongoing debt commitments.

My answer to the original question is a qualified “No” and “Yes.” Americans are not in immediate trouble; they are not “drowning in debt” as some alarmist headlines might have you believe. At the same time the increasing rise of leverage is a concern. If the underlying assets – real estate, securities, one’s ability to earn income – is reduced, the ability to service debts will be affected adversely. If severe enough, then yes, Americans could drown in debt.

A simple question; but the answer? It’s not that simple.

---

References:

1. http://www.moneyreallymatters.com/content/debt-to-income-ratio-and-us-household-debt/
2. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-16.html
3. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/02/the-increase-in-household-debt-prior-to-the-crisis-is-not-a-moral-issue.html
4. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/

Hold on to convictions tentatively

The title of this post might appear to be one of contradictions. After all isn’t a conviction something that a person knows for certain? If something is certain, how can that person be tentative about it?

In light of a number of psychological, neurological, sociological, and anthropological studies¹ that I have seen recently, the conclusion I have come to (which too, must be held just tentatively) is that our worldview, perspectives, system of beliefs, and even what we “know” as truth is subjective to the “box” that each person has slowly built up over the course of their lives up to this precise moment in time.

Each box is different from every other box. Which means that every worldview, perspective, beliefs, and yes, even “truth” differs from one person to another. In other words, what I know for certain to be truth, the next person may or may not accept as such. Not only may that person not accept it as such at this time, he may not have the capability to ever accept it as such. And likewise, I may have certain beliefs that in reality, may not be true, that because of my life experiences, I may never be able to reject; conversely, there may be things that I believe as false that in reality are true, but I will never be able to accept.

Thus, I must remind myself: hold on to convictions tentatively.

I think and act out of my convictions, my belief system, what I hold to be true. But I must be aware that all the I know, believe, see and hear are limited… that they are only partial views into reality. I have no way to apprehend reality in its entirety, in its fullness, and unobscured by personal and societal preconceptions and influences.

---

¹I don’t have links to sources, but to paraphrase some of them: 1) Our biological senses such as sight and hearing, when they go through the process of interpretation in our brains, are selective. We see and hear what we want to see and hear, and have the uncanny ability to filter away stuff that are “irrelevant” to us. 2) We are tribal in nature. Even in an highly individualistic society such as the United States, we form tribes: political, religious, philosophical. We believe and act in ways to further “our” tribe and defeat competing tribes. We have the ability to unconsciously ignore and even contradict fact and truth in order to promote our own “tribal” views.

Thoughts on James 1:2-19a

Is the book of James simply a collection of disparate wisdom topics, exhortations, warnings, and instruction? Can we find a unifying theme in the opening verses of the book?

The past several Wednesday evenings I’ve been going to a study in the book of James, held at the Baptist Church. It has given me an opportunity to study a book that I probably wouldn’t have seriously considered otherwise. The point here is not to agree or disagree with what I hear there, but rather provide my own interpretations and conclusions as I follow the verses and think about it for myself.

It appears that one common view of James is that it is a collection of wisdom sayings, much like Proverbs. Verses may cluster around a related topic but, according to the common view, there is not necessarily a unifying theme from the beginning to the end of the book. Even in a passage as short as the first eighteen verses, a reader could find half-a-dozen different topics that may or may not be related to one another.

People who know me well know that I like to look for the big picture and how the various elements fit together to establish and sustain the whole. I don’t like it when pieces seem to be thrown haphazardly together. After taking several weeks to go through these verses, I thought I saw some patterns in words, phrases, and concepts repeatedly coming up in verses 2 through 18.

My first step in seeing if I could find some kind of unifying thought in these seventeen verses was to go through and color code key words and phrases. I assigned identical colors to identical concepts; similar colors to related concepts. (See graphic)

I could now see more clearly that my hunch was correct about related and opposing concepts appearing throughout these seventeen verses. The next step was to organize the above through a table containing key ideas, related terms, and opposing concepts.

