In my previous post, I mentioned a book that had been profoundly influential in my thinking about what it means to be a Christian man. I didn’t mention the title–only that I read it about 12 years ago. Several readers guessed John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart. A good guess, but that is not the book I was referring to.

In 1999 an Oregon pastor named Stu Weber came out with Four Pillars of a Man’s Heart: Bringing Strength Into Balance. I came across a copy on a friend’s shelf and have never been the same.

Weber’s thesis, in a nutshell, is that men are God-created to function (in equilibrium) in four different roles (pillars). And that there is a place for these roles  in every sphere of their lives–marriage, parenting, work, church and community. Those four pillars are:

Shepherd-King, Warrior, Mentor, and Friend.

The function of the Shepherd-King is to provide servant-leadership. The obvious biblical models are Moses, David and, of course, Jesus. In Warrior mode, a man protects and defends. There is also something in every man that was built to teach, model and build a legacy–in other words, be a Mentor. And finally, men are constructed for a unique brand of friendship.

Early on in Four Pillars, Weber points out that The Fall was in fact the result of a failure by Adam in all four areas. And throughout the book he reveals how many men lack balance–going to an extreme in one or more of the pillars while abdicating in others.

One of my favorte passages in the book is actually the text of a letter written 150 years ago. Sullivan Ballou was a soldier in the Civil War serving in the Rhode Island Volunteers. He wrote his beloved wife, Sarah, from an encampment only days before one of the first major battles of the war. Ken Burns also featured an excerpt of this letter in his brilliant documentary The Civil War.

Stu Weber cites it as a stunning example of balanced, four-pillared manhood expressed on paper. Here is the text of that letter:

July 14, 1861 Camp Clark, Washington

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more . . .

I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and sufferings of the Revolution.

And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt . . .

Sarah my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me unresistibly on with all these chains to the battle field.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grown up to honorable manhood, around us.

I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar, that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battle field, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often times been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness . . . But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah do not mourn me dead. Think I am gone and waiting for thee, for we shall meet again . . .

*****

Sullivan Ballou was killed a week later at the first Battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861. The above letter was found in his pocket.

As the picture above suggests, it was a big weekend around our house. Our first-born, known in this blog as Female Offspring Unit #1, graduated from Baylor University.

She did us all proud. She finished in four years (an increasingly rare feat). She finished with distinction. And she passed the most important test of all. That is, she handled the autonomy and freedom that college provides with wisdom and prudence. Without us there to provide parental accountability, her faith, her morals and her reputation remained fully intact.

Four years ago I wrote a weepy blog post in anticipation of dropping her off for her Freshman year. It is almost inconceivable that this chapter of her journey is now complete. Back then I wrote:

Of course, she’ll be back. But we all know it will never again be quite the same. But that’s okay. What has been, has been very, very good. Far better than I deserve.

And indeed, we moved her back in on Sunday. She’s going to live at home for a while, pay down some school-related debt, and look for a job.

If you know of an employer looking for a smart, outgoing, energetic young graduate who can both write and present, I know where you can find one.

What does the demise of the Surgically Altered One have to do with anything? Well . . .

A heavy box from Tyndale House publishers arrived at the house yesterday. It was full of these:

The Paul Harvey book has just been released in paperback form. I’m very pleased that Tyndale has chosen to do this. My hope is that it will find a wider readership in this new incarnation.

To be transparent for a moment, the fate of the hardcover edition of Paul Harvey’s America represents one of the most disappointing chapters of my life thus far. When in March of 2009, my dear friend Stephen Mansfield extended the invitation to collaborate with him on a book about the recently deceased radio icon, it represented a vision-come-true for me.

After ghost-writing or editing dozens of published books for other, more famous individuals, I had been hoping and dreaming of someday seeing a book or two with my name on the cover. And I was particularly interested in writing on subjects emerging from the colliding worlds of faith, media and the culture. The Paul Harvey book seemed custom tailored in Heaven.

Because of some unusual circumstances, the book had to be written in about a month. Even so, I felt very good about the content. Indeed, to this day I consider it the best writing I’ve ever done.

The book was scheduled for official release on July 4 (what better date for a book about a patriot) accompanied by a burst of publicity and media. Tyndale hired an outside publicist to generate buzz and get Stephen and I media interviews. I was told to clear my schedule because Stephen would only be available to do a couple of high profile interviews. The rest would come to me.

It seemed I was on my way.

