Ability and Desire: An Article Review

In my last post, I discussed an article from the (now) penultimate issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) on biblical literacy of Victorian Britain and present-day America. A few short pages later, I discovered another stellar article that deserves comment, one that deals with the oh-so-contentious area of human free will.

The article, entitled “Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility” and authored by Scott C. Warren, provided me with a valuable tool to use in my own theological journey. For quite some time now, I have been wrestling with the Calvinist/Arminian debate. To put it simply, I can see both sides of the argument. God is sovereign, and no one comes to Him except those that are drawn by Him (Calvinism). At the same time, sinners are held morally responsible for rejecting God, which implies that they had the freedom to choose this route (Arminianism). (I don't buy the hyper-Calvinist idea of double predestination, and I don't think John Calvin would, either.) But how do these two truths intersect? How does one marry the ideas of divine sovereignty and human free will in a logical, non-contradictory way? While I don't expect to resolve this tension completely in my lifetime, Mr. Warren provided me with an answer to a piece of the puzzle.

What the author did was to look at the word "freedom." What does freedom really mean? To answer that question, he draws a diagram. The outer perimeter of the diagram is a box labeled "all conceivable actions." That is, the box represents anything you might think that a person could do in any situation. Inside of the box is a circle representing those things which are actually actionable--that is, what a person has the ability to do in a certain situation. A second circle inside the box represents those things that a person desires to do--what he or she would like to do in a given situation. Finally, the two circles form a simple Vinn diagram, and the overlapping segment is where free actions reside. To make a long explanation simple, Warren defines freedom as "the ability to do what you desire to do." Freedom is thus comprised of ability and desire.

This turns out to be an extremely important distinction that throughout history and the present has been overlooked. But it helps to explain the biblical data very well. Take, for example, Hebrews 6:18, which states that "it is impossible for God to lie." Really? Something is impossible for an omnipotent being? Couldn't God tell a lie if he wanted to? And that is precisely Warren's point: God would not want to lie. An omnipotent deity may very well have the ability to lie, but a good God would not have the desire to lie. To lie would fall so far outside of God's desires that it may be referred to as impossible. In the same way, Jesus, who was fully man, was really tempted to sin and therefore had that ability, but being fully divine, did not have the desire to sin. Therefore, we can agree with Millard Erickson's words, "[Christ] could have sinned, but it is certain that he would not" (italics original).

This idea also works with human freedom. The author argues that humans in their natural state have the ability to repent of their sins and turn to God, but they do not possess the desire to do so. They are free to choose to follow or reject God, but they freely choose to reject him 100% of the time. Warren aptly sums it up when he writes, "The essential problem is not that sinners cannot do what they must, but that they will not do what they can."*

How, then does one change her inmost desire? How does a sinner change his propensity to sin? He doesn't--God alone can do this. Thus in Warren's ordo salutis, regeneration precedes acceptance of salvation. In other words, men and women freely act on their natural desire to reject God until God changes their desires, at which time they act freely to accept His rule. The author contends, and I agree, that without regeneration, a person cannot desire to repent. Thus even though she has the ability to repent, she would never act on it. Thus the certainty of sin and the justice of God's judgment of sinners are harmonized.

There are many more nuances to ponder and resolve (at least in my own mind) in the Calvinism/Arminian debate, enough to keep me busy for the foreseeable future. But thanks to a scholarly article in an obscure (for some) academic journal, I have received a nugget of wisdom that puts one more question to rest.

*In other words, if sinners were judged because they did not repent--and this because they could not repent--God would be unjust. But if sinners could reorient their own hearts toward God in their own strength--that is, if they themselves could obtain the desire to repent--there would be no need for grace.

Why 19th-Century Britain Challenges Me

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unexpected places. I received the latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in early December and saw an article entitled "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own." Interesting, I thought. I'll get to learn some history. Instead, I learned about myself.

The author, Timothy Larsen, discusses the basic attitude of 19th-century Britain concerning the Bible and the reading thereof, and then compares them to 21st-century America. What he found is alarming.

Victorian Age Britain:

• "Even the scientist T.H. Huxley, the original agnostic who wrote polemical works attacking the Scriptures, insisted on 'the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education.'"
• Catherine Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had read the Bible in its entirety eight times by the age of twelve.
• Florence Nightingale, who denied that the Bible was special revelation, nevertheless "read it earnestly every day, both by herself and aloud to her servants."
• "Obviously figures such as [the ones mentioned above] represent best practice, but the point is that Victorians across the denominational and theological spectrum agreed that this [voracious and regular (read: daily) Bible reading] was best practice, and there was a mass culture of aspiring to attain it across the traditions."

