BMI under 25

This week I slipped under the Body Mass Index of 25. I'm now at 24.7, according to this BMI Calclulator. It means I dropped from the rank of overweight to "normal" weight.

I started the weight loss a few months ago with a BMI of just over 30, which classed me just inside the obese category.

Keep this quiet. I'm not doing this with the Atkins' Diet as I did before some years ago. I'm doing a mixed carb/protein approach, which lots of green vegetables. But everyone around me thinks of me as an Atkins fan. I am finding a food mix that keeps me satisfied. In the evenings I drink a mug of cold milk for dessert. In the mornings I eat a mug of my wife's homemade unsweetened granola with milk. A spoonful of natural peanut butter with raw carrot sticks keeps me going during the day. I eat it sparingly throughout the workday. I find that I am satisfied.

I've also learned to detect when I am hungry and when I want to eat as an activity -- I do something else now.

Theological Battles

I had graduated from college two years earlier. I had moved back to my old home church. It was a large church, but it had a struggling singles group (it would grow large, members of the group had the tendency to get married and “graduate out”!). The Sunday school class for the singles group had an “older” adult (i.e., someone over 40 – my that looks young now!) assigned as an advisor to the class. I’m sure his function was to keep us on the straight and narrow, theologically and otherwise. Let's call the advisor Kevin. For some reason, I ended up as the singles leader, which meant I met a lot with Kevin to discuss direction and Sunday school class topics. In one of my meetings with Kevin, I had the brilliant idea of a series of classes on the Lord's Prayer. I had seen a book on the Lord's Prayer at an InterVarsity conference in college. The conversation went something like this.

Earl: One class or series we could do is the Lord’s Prayer.

Kevin: You know that The Lord's Prayer is not for our dispensation.

Earl, surprised: Really?

Kevin: Yes, it was for the dispensation of Jesus' ministry with the disciples until his death.

Earl: You mean the prayer was good for only two or three years?

Kevin: Yes, and not many people realize it. But our pastor knows that. He knows it's wrong, he’s had theological training.

Earl: But we say The Lord's Prayer in the church service almost every Sunday.

Kevin: Yes, and we shouldn't. I've talked to the pastor about it and how wrong it is to do it. So when the pastor leads us in The Lord’s Prayer, I don't close my eyes and I stare at him, just so he knows that I know he didn't do the right thing.

Earl: Oh. Maybe we could do a class on something else.

Kevin: No, I think The Lord's Prayer is a good idea. It's time people hear good doctrine.

Earl (thinking how he could avoid this altogether): Ah, maybe we could list different topics we could teach and let the class choose.

Kevin: That's a good idea.

Earl: I'll put together a list to hand out next Sunday.

Kevin: Swell.

So, I put together a list for people to vote on. I left out the choice on The Lord’s Prayer, on purpose. I knew something was wrong in Kevin’s approach, and I didn't want to get in a war over it. The class decided on the topics it was interested, sans The Lord’s Prayer.

Well, I heard about it from Kevin the next week.

Kevin: You intentionally left out The Lord’s Prayer.

Earl: Yes, I thought it was too controversial to include it.

Kevin: You stabbed me in the back. How can I trust you?

Earl: Sorry, but I felt I had to do this.

In a few weeks, Kevin no longer was the class advisor.

How are we to deal with theological controversy? The short answer, it all depends and probably not the way I did it. I have my excuses. With Kevin, I felt I was at a strong disadvantage. I was young, in my twenties, Kevin was older and I needed to show respect. I knew Kevin had studied this topic for years, while I had barely thought about it. However I knew I had church history on my side. I knew that Martin Luther had written about The Lord’s Prayer. At InterVarsity we had talked about it and that it was part of the valuable tradition of the vast majority of Evangelical Protestants. But I wasn't ready at that time to stand my ground, and even if I were fully ready to do so, I would not change Kevin's mind no matter what I said. The animosity would be so high that it would rupture our working relationship; in fact I felt there was no way to avoid the rupture.

Looking back, after all these years, and then again thinking about it after this first draft, I don't think I took the right approach. I simply hate face to face conflict. I like the concept expressed by Peter Ustinov in the movie Luther, as Frederick the Wise, when dealing with the strong Roman Catholic Church’s demand to turn over Martin Luther. It fits with my conflict avoidance tendencies:

Spalatin, there are two ways of saying no to someone you believe to be stronger than yourself.