As the end of June approached, the book actually released a little early. The publicity rocket was prepared for launch. Then, on the afternoon of June 29th, news began circulate online that Michael Jackson had died suddenly. For the next four weeks, no one in the media wanted to talk about anything else. The scandalous death of the scandal-plagued icon sucked all the oxygen out of the room for a full month.

Stephen did one interview–a taping with Mike Huckabee that didn’t run for weeks. Fox eventually ran it on a weekend and book sales jumped momentarily. I never did a single interview about the book.

Okay, that’s not completely accurate. A gentleman who does a weekend radio program on a Shreveport radio station interviewed me by phone for his show. He was gracious and I was grateful. And Paul Harvey’s America remains one of the best biographies no one has read.

Of course, it doesn’t help that we live in a youth-obsessed culture and people under the age of 35 have no idea who Paul Harvey was. Nevertheless, the writing gets a fresh chance at life now.

And Paul Harvey, America’s greatest optimist would have been the first to remind us that this great nation is all about second chances and the power of persistence.

Now to follow up on my previous post (Toward a Masculine Model of Spirituality.)

In it, I offered the thought that men have largely been offered what amounts to a feminine model of relationship with God. That is, one that is conversation-based rather than action-based.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, men generally tend to build or express friendship by doing things together. For men talking is usually incidental to, and a by-product of, the doing.

I know this leaves me open to charges of sexism from more progressive quarters. But every month I get written scientific evidence from AT&T Wireless about my phone talking and texting habits as they compare to those of the four wonderful women in my life.

Let me just say there is a consistent and astonishing disparity and leave it at that.

As I pointed out to the men in the group to which I spoke last Saturday, for most of us growing up, the most spiritual person we knew was a woman. (Usually a mother or grandmother.) Many men would say the same is true for them today–that their wives are more “spiritual” than they are.

Perhaps they are. Or maybe the current working definition of spirituality is simply skewed to reflect the natural feminine expression of friendship/relationship with God. Maybe deep, authentic friendship with God looks different in a man. As I’ve already made clear, I think that’s the case.

Here’s how that insight has affected my approach to being a Christian man.

The most dramatic difference has come in the way I approach prayer. Yes, I talk to God. And yes, I “with thanksgiving make my requests known” to Him. But that isn’t the meat of it. As I stated in the previous post, I no longer ask, “God, what do you want to talk about today?” I ask, “Father, what do you want to do today?”

The answer that comes back is never dull or lifeless.

Sometimes  I hear, “Let’s fight for the future husbands of your daughters.”

“But I don’t know who they are, Lord.”

“Oh but I do!”

Together, the Holy Spirit and I fight for their purity, for their destinies, and for their safety. We do battle with forces of discouragement, pornography, temptation, or deception that would scar their souls, pull them off the path, or damage their future prospects.

Sometimes he says, “Let’s fight on behalf of the persecuted church.” Sometimes we rush to the defense of embattled leaders.

Sometimes we build. Other times we tear down. We attack. We defend. We hunt (for enemy infiltrators.) We fish (for souls.) We travel to the other side of the world–to aid missionaries in perilous places. And we travel forward in time, doing preparatory work in my family’s future, even clearing out spiritual underbrush in the paths of my grandchildren yet unborn.

All of this happens without my ever having left the sitting area of our bedroom. That’s where I have my “quiet time.” Let me assure you, that phrase is a misnomer.

Now none of this spiritual activity is in any way the exclusive province of men. Women can and do make formidable spiritual warriors. Nevertheless, there is something about the way a man is wired that makes this kind of activity appealing and deeply satisfying. It is no accident that a lot of guys’ favorite historical movie is Braveheart and not Sense and Sensibility. And if more men viewed prayer and friendship with God in these muscular, action-oriented terms, a lot more men would be excited about it.

Naturally, this paradigm shift has implications that reach far beyond my prayer closet but I need to wind this up. As I said, I suspect that if men were presented a masculine version of spirituality, many more of them would sign up for it.

My thinking along these lines has also been profoundly impacted by a book I read about ten years ago. I’ll tell you which book, and why, in an upcoming post!

My buddy Jon E. snapped the following photo on Highway 377 in the Keller/Watauga area north of Fort Worth.

Can’t quite make out the message? Here, allow me to zoom in for you . . .

Still struggling? It says:

SAVE THE DATE!

RETURN OF CHRIST

May 21, 2011

Although the web site address at the bottom of the billboard is hard to make out, it is clearly the work of this group. These are the folks who, for at least the last nine months have been diligently and confidently warning the world that an event they call “Judgment Day” is scheduled for May 21st, 2011.