Current Day America:

• In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts discovered that 43.4% of adults had not read a single book (much less the Bible!) in the entire previous year.
• "Most Americans now cannot name the first book of the Bible and half cannot name even one of the four Gospels."
• And finally, a personal quotation from me: "What percentage of people think that the axiom 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' was originated by Abraham Lincoln?" (Hint: Read Mark 3)

The article really hit home for me. It made me think about my own Bible reading habits. What I realized was that while I am academically familiar with scripture, having studied it in the classroom for many years, I was not as personally familiar with it as I should be. Even my own Bible reading was focused on studying various biblical books, and really diving deep. While this is a good habit, and one which I have not dropped, I was neglecting the broad, surveying reading that allows familiarity over time (and a more developed matrix for those deep dives). It is important to note, this was not an exercise in self-guilt, but rather a realization that I could be doing better. (Also, I didn't like the idea of being upstaged by a twelve-year-old girl!)

Because of this article, I have changed my own personal reading habits. I now carve out time to read the Bible every day, with the goal of reading it through multiple times this year (a feat accomplished by reading just 15-20 minutes a day). I still keep up on my other reading, too, but now I am prioritizing differently. I'm finding that I look forward to it, too. I'm beginning to engage with the story lines and connect with the characters. In short, I'm enjoying it.*

I would encourage you, then, to dust off that Bible and read it--purposefully, chapters and books at a time, not randomly, verses here and there--not as a guilt-ridden duty, but as a joyous opportunity. Don't try to understand everything the first time through, either, but remember that with discipline, you will have many more opportunities to increase your understanding. With this mindset, you just might be unexpectedly surprised. I know I have been.

*And I'm watching less TV--and added bonus!

LiterateTwit

I've finally done it. I've joined the Twitter craze. I did it on a whim, really. I was reading a book and had just marked a sentence as important with my pen when I thought, "What if I tweeted this?" What if I provided brief excerpts of what I've read in the hopes that someone, somewhere would be intrigued enough to pick up the text in question? I thought it was a worthy enough idea that I implemented it. Therefore, I bring you LiterateTwit.

Be forewarned: I will not be tweeting about my daily life--when I go to the store, when we run out of toilet paper, and that sort of thing. My tweets will deal exclusively with material I am reading so as to edify the recipient and encourage him or her to read quality books, journals and articles. It will also be replacing the Reading List section of my blog. In the future, then, in order to know what I'm reading, just check Twitter!

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:

(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.

American Express on How to Get out of Debt

My wife and I are...how do I say this...pursuing aggressive financial goals. Jessica is a stay-at-home mother, which means the mouth-to-job ratio is 3:1. At the same time, we're working to pay off debt accrued during the first few years of our marriage, and we are trying to pay it off at a torrid pace. This makes for a difficult position. We have had to learn to live well below our means and embrace a very simple lifestyle. I will spare you the boring details, but I would be willing to bet that most Americans would not sacrifice as much as we have. But then, perhaps most Americans don't have the singularly focused drive that we do, either.

Some people do have what it takes, though, and American Express found a few who fit the bill for a radio ad I heard tonight. They found five women who joined together to pay off a combined $50,000 in debt. Good for them, I thought. But in the ad they were extolling the virtues of having an AmEx credit card. With an AmEx card, they said, you can pay off your debt, still live the extravagant lifestyle you want and be able to "buy the things that you deserve." I could not believe what I was hearing! Here are these ladies who somehow managed to pay off a huge amount of debt and learn nothing while doing it. There was obviously no lasting lifestyle change. There was obviously very little thought as to why they were in debt to begin with. When the money they got to promote AmEx runs out, I would expect them to go right back into the hole--thus very likely paying back their patrons with interest.

I'm not saying that the approach my wife and I are taking to eliminate debt is the apex of human ingenuity, but we are at least trying to embody Proverbs 30:8, "Give me neither poverty nor riches." We understand that, much like trying to dig yourself out of a hole, using a credit card will in no way lower your debt. We understand that extravagant spending on a middle-class paycheck is foolish. (Remember Dave Ramsey's quote: "Don't try to keep up with the Joneses--they're broke, too!") And we certainly understand that on this earth we deserve nothing more than a handful of basic, God-given rights--nothing that can be purchased with a credit card.