The first is to say nothing and go on merely doing what you were doing before, and pretend that you never heard, allow time and inertia to be your allies.

... And the second is to say no in such a kind and thoughtful way it befuddles them.

Naturally, if both these strategies fail, there is nothing but to relent.

Or to fight:

And of course, if you decide to fight, you also have to decide to win.

With Kevin, I tried approach 1, say nothing and pretend I never heard. But Kevin was smarter than that, and he pressed the issue so that I could not say "no" in a kind and thoughtful way to befuddle Kevin. So, I actually had to fight, which goes against my nature. But I fought in a deceptive way. I knew that if the fight went public, Kevin would be pitted against the pastor and probably some other church leaders in a public way. I quietly stonewalled, knowing that Kevin saw what I was doing, but he could not do anything except express his disappointment and anger against me. I then let time take its course.

I find it is difficult for me to look back and think about this clearly. My first edition of this entry I thought I was justified in what I did. Now, reflecting on it, I don't think so. In hindsight, I should have been more direct with Kevin. I would have shown greater respect for Kevin had I done so. Perhaps the break was not inevitable. Perhaps we could have come to a agreement to disagree and drop this as a class topic. Perhaps we could have done the class presenting the different views. I could have really grown, all of us could have grown. Perhaps what Kevin was really disappointed in was my lack of backbone and character. Perhaps we could have grown through that conflict, I would have developed character, and perhaps have developed a life-long friend who would have been a huge help in my young spiritual life that tended towards apathy, neglect, and prejudice against others who think differently than me.

Theological battles continue. As I start teaching Revelation, I am reminded of other battles that surround the book of Revelation. How are we to deal with those?

There are two goals that need to be preserved in the church, and sometimes those goals seem to conflict. The first is purity of doctrine and conduct. The second is peace among the people of Christ. Assuming these are "peer" equal adults, where one is not in a power situation that I found myself in years ago, I have the following suggestions:

(1) Often the difference of opinion does not amount to a hill of beans in the ultimate theological scheme of things. Agree to disagree agreeably. Enjoy each other and take the opportunity to discuss things amicably. Try to see what the other sees, why he or she sees things that way and see if that is something you need to consider.

(2) At times the difference does represent an important secondary difference in theological issues. If the difference deals with issues that, even though it is secondary, but the church does have an official stand on it, the dissenter needs to determine if the issue is large enough that they cannot be at home in the church. Those who agree with the church’s position should treat the dissenter with respect. Since it is a secondary issue, the main importance is to keep the peace of the church.

(3) The issue touches on central theological issues. It could be that the deity of Christ is at stake, or justification by grace alone through faith along is at issue, or some other major theological issue. The church has every right to defend these doctrines, and if a dissenter is disrupting the purity of the doctrines of the church, he or she is also disrupting the peace of the church. Depending on how much the dissenter is disrupting the peace and purity of the church will determine the course of action that needs to be taken.

With respect to Revelation, our church allows members to hold a wide variety of views. This can range from many forms of Futurism (Historical Premillennialism, to one of the many Dispensational Premillennialisms), to Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and some forms of Preterism. The officers of the church have stricter guidelines. This can range from Partial Preterism, Amillenialism, Postmillennialism, and Historical Premillennialism. For many people, these are foreign words, and that's okay. As the class progresses, we will come across many opportunities to see differences in views – even among the most knowledgeable and respected Reformed theologians.

Let us realize we are at war with Satan and his minions, not against each other. Let us keep the peace with each other and respect each other. Speak kindly of opposing viewpoints and their advocates. I hope that the class can be a fun catalyst for discussion, and more importantly, that we understand the major themes of Revelation and apply the scriptures to our lives.

As I look back on this entry, I realize I didn't respect Kevin, let alone show respect. It reflects on my character. I can't even tell the story right, there are things I put in Kevin's mouth that he did not say (such as, "It's time people hear good doctrine." -- he probably said something more like, "I would be good to discuss this.", this puts a different spin on his statement). I try to justify myself by putting him down. I am even a deceiver after all these years. There are various ways which I demonize this who disagree with me. Kevin was not and is not my enemy, but I treated him as one, even to this day. I broke the peace of the church without advancing the purity of the church.