Concept	Related Terms	Opposing Concepts
Steadfastness	Faith, stood, no variation, no change	Unstable, doubting
Unstable	Doubts, doubting, tossed, pass away, withers, perishes, fade away, lured, enticed, deceived, double-minded	Steadfastness, faith
Lacking	Lacks	Complete
Complete	Perfect	Lacking
Trials	Testing, test	Temptations
Temptations	Tempted, deceived, lured, enticed	Trials, gift
Desire (human)	Temptations	Own will (God's)
Own will (God's)		Desire (human)
Gift	Wisdom, crown of life, birth (from God), receive... from the Lord, gives generously, perfect, complete	Temptations, desire (human), lacking
Birth	Conceived, grown, brings forth, brought us forth, firstfruits	Death
Death	Sin	Birth

It began to become quite clear that in these verses James was contrasting two opposing concepts: God vs. human, faith vs. doubt, steadfast vs. unstable, life vs. death. My next step was to figure out how James developed this comparison through this passage.

Motifs	Corresponding Scripture
Faith ↔ Testing → Steadfastness → Perfect and complete   “Lacking” → (transition to next set)	[2] Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, [3] for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. [4] And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to fill any lack that the faithful may perceive Faith → God Doubt → Human   “Unstable” → (transition to next set)	[5] If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. [6] But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. [7] For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; [8] he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways
(The faithful person) Human effort is “unstable” and temporary   “Scorching heat [trial]” → (transition to next set)	[9] Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, [10] and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. [11] For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to the faithful → (life) God does not cause evil Human desire → death Humans are unstable   [Human birthed life cycle] Human desire ↔ temptation → sin (doubt) → death	[12] Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. [13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. [14] But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to the faithful God is steadfast [God birthed life (is not a cycle)] God's will → births faith → growth process of v.2-4 → perfect and complete fruits of God	[16] Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. [17] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. [18] Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

What strikes me most is that this passage begins with a description of a growth process and ends with one-and-a-half. The beginning describes the growth process of a Christian. The end of this passage starts off with a description of the birth-to-growth-to-death process of someone relying strictly on human effort. The passage ends with the “half” life process of a Christian. I believe James intends his audience to take what he wrote at the very beginning and insert it into the ending to complete the birth and growth process of a Christian.

After this passage, verse 19 begins, “Know this, my beloved brothers...”

In all translations I've seen, this begins what seems to be a brand new section. An alternative translation is to make the first phrase in verse 19 a transition: “Knowing this, my beloved brothers...,” or “In light of what you have just heard...” In other words, through verse 18 James had been discussing in broad terms the right and wrong ways for Christians to live and grow in Christ. Now beginning with verse 19 he moves on to specific examples of right and wrong.

Ask, Seek, Knock…

Does God grant any prayer request?

Matthew 7:7-11 reads:

⁷ “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ⁸ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ⁹ Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰ Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

This is the version familiar to most people.

There is a parallel version found in Luke 11:9-13:

^{9 “}And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ¹⁰ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ¹¹ What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; ¹² or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? ¹³ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Although the Matthew version is generally more familiar and more often seen, the Lucan version is considered to be closer to the original saying (Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Combined edition), 136; Kenneth E. Bailey).

Where this observation becomes key is in the concluding phrase of these passages. The Matthew version reads, “How much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” In this version there appears to be no qualification for the asking, seeking, knocking. The audience could go away believing God will give anything to the one who asks, if he/she asks with enough passion, faith, diligence.

The Lucan version concludes, “How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” This version is quite specific about what request God will grant without limits. In this version the audience cannot mistakenly go away believing God will grant any request or wish. In this version it is specifically the Holy Spirit that God will grant without measure.

This example I provide here shows one of the the dangers of a simplistic reading of Bible texts without, among other things, exploring variations and literary connections.