As for us, we will continue to live the simple life, enjoying simple pleasures. We will pay off our debt and never return to it. We will continue to learn of the pleasures of faith and family that no amount of money could ever buy. And we will kindly show American Express what they can do with their precious plastic card.

The Conservative Bible Project

I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. If you haven't figured out yet, I am definitely a political conservative. You might even think that I have some wacky views (I do), but this is just plain bizarre.

I'm referring to the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). Run by a man named Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schafly), the CBP "is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions." Schlafly argues that professors are an incredibly liberal bunch (politically, not theologically), and since they are doing all of the Bible translating, then of course our English translations are filled with liberal propagandist translations. And of what are these sins against the original text comprised? The CBP lists 10 guidelines upon which a "fully conservative translation" of the Bible should rest, and which no English translation today meets. I will list them exactly as they are presented on the CBP website and offer up some commentary in red after each guideline.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

This has to do with versions translating "fishers of men" as "fishers of people" and using "laborer" rather than "volunteer." Never mind that "men" in the Greek New Testament usually refers to males and females both, or that the word for "laborer" comes from the root word meaning "to work," not "to volunteer." And apparently paraphrases (e.g. The Message) and word-for-word translations (e.g. NASB) are inherently liberal...somehow.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

Okay, I get that there has been a backlash against gender inclusive language, and some people don't like it. That's fine. There is certainly room for debate on that issue. However, I'm not sure what "other feminist distortions" they are talking about, nor have I ever heard of the NIV deleting references to unborn children. Granted, I only have a master's degree in biblical studies. Maybe someone with more gravitas could enlighten me?

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

The fact of the matter is, if you want to write something that most people will understand, you have to write at around an eighth-grade level. In any case, that's more formal education than the biblical writers had, and they come across as pretty erudite.

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

I don't even know what they are talking about on this one.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So ancient Israelites sought the will of God by going to Vegas? Seriously. The Roman guards did gamble for Jesus' clothes by casting lots, but lots were cast for other reasons than attempting to make a quick denarius or two--see Jonah 1:7, for example.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

No translation I have read does this. People have decided to interpret such passages in ways that deny or downplay the reality of Hell and Satan, but the words are still in the text.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that none of Jesus' parables is first and foremost about establishing a free market system. There may be elements of his parables that do support the free market, but these should be drawn out in exegesis, not during translation.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

There are indeed passages of scripture that were added by early scribes. These are clearly indicated as such in modern translations. They are kept in the text due to their historical importance. See John 7:53-8:11.

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

I don't have a clue as to what they are talking about here.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Liberal wordiness? I'm beginning to think this is a practical joke. Oh, and a word about "Lord" is in order. Lord is ba'al in Hebrew and kurios in Greek. LORD is a gloss of Yahweh, which is God's name. Jehovah is a later corruption of Yahweh. Lord God is a gloss of Yahweh Elohim, "Yahweh God" in Hebrew. Given the several different Greek and Hebrew terms, using the single English term "Lord" for each of these would be...an unnecessary ambiguity.

The bottom line is, this seems to be a group of people trying to make the Bible support a particular political view--modern American conservatism. I think also that the CBP is confusing what the text says with how people have interpreted the text. In any event, I have serious suspicions about this project or any other that attempts to conform the Word of God to their own preconceived notions. Last I checked, the opposite should be true.

Open Letter to President Obama on Climate Change

Here is the text of a letter to the editor (in the form of an open letter to the President) that I submitted to the Denver Post last week. It hasn't been posted yet, which I am assuming means it won't be posted at all. But that's why I have a blog!

---------------------

President Obama,

It has recently come to light that climate data provided to the U.N. by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) is suspect. The CRU, whose data is used by the IPCC, uses ice cores, tree rings, corals and thermometers to determine global climate conditions. Since 1960, thermometers have shown a steep rise in temperatures, while ice cores, tree rings and corals have not. The CRU has responded to these divergent data by only using thermometer data for this time period. In other words, they discarded the data that did not fit their hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming). Not only is this extremely poor science, it calls into question the very method the CRU is using to determine global temperatures.

Mr. President, I urge you not to agree to any global policy decisions in Copenhagen until reliable climate data can be obtained.

Respectfully yours,