WELCOME TO ISTORIA

“I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Greek:istoria) with Cephas.” Paul’s words in Galatians 1:18.


Serious Reflections on Every Christian's Life from Daniel Defoe's Adventures of Robinson Crusoe

They don't make movies like they used to make them: they make them better.

They don't write books like they used to write them; they write them worse.

Daniel Defoe's The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe was written in 1719 and has stood the test of time as a first-rate fictional adventure for both children and adults. Defoe wrote Robinson Crusoe in a simple, narrative style, and he is often credited as being the first English author to make realistic fiction a part of English literature. Before the end of 1719 Defoe's book had run through four editions, and since then Robinson Crusoe has become one of the most widely published books in history, spawning numerous sequels and adaptations for stage, film, and television.

What many do not realize is Robinson Crusoe is filled with intentional and beautiful underlying spiritual principles. Defoe wrote a second book about Crusoe entitled The Further Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. In 1720 he wrote a third book with the fancy title Serious Reflections during the Life and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe with His Vision of the Angelic World. This third book explains the first two Robinson Crusoe books. Literary scholars with no appetite for Christian doctrine nor any affection for spiritual matters will scoff at Serious Reflections, but listen to what Defoe says in the author's preface to his third book on Robinson Crusoe:
The present work is not merely the Product of the two first volumes, but rather the two first volumes may rather be called the Product of this: The Fable is always made for the Moral, not the Moral for the Fable.
Defoe then shows how Robinson Crusoe is an allegory about how life goes--for every human being, but with particular attention to those who come to faith in Christ. If you are a Christian, Robinson Crusoe is the story of your life. In Defoe's third book where he explains the allegory,  I have found some of the wisest, clearest and most profound advice for Christian living I've ever read.

For example, one of the things that bothers me about most evangelical churches (particularly Baptists) is the emphasis on isolating people from "the world" and separating Christians from objects of worldly influence; in essence, withdrawing to our evangelical islands in the sea (like Crusoe). Defoe writes with wit and wisdom on the folly of such behavior in Chapter 1 of Serious Reflections. In preparation for a fall Wednesday night series at Emmanuel Enid called Serious Reflections on Every Person's Life through Daniel Defoe's 'Adventures of Robinson Crusoe',  I am modernizing and paraphrasing the archaic 18th century English of Defoe's Serious Reflections. The following wise counsel comes from Chapter One:
"The truth is our withdrawal into a religious hermit-like existence, separating ourselves in solitude from this world, is but an acknowledgment of the defect and imperfection of the promises and resolutions we have made.  Our incapacity to bind ourselves to what we deem as needful restraints and our failure to keep and observe the vows we make become the reasons for our withdrawal. Or to say it another way:  The one who seeks happiness in heavenly things, through prayer and good works, but at the same time is sensible to how disagreeable such a life is to this world, will cause his soul to commit a rape upon his own body, through carrying his body by force into a desert, or into a religious retirement and/or solitude, from where he cannot return.  In such a place it is impossible for this person “to have conversation with Mankind” other than with those people who are under the same vows as they, and the same banishment as they. The folly of this kind of religious activity is evident many ways:
(1). Christians can come to enjoy all the desirable advantages of solitude without a strict retirement from the world.  When thoughts are strictly governed there is no need for outward formalities of religious exercises, rigorous religious activity or any apparent outward mortifications of the body, activities which I justly call a rape upon human nature.
(2). Wild beasts are not just in the wilderness. There is no escaping them in a cell on the top of a mountain, or on a desolate island in the sea. However, if the soul is truly the master of the body and the mind is confined, then all is safe.  What advantage is there in a bodily retreat from the world, especially a forced retreat as some require, when the problem is a matter of the mind?
(3). Our business is to get an isolated soul, not a withdrawn body. We must ever have a frame of mind truly elevated above the world, for then we may be alone whenever we please. Even in the middle of a harried and corrupt world and among a great company of people with different moral values or no values at all, when our thoughts are rightly engaged we are free from the wild beasts that would tear us apart.
(4). The soul is superior to the body. The body is the servant and slave to the soul. The body has no hands to act, no feet to walk, no tongue to speak. The soul possesses understanding and will, which are the two deputies of the soul's power.  All the passions which agitate, direct, and possess the body, are rooted in the soul. When we get the soul into it's natural superior direction and elevation, there is no need to prescribe a person to withdraw from the world.
(5). Christians say it is being entangled by worldly things which interrupts their focus and contemplation of heavenly things and thus becomes the excuse to withdraw and isolate themselves from the world.  But what evidence of true Christianity is there in removing the body from the presence of worldly things? For example, a desire for something contracts the same guilt as if that something were actually experienced. For our Savior says, “He that has lust in his mind and desires a woman unlawfully has already committed adultery.” Our Savior’s meaning is that that the problem is thinking on a woman to desire her unlawfully, even if one has not looked on her or has not seen her at the time one's thinking of her. How shall this thinking of her be removed by transporting the body away from the object of desire?
Answer: The lust in the mind must be removed by a change in the soul. For only when there is a change in the soul will the mind be carried above the power or reach of the allurement.  Otherwise the vicious desire remains in the body as force remains in the gunpowder, and it will exert itself whenever touched with fire.
Isolation and solitude from the world, as I understand by it, is a retreat from human society, on a religious or philosophical account. Such a thing is a mere cheat; for it can neither answer the end it proposes or qualify us for the duties of true Christianity which we are commanded to perform. Therefore, religious isolation from the world is really irreligious in itself and is inconsistent with a Christian life.”
Yesterday, a friend sent me a video of Southern Baptist preacher who uses me as an illustration in his message (You may watch it here). The pastor is of the belief that separation from the world is true religion. Not so. True religion is being smack dab in the middle of a pagan world and finding yourself unaffected. When we feel the need to condemn others and isolate ourselves, it is usually a sign of a fear within that we can't keep the promises and vows we have made to God. I feel no need to either make or keep any promises to Him yet I find myself believing and resting in every one of His promises to me, which are much superior promises to anything the world offers.