Good Friday Service 2012

Last night the Petersburg Christian Ministerial Association held its annual Community Good Friday service at the Lutheran Church. This year we read the Good Friday account from the gospel of Mark (chapter 15). It was divided among six pastors who read the passage and gave a brief thought based on it.

I was asked to be the pianist for the congregational singing and also provided a vocal solo, “Embrace the Cross.” The opening song was the hymn “Were You There.” The closing songs, “I Come to the Cross” and “O Mighty Cross,” were co-led with Pastor Tony of the Lighthouse Assemblies of God

The passage I read and talked about was Mark 15:33-41.

Here is the text of my devotional thought:

The crucifixion account in Mark forms one bookend of the gospel account. Jesus' baptism at the beginning is the other bookend. These bookends feature similarities in thematic material that introduce, at the baptism, and recap, at the crucifixion, key ideas about Jesus that Mark wants his audience to know.

First the baptism account in Mark 1:9-11...

[9] In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. [10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. [11] And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And now the very end of Jesus' life in Mark 15:37-39...

[37] And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. [38] And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. [39] And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

There are three parallels found in these bookends:

1. First, at the baptism the heavens were torn open showing God, as Spirit, coming down to earth. At the death of Jesus the temple curtain was torn. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that this curtain depicted a panorama of the heavens. The common belief too, at that time, was that God was in some ways confined to the temple. The baptism was a foreshadowing of God's grace and salvation being offered to everyone through Jesus. The crucifixion seals that offer. It shows that no religious forms or traditions of man can confine God's grace.

2. The second parallel is in regards to the words Spirit and breathed. Both derive from a common Greek word, pneo, meaning “to breathe.” At the baptism, Jesus received the Spirit. At his death, he breathed his last. This symbolizes Jesus as the source and giver of life. Without Jesus there is no life. Jesus willingly gave up his own life so that he could become a life-giver to all.

3. Finally the third parallel is the witness at each bookend event to Jesus as the divine Son of God. At the baptism, the Father himself testifies to Jesus' identity, “You are my beloved Son.” At Jesus' death, Mark does not find his witness among the Jews, but in a Gentile, and a most reviled one at that – the centurion supervising the crucifixion who said, “Truly this man was the Son of God.” This symbolizes once more that salvation from God is available to all humankind, to anyone who is willing to see the Christ.

Who and what do you see in the crucified Jesus?

Sermon: “Out of the Darkness” - Suicide Prevention and Awareness

Last Wednesday (March 14) I had the opportunity to speak to the Baptist church about the issue of suicide and an approach Christians can take to prevent suicide and raise awareness of the issue.

I’ve been working with a community coalition for the past few years on the issues of substance abuse and suicide prevention. I’ve had the opportunity to attend a couple of statewide meetings on the issue of suicide prevention and postvention. Earlier this year, in January after attending one such event I felt that I could be a catalyst for doing more active work toward prevention in Petersburg. With that in mind I volunteered to head up a subgroup of the larger coalition, to focus more specifically on the issue of suicide. Part of that work for me includes awareness outreach to the Christian community in Petersburg.

The video is 720p HD and 36 minutes long.

There are some that only conservative Christianity will reach…

… and there are some that only liberal Christianity will reach.

The raison d’etre for all Christians, regardless of one’s conservative/liberal bias, is to bring to everyone the good news of Jesus Christ offering to set us free from the power of sin. The Christian’s job is not to convert another person from conservative to liberal, or vice versa.

Every person views the world differently from another. Not every school of Christian theology will get a hearing by any given individual. As long as the goal for a particular school of Christian theology is not denominationalism or the theology itself, but rather the message that one can be freed by Christ from sin’s power, does it matter which school brings a person to Christ?

Rather than attacking one another, conservative and liberal Christians ought to learn to agree to disagree, to respect one another’s differences as God’s accommodation of reality in reaching people with different perspectives, and work together to stop slinging mud on Christ’s name for supposed doctrinal and behavior purity.

We need each other, even those with whom we disagree.