Christ alone is our justifier. At times in Revelation you may discover you cannot endure the Christian life on your own. I can't. Revelation has good news. You are in Christ, and because of Christ, even though your works are filthy, you have robes washed in the blood of the Lamb. You are sealed and protected by God -- and while you may get hurt in the battles, you ultimately are part of the redeemed, being restored. Because of that, we don't have to stay in our sin, we can move on. Christ has justified us through his death, we are holy and we are marked by God as belonging to him.

Michael Vick and Dog Fighting

Michael Vick, a football player for the Atlanta Falcons, has agreed to plead guilty to dog fighting charges. I think everyone agrees that what he did was rather brutal.

But, I wonder. Why isn't there a similar outcry about aborted babies? Particularly late term abortion, especially partial-birth abortions. Killing dogs is bad -- everyone agrees to that, but where on the scale of things is killing babies? Isn't it worse? And if it is worse, and Michael Vick faces prison time, what about those that practice abortion? If not the desperate mothers, what about those who advocate killing babies? Is there no twinge in their conscience?

The dogs were innocent animals that did not deserve the kind of treatment they got. What about aborted babies? Does anyone else see the inconsistency in all this?

Reveling In Revelation

In a few weeks I will be teaching the adult class on Revelation again. Since the end of the class last February, which stopped in the middle of Revelation, I have listened to several MP3 courses at Covenant Seminary. One of these was a sequence on preaching which culminated with Christ centered preaching with redemptive application. I realized that my approach to Revelation previously tended to be technical and "wonkish". I discussed the different approaches to Revelation, such as Amillennial (the correct view :o) which views the episodes in Revelation as a revisiting history between Christ's first advent and his second coming, and the other views (Postmillennial, classical historical Premillennialism, and various Dispensational Premillennialist views). What I should have spent more time was looking at applying Revelation to us now who are in the class. Of all the views, Amillennialism has the most direct, redemptive application to people now. It is one of the reasons I intuitively think Amillennialism is right on the mark.

Revelation is certainly a book for all people. It is addressed to those who cry out, "How long?" It is addressed to Christians who find themselves in various sinful patterns, as seen in the letters to the seven churches. It is a book that encourages each, because while we are not necessarily spared from physical persecution and suffering, we are the sealed ones who God protects spiritually -- and those who are Christ's will ultimately persevere. We also look forward to the great climax when the new heaven and new earth will be established forever.

Harry Potter

I have a confession. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books. I did watch some Harry Potter movies (shhh, don't tell anyone :-).

When the books first came out, I didn't know what to make of them. The movies were fun to watch, but frankly I felt a little queasy about the wizard and witchcraft stuff. After all the Bible does forbid the practice of witchcraft. However, I have never let my personal scruples be explicitly known to others in my church, where there are many Harry Potter fans. I have always thought this is an area that is relatively gray in scripture and I cannot put my queasy feelings on someone else, especially as a leader in the church.

There is a very interesting discussion on Harry Potter from Issues Etc, which is a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (Internet) radio program. For those who don't know, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, is a conservative Lutheran denomination that holds to the inerrancy of the Bible. You can listen to the audio discussion (mp3 part 1, mp3 part 2). Todd Wilkins, the host of Issues Etc., interviews a Lutheran pastor, Dr. Richard Stuckwisch, who a year ago nailed what the ending of Harry Potter's final book would be like -- the only one I know who did. The reason that Dr. Stuckwisch nailed ending was because he saw the author, J.K. Rowling, was subtly building in major Christian themes into the series. He saw that it was climaxing to echo the biggest theme of the Bible, in much the same way that C.S. Lewis built some major themes in The Chronicles of Narnia, and J.R.R. Tolkien did in The Lord of the Rings.

You'll have to listen to the interview. It changed my mind about the series -- unless you don't know the end of the story and don't want to know yet. I won't tell you in this blog entry.

I wouldn't say that Christians must read the Harry Potter series, any more than I'd say that Christians ought to read The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings. We each have different tastes and interests. I am close to someone who hates stories with talking animals -- that eliminates Narnia for that person. But for those who'd find Harry Potter interesting, go ahead and read it. Look to see the Christian themes that eventually show up. These can be points of discussion with your friends, whether they are Christians or non-Christians.