Thank you, Robinson Crusoe, for illustrating it so.

The Compelling Love of God

One of the things I love most about blogging is the interaction with readers. After my post detailing how George McDonald left the theology of his childhood and came to believe in universal reconciliation, several Arminians wrote me, quite upset that I could believe in God's distinguishing and effectual love for His people. I always learn from people, particularly those who disagree with me, and I thought one particular exchange with Kristen helps clarify what seems to be some misperception about the power of God's love for His people - whether His people belong to a select group of innumerable individuals from every nation, tribe, kindred, tongue and family (i.e. "the world") as I believe, or every single individual of the entire human race, as George McDonald believed. My Arminian friends, like Kristen, have trouble seeing how God's love can always be effectual without taking away human freedom. For example:

Kristen: "As an Arminian I believe that God must put the desire to be rescued in the human heart. The difference is that I don't believe God makes the desire so overwhelmingly strong that humans have no power to refuse."

Wade: "I think you are misunderstanding what I believe, Kristen. I have never believed, have never taught, and have never written that any human being does not have the power to refuse.

I have always believed, taught, and written that God makes His love is so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from "good spell"), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely "sweep me off my feet" enamoring that I cannot, will not, and must not refuse, though I have the power to do so.

Have you ever been loved like that? I have! By Him"

Why is it important to see that God's love for us is not drawn out by our loveliness nor diminished by our ugliness? Because it is only the comprehension of the incomparable love of God that leads to change in our lives (see Ephesians 3). Or to summarize, allow me to put in modern language a saying by a wonderful divine of old:

"Real faith is coming to God in the absolute absence of any positive feelings or spiritual desires, without any healthy glow or good aspirations, weighted down with low thoughts, failure, neglect and wondering forgetfulness, and yet being able to say to Him, 'You are my Refuge.'

Be Careful of the Hashtag SBC'ers

I am not in Houston, Texas for the annual Southern Baptist Convention. However, I'm keeping up with what is going on in Houston through Twitter. Barry McCarty, the chief parliamentarian for the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted this morning that many pastors are tweeting about the Southern Baptist Convention using  #SBC2013 instead of the "official" Southern Baptist Convention hashtag of #SBC13.

What's the big deal? Well, it seems #SBC2013 is the "official" hashtag for the annual Sports Bra Challenge (SBC) in New York, whose theme is "Reveal Yourself." I really think God must have a sense of humor. Here are a few tweets this morning from pastors at the Southern Baptist Convention using the wrong hashtag (some soon deleted):

"That was incredibly uplifting!" #SBC2013

"Anybody else think we look small on television" #SBC2013

"Why is it so cold in this arena?" #SBC2013

"I can't tell if that pastor was glaring or staring at me" #SBC2013

"I find myself growing more and more irritated." #SBC2013

Be careful of your hashtags SBC pastors.

How to Kiss Calvinism Goodbye: The Gracious Way to Depart from the Doctrine of God's Distinguishing Love

I was twenty years old when I first read God's Everlasting Love to His Elect by John Gill. To this day, other than the Bible, no book has impacted my life more. Gill showed me how God is love, and how the Father's love is not drawn out by our loveliness nor diminished by our ugliness. Previous to reading Gill, I had been infected with the delusion that God had a holy hatred for sinners and Jesus had a longing love for sinners. I believed that the Father desired to punish sinners because of His holy nature of justice, but Jesus offered Himself to the Father as a Substitute for undeserving sinners. My notion of a bi-polar God bothered me, but I just assumed that justice and love were mutually exclusive--- until I read Gill. Then I began to see that God is love, and when He moves to save His people, He saves them in love, through love, by love and for love. The Father and the Son are one in motive. "For God so loved the world...."