As the handy countdown clock displayed prominently on the eBible Fellowship home page reminds us, that’s only 12 days from now. Calling me “dubious” would be putting it gently.

As with many date-setters in years past, this bold, all-in assertion is built upon layer after layer of questionable (at best) assumptions. In this case, the assumptions include knowing the date of creation (11,013 BC apparently) and Noah’s flood (4990 BC). These day-counting calculations also have Jesus’ birth coming in on 7 BC (most Bible scholars place it in 3 or 4 BC) and His death and resurrection in AD 33 (which would have made Jesus 40 when He died).

But wait! There’s more

May 21 is just “Judgment Day,” not “the End of the World.” That, we’re told, is five months later: October 21.

Here’s the thing about that. October 21 is my birthday. I’m trying not to feel a little offended that these guys scheduled the final fiery apocalyptic collapse of all things on my special day.

On the other hand, five months and two weeks from now it could result in a conversation like this.

“Hey Dave, why so glum.”

“Well, I’m 52 today.”

“Hey, cheer up. It’s just a number. It’s not the end of the world.”

“Well, actually . . .”

It was a good morning yesterday. I spent it with about twenty men–ranging in age from roughly 22 to 82–and shared some thoughts about something I’ve been thinking, studying, and praying about for several years now.

“318” is a diverse group of men who meet monthly for breakfast, some worship and a Word-based exhortation. I was invited to be  yesterday’s exhorter. At the heart of my topic was a stunning revelation. Namely, that men and women are different. Very different.

Of course, saying this tends to run counter to what was the conventional feminist wisdom for most of the last half of the last century. Ten thousand Womens’ Studies masters theses were built around the doctrinaire assertion that there were no inherent differences between men and women other than some plumbing and a little difference in upper body strength. It was an article of faith that men and women are equally suited and equally adept at all tasks in all ways and at all times. And that sex roles were social constructs–culturally imposed–and reinforced artificially through the toys we give our children and the expectations we put on them.

These beliefs proved impervious to both common sense and observable experience for decades. But in recent years they have finally begun to succumb to neuroscience. It is now widely understood that brain wiring makes women better at certain types of tasks than men, and vice versa. We’re different in complementary ways (almost as if by design, imagine that!) and those differences are built into our hardware and software. But I digress…

Given that men and women are designed with significant differences in brain wiring, hormonal chemistry, and physical capacities (hardware and software) does it really make sense that spirituality or more specifically, relationship/friendship with God would be expressed in identical ways? I don’t think so.

Yes, every person is comprised of spirit, soul, and body. And the Bible makes it clear that there are no male or female spirits. (Galatians 3:28; Matthew 22:30) But as noted above, there are clearly male and female bodies and, more importantly, souls–the soul being comprised of the mind, will and emotions.

A light came on for me several years ago when I heard Jimmy Evans of MarriageToday say something in regard to the differences between men and women. What he said certainly rang true to my experience and observations. It was, “In general, women tend to express friendship by talking together, while men tend to express friendship by doing things together.”

Certainly you can point to exceptions to every generalization such as the one above. But that doesn’t mean it’s not generally true. Generally when women want to reconnect with a friend and strengthen the relationship, they do this:

or this:

Whereas men do this:

or this:

or this:

Allow me to restate the truism: Women tend to build and express friendship by talking to one another. Men tend to build and express friendship by doing things together.

Now ask yourself: “What have we traditionally been presented as the exclusive pathway for friendship with God?”

We’ve been told to have “a quiet time.” A time in which we sit down with God and share our feelings. We are supposed to talk to Him and let Him talk to us.

What men have been offered as a pathway to friendship with God and a model for prayer is essentially a sanctified tea party. We are to sit quietly, hands politely folded in our laps, and have a time of sharing.

And we wonder why traditionally women have far outnumbered men where interest in the things of God are concerned. We shake our heads sadly to observe that most prayer groups are filled with ladies.

I submit to you that we men have largely been presented with a feminine model of prayer and relationship with God. Let me hasten to add there there is nothing wrong with a feminine model of prayer . . . if you’re a woman . . . equipped with a female soul and body.

I can tell you that my prayer life and relationship with God has never been the same after that light came on for me upon hearing that factoid from Jimmy Evans. How did it change?

I’ll unpack that in an upcoming post. But I’ll tell you now that I no longer have a traditional “quiet time.” My times with God are anything but quiet. When I carve out some time to be with God, I don’t approach Him thinking, “What do I want to talk to you about today?” I approach asking:

“Father, what do you want to do today.”