Real Free Grace

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10, ESV)

Within the Christian world there is a debate of whether those who come to faith and become true followers of Christ can ever be lost and not make it into heaven. For those who come to understand that true believers cannot loose their inheritance, there is also a debate. Must you persevere? Or can you walk away from it all and still walk into heaven?

Understanding that God has prepared good works for you before hand -- that God ordained you to do good works, turns the whole debate on its head. That God ordained you to do good works, to persevere, presents a different understanding of free grace -- grace given to you not based on your actions, but grace that freely enables you to do good actions. This is truly free grace. This isn't some wimpy, you make your decision and you've got your heaven insurance -- but you have no guarantees that God will transform you. That is wimpy, anemic grace. It isn't free. You do something and God will do something for you in the pie in the sky future, but who knows right now.

No, God ordained your purchase from sin, and also prepared good works for you in advance -- ordained those good works. If you are a believer, God has made you useful and gives you the ability and strength for good works. This is amazing free grace. Grace that God decided to give you before considering the good or bad you would do -- because God prepared the good works for you in advance.

The question of must you persevere in the faith to be saved is irrelevant. You will persevere, if you are in Christ. Any other kind of grace is not free. Any other kind of grace is pathetically weak.

You serve God because he strengthens you. You serve God because he first loved you. You serve God because God is for you. You serve God because you love God and don't want to do any other. But you also will fail, but you have an advocate who is on your side. Can anyone condemn us? No.

Don't fall for cheap grace. See the real free grace. Serve God knowing he gives you the strength to persevere. He ordained it.

I was going to discuss more on free will. But that doesn't seem to be such an urgent issue, compared to the stunning, powerful, free grace of God.

Free William, Part 3

"My God doesn't predestine anyone."

That's what a friend told me in the middle of a Braves baseball game. It was the most fun baseball game I attended. Now I am not a fan of watching sports, and baseball to me is like watching the grass grow or paint dry. There are many more things infinitely more interesting than baseball, like getting a root canal. But this friend and I had a great time discussing theology. Our wives rolled their eyes and talked about other things.

I asked, would you turn your back on God if you discovered he really does ordain everything? My friend had to admit that he wouldn't do such a thing. God would still be good, even if he predestined, and ordained all things.

Just suppose, for a moment, that you discovered that God actually does ordain all things? Could God still be worthy of worship? Could there be any good that would come from such a God? I asked that question a number of years ago when I first ran into Calvinists.

One good is that our salvation, our inheritance from God is on a much stronger footing than our effort. It also adds a huge punch to Paul's doxology in Ephesians 1 (all the quotes are taken from the ESV Bible):

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-14)

God ordaining us to have an inheritance means the inheritance is rock solid. "In him we have obtained an inheritance..." If God has ordained you would obtain an inheritance, then you have most certainly have the inheritance. The recipients of the letter had the inheritance by virtue of God predestining them to have it. Paul writes about the fruit of those who are predestined, they exhibit faith and love towards other believers. By extension, all of those who exhibit faith in God and love to other believers also are ones whom God has predestined.

God ordaining us to have faith puts grace on super steroids. God is not under any obligation to save anyone. That would ordain faith means that God is not looking for what we would do -- it is what God decides to do on his initiative without consideration of our intentions and good actions.

Again, this adds an extra punch to Paul's words in Ephesians:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Dead. Dead as in separated from God and helpless. But God is rich in his love:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved —and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

God ordaining it before you do a single thing. This removes it from our activity and puts it upon God. If God ordained nothing about your faith, but watched what you would do, that puts at least some of the grace on ourselves. Its up to us. As someone put it, God votes for you, the Devil against you, it is up to you to break the tie. That's not the theology of God ordaining and giving you the faith. It is all God's activity. It is all the more God's grace and not our activity.

God ordaining us to have faith make us completely dependant on God. The faith we have does not originate from us, it comes from God as a gift:

not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

God ordaining our lives makes us fruitful servants of God. God has prepared us to be useful doing good things:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Because God has designed and ordained us to do good works, we have the assured delight of serving God. It will happen.

God ordaining all things puts the Believer's life on a solid footing. We have an iron clad assurance of an inheritance. God's grace is much greater because it all is initiated from God where he is under no obligation to give it. We are guaranteed to be fruitful servants because God has ordained us to be doing good works.

So if God did ordain all things, there is much a believer can take delight and comfort in.