New Blog to discuss Revelation

Our church group recently finished a year-long trip through the Epistle of Romans.

Beginning this week we begin our next journey: this time in the book of Revelation. I started a new blog, Revelation Road Trip, where our discussion outlines and a few highlights from each week can be found.

RIP Stripey

This mongrel cat of dubious parentage… He loved to eat things he shouldn’t, starting with plastic shopping bags, then onto butter, and ice cream, and cookies, and cake. A few houseplants here and there to satisfy his mouth from time to time. He would find ways to climb onto counters, tables, and anything for a forbidden, tasty treat.

Amy named him Stripey when she was about seven years old. In an accidental litter, he was the first of the kittens to start showing some stripes.

He was born in Aloha, Ore., then made the ferry trip to Petersburg, Alaska when we all moved up. Vivace, our Bengal was his constant companion from the time they were kittens together.

Shelley was his favorite person. When we first brought him home, we had an older cat, a Siamese named Tora. In order to try to get the two used to each other, Stripey was given a home in Shelley’s room. From that time on, she became “his person.”

No huge wonder that at age five his obesity caught up with him, getting him sent on Alaska Airlines to Juneau Veterinary Hospital for emergency treatment. His long-term prognosis at this time was already questionable.

His defective heart, whether born that way or caused by his obesity, threw out occasional clots, resulting in thromboembolism. Cats that suffer this condition don’t typically have a very long future, if they survive at all. But he managed to survive almost three years after the first episode.

He loved laps. Complementing his love of food was his love of inactivity. Naps on laps: his favorite activity.

Oh, he would engage cat toys from time to time if he felt like it. He had a habit of yawning once or twice in preparation for play with a toy.

He never did learn to properly cover up his business in the litter box. (Bad parenting, I imagine…) He often leapt out of the box, scattering litter all over the floor.

Yes, he had annoying habits, he was messy, he cost us a lot of vet payments, and resulted in quite a bit of lost sleep and anxiety these past couple of months. But we loved him anyway. He was a fighter. Until this very last time he wouldn’t give up. He fought to live; much longer than any of the professionals thought he would.

We will miss your adorable, pretty blue eyes; the luxurious and silky coat; the hefty warmth; the plaintive, quiet meows; the intensely loud purrs; and the nightly ritual of sleeping on someone’s legs and sometime their neck.

It was so wonderful to have you around for eight years and nine months.

RIP, Stripey.

God suffers too (reflections on our cat, Stripey)

Our mixed breed cat, Stripey, not quite nine years old, has had health problems for that past three years.

Three years ago, due to his obesity, he came down with hepatitis (fatty liver syndrome) which required him to be flown to Juneau for emergency treatment and surgery to put a feeding tube into him.

A short while after his return he experienced his first episode of feline thromboembolism (blood clot blocks the arteries where it divides and goes down into his limbs, usually the hind ones) due to his heart murmur. It resulted in paralysis of his hind legs for a short period of time. With some injections of Heparin he recovered from this episode.

It was this first episode that I took as a sign that I needed to go visit my mother. I consider it a sort of miracle because it was only a few months later that she passed away due to ALS.

From then until last Thanksgiving Stripey was fairly healthy though he experienced a few minor thromboembolism episodes. Each time he recovered fully.

But since last Thanksgiving (2011) he has been experienced more frequent and severe episodes. Around Christmas time he experienced a series of episodes, some more severe than others.

Around the middle of January he experienced his worst case yet. He was in severe pain and appeared to be suffering greatly. (Why is it that this nearly always happens in the middle of the night, on weekends, and/or when the vet is out of town; i.e., higher vet bills?) It was to the point where I didn’t think he would recover and euthanasia was the only reasonable course of action. Elise and Shelley were in Hawaii at this time and Stripey being “Shelley’s cat” I debated whether or not to try to keep him alive until they got back (It was just a couple of days to wait).