More to come.

Four months and ten days shy shy of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the word at this hour is that Osama Bin Laden has been killed and that the U.S. military (or CIA) is in possession of his body. I had to smile when I saw the tweet of the political humorist “IowaHawk”:

US has Osama’s body? Good, now we can pour the foundation for WTC II.

This is obviously good news, and for many reasons. Nevertheless, it’s a shame it took so long. It’s unfortunate, in my view, that George W. Bush didn’t get to announce this news before he left office. But it is a great blessing that this nation will not have to mark the tenth anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington knowing that one of the key architects of those attacks is alive and at large.

And it is some consolation knowing that Bin Laden has surely lived a miserable existence over the last nine years–living in caves and underground bunkers and constantly on the move and scanning the skies in fear of a predator drone strike.

By the way, for understanding of the origins of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the best source remains Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower.

Death ultimately puts every person’s faith and theology to the test. Today, Osama Bin Laden’s belief system has collided with the reality of eternity. I suspect it did not fare well.

I apologize for the extended radio silence. I’ve been so caught up in anticipation of the wedding that I fell off the grid altogether. And of course by “the wedding” I mean the NBA playoffs and the NFL draft.

It seems I did hear something about some wedding taking place in one of those formerly great, formerly Christian countries back East. I wondered out loud on Twitter this morning if there were going to be any pranks at the royal wedding reception. For example, Prince Harry could do that thing where you challenge the groom to remove the garter from his bride’s leg, blindfolded, but silently replace the bride with a grandmother. Ribald hilarity ensues. The bonus in this case would be that the grandmother is the Queen of the British Empire.

#####

Flew to Denver and back yesterday. The city looked beautiful with clean, clear air affording great views of a fresh dusting of snow crowning the mountains to the west.

The purpose of my visit was to meet with the wonderful folks at Marilyn Hickey Ministries. It was my first opportunity to meet the ministry’s namesake and I was delighted to do so. Marilyn will be 80 years old on July first, but she possesses more energy, vitality and drive than many people half her age. She co-hosts a daily television broadcast and still travels the world teaching and praying for thousands. In fact, she is heading to China in a few weeks and is scheduled to do a series of meetings in Pakistan this fall and can’t wait to get back there. Yes, Pakistan.

I remember a good friend of mine passing me Marilyn Hickey cassette tapes back in the early ’80s. Those teachings became a key part of my spiritual journey. So you can imagine how delighted I was to meet her yesterday. And how gratifying it was to find her every bit as gracious, warm and real as I had imagined she would be.

#####

In the past I’ve linked to a wonderful site that features the letterhead/stationery of famous people, companies and creative enterprises (see here and here). I popped in this evening just to see what was new. Here are a couple of my favorite new additions to the impressive collection at Letterheady.com.

Here is Charles Schulz personal letterhead from 1958:

This is Gene Autry’s personal stationery (1949):

And on a day in which British royalty is on the minds of many, here is the “mourning” stationery of Britain’s King Edward VIII (1936) who took the throne following the death of George V.

By the way, you may recall that Edward didn’t reign long. He abdicated the throne in order to marry the already-twice-married American socialite Wallace Simpson. It was a royal wedding of a different sort.

Let’s wind this up, shall we?

In the previous three posts (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) I have tried to lay the groundwork for a fresh way to think about what is widely called God’s “sovereignty.” I’m going to try to build on that foundation now, even though I’m strongly sympathetic to the comment made by regular reader “Ted” who, after the first post, wrote:

I’ve personally jettisoned the word “sovereign” from my theological vocabulary. It’s been misused so often and for so long that there is always the possibility of being misunderstood. It’s not even in the Bible, unless you happen to be reading a modern translation such as NIV or NLT that have added the word some 300 times.

The typical believer’s conception of God’s sovereignty lies somewhere between the powers displayed by Jim Carrey’s character in Bruce Almighty and Samantha Stevens on the old sitcom Bewitched.

But as I pointed out in the previous post, this view doesn’t account for Mankind’s God-granted freedom to choose, nor the self-limiting nature of God’s character in light of His legal grant of stewardship and dominion to Man. This creates that apparent paradox I mentioned before.

What’s more, those who believe that God is always getting His way and that every outcome has been predetermined by God, find themselves without much incentive to pray. (I’ll address this issue directly before I close.)

I believe the biblical path out of that paradox is to make a distinction between what I call God’s “Macro Sovereignty” and the concept of “Micro Sovereignty.” I’ll try to explain in fewer than 1,000 words.

The typical evangelical Christian on the street assumes God is behind every event in her day . . . That He is either the direct cause of the event or that He “allows” the event because it fits into His plan for her life. This is what I call “micro-sovereignty.”

This theology usually emerges after a tragedy. Well-intentioned believers offer it in the form of  comfort to themselves or others after something heartbreaking has happened:

“His ways are higher than our ways.”

“You just have to believe this happened for a reason.”

And my personal favorite:

“God wanted you to be able to minister to other people who have had this same horrific thing happen to them.”

Sound familiar? I trotted some version of these out myself on more than one occasion back in my younger days. Usually the recipient of this brand of comfort is too polite or grief-shocked to challenge that logic with something like:

“Hold on. So, God arranged for my kid to get hit by a drunk driver because He’s allowing other people’s kids to get hit by drunk drivers, too? But wait, He wouldn’t need me to minister to these grief-stricken parents if He didn’t “allow” those kids to be killed in the first place. Right? So… seriously… what the heck.”

There’s another logic problem confronted by holders of the micro-sovereignty paradigm:

Why pray? Seriously.

If God is getting His preferred outcome at the micro level every second of every day, what is the point of praying? Why did Jesus, after the disciples requested a clinic in effective praying, instruct them to pray: “Father . . . May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?

Why would Jesus repeatedly say, “Ask the Father . . .” “Whatever you ask the Father in my name . . .” “Ask what you will . . .”?

Some micro-sovereignty-ists have attempted to come up with an answer to that question. As I heard a preacher on the radio say a few months ago: “Prayer doesn’t change God. It changes us.”

That sounds quite lofty and spiritual and profound when you first hear it. Then you think about the implications and it falls apart.

Of course, prayer doesn’t change God. That’s a red herring. The question is, does prayer change “things.”

This view is basically saying that prayer is the spiritual equivalent of running on a treadmill: You don’t actually get anywhere but it’s good for you.

An Alternative View

What if God’s sovereignty is the “macro” variety? What if God’s micro-sovereignty is limited . . .  by his grant of free will to Man; His delegation of legal stewardship rights and authority to Man; and most of all by his own righteousness and character.

As I suggested in the previous post, God is self-limited by His own character–His just-ness preventing Him from violating the spiritual legal structure upon which He framed the universe and placed Man within it.

Nevertheless, the Bible is clear that God is moving History (capital “H”) toward an end of His choosing. He has both foreknown and foreordained the way everything winds up. His intellect and power are so unimaginably vast that he can process the free choices of 7 billion human inhabitants, the effects of a fallen creation, and the activities of a rogue, outlaw enemy and still accomplish His plans and purposes in the earth and faithfully fulfill the promise of Romans 8:28 to every believer.

What a mighty, extraordinary God who can do that!

Adopting the paradigm I outlined above causes much of the paradoxical confusion and contradiction described in the previous three posts to evaporate. And it causes many previously mysterious passages of the Bible to suddenly make sense.

Why pray? Because God needs us to pray. Our asking God to move isn’t an empty or meaningless exercise. It opens legal/judicial windows through which He can move provision, power, and outcomes. It is the revelation behind Charles Wesley’s admission:

The longer I go in this faith, the more convinced I am that God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.

The Cornerstone of our Faith

God is all powerful but doesn’t care about the people of Japan, and therefore they’re suffering. Or, He does care about the people of Japan, but is not all powerful. Which one is it?

If you’ve hung with me through all four of these marathon blog posts, I suspect you know how I would respond to that challenge. I would say,

“Mr. Bashir, your use of the term “all powerful” indicates you have a common but cartoonish conception of God’s latitude to act in a fallen, broken world. But I can assure you that He cares desperately about the Japanese people. There’s no message in the earthquake and no lesson in the tsunami.”

God delivered His message on a barren hillside outside of Jerusalem roughly 2,000 years ago. Those with ears to hear, hear it say,

“Oh give thank to the Lord, for He is good. And His mercies endure forever.”

In two ridiculously long previous posts, (Part 1 and Part 2) I’ve written about the way tragedies such as the tsunami in Japan tend to generate a corresponding tidal wave of arm-chair theologizing about God’s sovereignty.