Surprisingly his suffering decreased dramatically about 24 hours after the onset, so I chose to wait it out. Over the four weeks since then he has recovered and this past week he has been acting more like his old self.

However (the big word…), this evening (Feb. 14) approaching midnight as I was on the phone with Shelley, right after he was being himself, trying to jump on my lap he showed some suspicious signs that something was again the matter with him. I still had Heparin from the last episode so I injected that into him immediately. Unfortunately as the minutes and hours passed, his condition, rather than improving or even remaining the same, appeared to get worse. As I write this he appears to be in considerable discomfort and pain.

There is nothing I can do except to watch him, be with him (though I can only handle that for very sort periods at a time), try to comfort him, and pray that his suffering will somehow be reduced.

I suffer with him.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the parallels between Stripey and me, and with me and God.

I am sick and suffering. There is only so much God can do (I realize some readers will disagree, but this is what I believe) while preserving the freedom of all by allowing sin and all its consequences to run its course. Just as I stand by wanting to fix all that is wrong with Stripey, I believe that in most cases God must stand by, wanting to fix everything but unable to do so because to do so would violate freedom of conscience.

So God suffers with me (and with Stripey, I’m certain).

I cannot fix Stripey, but God, potentially, has the power to fix everything that is wrong in the world. I hear Stripey’s wails, and I hurt – deeply. God hears our cries, yet he is unable to fix things – at least not yet. How much greater is his suffering…

Stripey can’t understand why he is suffering. But he loves me (as much as a cat can) and he wants me to be with him.

I may not fully understand why I go through all the suffering, disappointments, hurts, and difficulties of this life. Hopefully I have a bit more grey matter in my brain that I can partly grasp some understanding, but in the end all I can do is love God and want to be with him, and he with me so that I can simply take comfort in his presence as he suffers with me.

The Bible doesn’t discuss whether or not our beloved pets will be reunited with us in the world recreated. I trust God will do what is best, yet I hope that I’ll be reunited with Stripey, with Tora (our first cat), and with Vivvy (if our time here lasts long enough for her to pass to death).

I can only tell Stripey (and I doubt he understands) that soon, his suffering will be over when he is euthanized.

We have a better hope. While we may suffer in this world, we can have hope and joy because we are promised that once sin is seen to be what it truly is, God will come to eradicate sin and all that is wrong with the world.

While I do the best to live each day in joy and peace today, I look forward to the tomorrow when the promise of recreation and restoration will be fulfilled in its entirety. I look forward to being reunited with my mom and my beloved pets.

What is Omnipotence?

Encarta Dictionary --

All-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority.

Wikipedia --

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

[Thomas] Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities… Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity.

---

Last night while in bed, I was awake for quite some time pondering the meaning of God’s omnipotence. I’ve heard from time to time challenges such as:

“Can God create something too big for him to life?”

“Can God sin?”

As shown by the Wikipedia excerpts given above, challenges such as these two examples are considered nonsensical and meaningless since it derives from a faulty and rigid interpretation of omnipotence.

A more realistic challenge to the meaning of God’s omnipotence is how God can be omnipotent and at the same time allow for human beings to have freedom of choice. On the surface it would appear that if humans had absolute freedom of choice, God’s power is severely limited, not just in the choices human beings make, but in the effects of those choices upon the world and the universe. (Once omniscience is thrown in, the size of the dilemma only seems to increase.)

This dilemma is resolved in a number of ways within the Christian tradition. Here I present three. First, and perhaps the most widely held explanation, is that human beings don’t have absolute free will; that is, human freedom is limited by what God allows. A second explanation is that God is in control of the flow of history, but not in control of individual human decisions. In this scenario God can intervene to maintain the proper course of history. A third explanation is that there exists a principle (or law) that supersedes God’s omnipotence (and consequently limits it), and it is this principle that allows for absolute free will in humans.