I won’t re-trample the ground I’ve already covered other than to quote something I said in the previous post about most people’s conception of God’s sovereignty:

This Hollywood view of God as having unlimited freedom of action on the earth and in History–the belief that everything is happening just as God has ordained right down to the granular level of the child molestations that are almost certainly taking place in various places around the planet as I write these words—is shared by most American Christians who simply haven’t thought too deeply about these questions.

To hear many Christians talk about God’s sovereignty, you get the impression that Romans 8:28 contains a period after the word things, i.e., “And we know that God causes all things.”

Of course, there is no period there. The verse says, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” That’s something very different.

One of the unique characteristics of us humans is our capacity for cognitive dissonance–that is, the ability to hold two completely incompatible and conflicting beliefs simultaneously. Thus it shouldn’t surprise us to observe that most evangelical Christians will answer a robust “Yes” to both of the following questions:

Does God give humans free will . . . the ability to choose or reject God’s expressed will?

Does God’s “sovereignty” mean that “everything happens for a reason” and that God either causes or permits every event at every moment in every place on earth as part of His plan?

A little bit of logical thought will reveal that both propositions cannot possibly be true.

I’m convinced a flawed, simplistic view of God’s sovereignty is robbing believers of much of the motivation to pray and the ability to pray effectively. Even worse, it’s needlessly causing entire generations of people to dismiss Christianity’s message of a loving God who sent His Son to die for a sinful world. (See Martin Bashir’s question for Rob Bell in Part 1.)

I was a debater back in my college days and therefore know how to argue two different sides of a proposition. If pressed, I could easily cite scripture to support either one of the above questions.

On one hand, there are dozens Bible verses and stories that make explicit Man’s freedom to reject God’s will and go his own way. “Choose this day who you will serve . . .” Joshua challenged the Israelites. Jesus Himself said:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)

On the other hand, many scriptures speak of God’s infinite power to produce His desired outcomes. He “declares the end before the beginning.” (Isaiah 46:10) Indeed, Paul devotes the entire ninth chapter of Romans–in the course of trying to help the church at Rome know how to think about the Jewish people–to declaring that God gets what He wants.

So which is it?

Yes.

I’m satisfied that a proper, biblical understanding of how things currently work in the universe can reconcile this seemingly irreconcilable dilemma. (And do so without requiring either cognitive dissonance or just throwing one’s hands up in the air and saying “It’s a paradox!”)

As I hinted in one of the previous posts, making sense of all this requires an understanding of three things:

1. Free Will (and God’s corresponding stewardship/dominion mandate to Man over Creation)

2. The Fall (of both Man and Creation)

3. God’s Self-Limiting Righteousness

It would take a book to completely unpack these three elements (and I may just write that book someday) but in short, the Genesis account shows us God legally (covenantally) delegating authority, rights and responsibilities to Man over the earth:

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

This is a delegation of stewardship authority accompanied by a dominion mandate.

This takes us to the second reality–The Fall–which subjected both Mankind and all of Nature to some pretty ugly effects. Since that day, lots of bad things have been happening on this planet. Many of those bad things are the product of evil choices made by fallen people. Other bad things are the result of a curse-wracked creation groaning for a form of redemption and restoration itself.

So WHY, after things got so horribly fouled up . . . God being God and all . . . did He not immediately jump in and hit the “Undo” button? Or the “Fix It” button? Or simply blow the whole thing up and start again? The answer lies in the third item on that list above–God’s Self-Limiting Righteousness.

God is holy, righteous and, above all, good. Given His character, He could not possibly create a universe built upon righteous law and principle and then toss all that aside when those laws got inconvenient. That’s something I’d do.

God, on the other hand, initiated a multi-thousand year plan to bring about the restoration and renewal of both Man and Nature (chronicled as the Bible’s “scarlet thread of redemption”.)

It was a plan that scrupulously followed the rules and laws established before the very beginning. It was a brilliant plan that didn’t violate God’s delegation of authority and dominion to Man.

There’s an old Philisophy 101 brain teaser that asks, “Can God make a rock so big, He can’t move it?”

The truth is, nothing can limit God except his own character. God is self-limited by His goodness and just-ness. That is why there is no period after the word “things” in Romans 8:28. God does not “cause all things.” But He is so smart, so powerful, so unimaginably creative, that in spite of all the bad things put in motion by our choices, an outlaw enemy, and a fallen creation, God still “causes all things to work together” for our good. He’s that smart.

I had hoped to finish this saga with this post. But I have a little more to share. I want to put all of this together and apply it to how we, God’s people, should approach prayer and deal with heartache.

But that will have to wait, for I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.

{Read the fourth and final installment here.}