The objection I have to the first explanation is that in my mind, God is only playing with humanity. In this scenario free will is an illusion, no matter how it is cast. A limited free will is no free will at all.

The objection I have to the second explanation is again, God reserves for himself the right to reverse human choices that might throw off God’s vision of the flow of history. Logically, this line of thought leads to the conclusion that there is no free will; if God cannot allow anything that might ruin his plan for history, is there truly free will?

I also see in the first two explanations a paradox: By God limiting free will, he is in fact admitting that he is not all-powerful. By God admitting that he might at some points in time, have to resort to the use of force and coercion, he is also admitting that free will is more powerful than himself.

This is why I believe, for myself, that the third explanation fits most closely with what is meant by God’s omnipotence. I reject the definition of omnipotence found in Encarta (and other dictionaries). I also reject the traditional explanations of limited free will. I believe there is a principle under which both omnipotence and free will are subject. This principle I believe to be the dominion of God’s love. Love is the first principle under which all other attributes and actions of God must be subject, including omnipotence. I believe that God’s love demands that human beings have absolute free will to the extent that it can and will limit God’s power and actions in the world.

The principle can be illustrated (imperfectly, I hasten to add) by human kingdoms. How much power does a king have? He has absolute power over his domain. What is his domain? From a human monarchial standpoint, a king’s domain includes those that willingly submit to him, those whom through fear voluntarily submit to him, and those whom are involuntarily coerced into submitting to him. The king has no power over those outside of his domain. He can attempt to exert power over those outside his domain through persuasion or through force. In either case, the king’s power is exerted by bringing those outside of his domain inside.

What I am getting at is that God’s omnipotence extends as far as his domain and no farther. He has power over those who willingly submit to him. Unlike human kings, I do not believe God ever uses fear or force to manipulate humans into submitting to him. Therefore, God has no power over those who have not submitted, or are unwilling to submit, to him. Again, because God’s power is limited by love, he cannot employ force to attempt to bring those outside his domain inside. The only avenue left to him is persuasion.

The Bible never explicitly dismisses the concept of multiple gods. The entire Old Testament is framed within the context that multiple gods exist and that they each have their own domains. It is within this context that Yahweh declares himself to be the God of Israel and that they are his people. It is within this context that God demonstrates that the various aspects of nature attributed to various gods, are actually within God’s domain.

God’s domain includes what is created, but there is one thing it does not include automatically: beings given free will. In the story of the Fall, in Genesis 3, when the serpent claims to Adam and Eve that “they will be like God,” he is not lying. Surprisingly the serpent may even be showing some restraint, because by claiming independence from God, Adam and Eve actually become their own little gods, claiming for themselves a domain that is no longer under God’s power. In Ezekiel 28 the prince of Tyre is accused of claiming, “I am a god.” Although the response is, “You are but a man, and no god,” within the context of free will the prince of Tyre is speaking the truth.

God’s plan and purpose is to bring all under his dominion. The only means he can use is persuasion through love. That is why the Father sent his Son, to be incarnated as a human being in Jesus Christ. I believe this is what Paul had in mind when he penned (quoting an even earlier Christ-hymn):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

Philippians 2:10-11 reads (quoting and interpreting Isaiah 45:23; also quoted in Romans 14:11),

So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

To me this is a critical passage because this is what gives God the right, authority, and power to judge and execute judgment over all creation. (The context in all three locations where this idea is found is the context of a final judgment.) What the Bible says is that at the very end all will willingly (all will be convinced of God’s rightness and justice, though many will continue to hate him) submit to the domain of God. Until this happens, God cannot execute final judgment because there are beings outside of his domain and consequently outside of his power and authority.

From a perspective of theodicy this is also critical because how can God rightly execute judgment upon a being who does not acknowledge God’s authority? Question will forever remain on whether or not God was good and just in executing judgment upon a being who did not acknowledge God’s authority.

This is my explanation on what I believe God’s omnipotence means, and why I believe humans have absolute free will.