I have never struggled with what some call God's distinguishing love for His elect. Since every sinner is responsible for his own sin and rebellion, I felt that if God chose to love an innumerable company of sinners instead of every individual sinner, who can complain (Romans 9)? It's a little like you saying to me, "I love your wife, but I don't love her like I love my own wife." I understand the difference. You chose your wife, not my wife. However, in my journey of faith I have discovered that not all of God's people are as comfortable with God's distinguishing love as I am. Some believe that God's love abides upon each human being to the same degree of fullness as every other human being, and the notion that God has a distinguishing love for His Bride bothers these Christians immensely.

George McDonald (1824-1905) was one of those Christians.

It is said that the first time the doctrine of predestination was explained to young George McDonald, he burst into tears, although he was assured that he was one of the elect. George would grow up and become a Congregational minister himself, but he was eventually kicked out of the ministry for suggesting that the consuming fire of God's love would eventually overcome sin and rebellion in every human being. George McDonald turned to writing, and his influence was enormous. Most American evangelicals have not heard of George McDonald, but they have heard of those discipled by him:

C.S. Lewis called McDonald "my master." Lewis had picked up a copy of McDonald's book Phantastes at a train station bookstall. "I began to read," says Lewis, "and a few hours later I knew that I had crossed a great frontier."

G.K. Chesterton said McDonald's book The Princess and the Goblin "made a difference to my whole existence."

Mark Twain was greatly influenced by George McDonald, as was the great Christian devotion writer Oswald Chambers who said, "It is a striking indication of the trend and shallowness of the modern reading public that George MacDonald's books have been so neglected."

I could go on, but you get the picture. George McDonald would eventually write many books, but two of them, Robert Falconer and Lilith,  show his intense dislike for the idea that God's salvific love is given to some and not to others. C.S. Lewis describes in George McDonald: An Anthology  how McDonald kept the "worthy" portion of his Scottish Calvinism while renouncing the doctrine of predestination: "In the very midst of his intellectual revolt (from Calvinism), McDonald forces us to see elements of real and perhaps irreplaceable worth in the thing from which he is revolting."

Don't gloss over what Lewis is saying about McDonald. In the midst of rejecting God's distinguishing love, McDonald keeps his readers focused on the real worth of Calvinism. If the "real worth" of Calvinism is not God's distinguishing love, then what is it? McDonald believed Calvinism correctly conveyed a real sense of God's majesty, sovereignty, and power. McDonald believed and taught that God can do as He pleases at all times or He would not be God. This was the portion of Calvinism that McDonald deemed worthy. What McDonald despised was the belief that God chooses to save some and not all.

George McDonald came to believe in universal reconciliation.

C.S. Lewis never fully adopted George MacDonald's eschatology of universal reconciliation. However, Lewis did challenge the traditional doctrine of hell, showing how much he was influenced by McDonald.  In Lewis' book The Great Divorce,  a person named "MacDonald" appears as a heavenly guide and shows how it might be that a person who continually spurns God's love might spend eternity in total isolation and darkness. Then, a character named "Lewis" challenges the heavenly guide (McDonald) by reminding him that he had believed in universal reconciliation while he lived on earth. MacDonald responds that indeed,  it is possible that everyone will eventually be saved (just as he believed on earth),  but "we cannot know this" with certainty. C.S. Lewis taught in The Great Divorce that what we can know is God's mercy and love are endless, but if we spurn His love and mercy, we cease being human beings in any meaningful sense. If God's mercy and love do not ultimate obtain for us victory over our sin and selfishness and hell is eternal, then that hell will be "outer darkness" where the consuming fire of God's love is not experienced. For God's fire of love consumes our sin.

C.S. Lewis came very close to embracing the universal reconciliation of his master George McDonald. Ironic, is it not, that John Piper tweeted "Goodbye Rob Bell" when Rob Bell published Love Wins (a book that questions, but does not deny the existence of an eternal hell) while during that same time period John Piper extolled C.S. Lewis as the greatest influence in his life. Both men, Rob Bell and C.S. Lewis, believed the same thing about hell. C.S. Lewis simply wrote fantasy while Rob Bell spelled it out in plain English. I'm not sure why Piper has not tweeted "Goodbye C.S. Lewis" except for the fact that we sometimes seem more concerned with tweaking perceived opponents than in learning from fellow disciples.

Southern Baptists are convening in Houston, Texas this week. Calvinism is an issue for the SBC. There is a dividing line between those who believe in God's distinguishing love and those who believe in God's universal love. Throughout history, evangelicals who have had a high view of God's sovereignty, a keen intellectual and theological awareness, and a desire to communicate the love of God to sinners, have all rallied around the cross of Jesus Christ and the reconciliation He brings. There is a way for Southern Baptists to refuse to believe in God's distinguishing love for His people; they can be like C.S. Lewis, George McDonald, Rob Bell, Paul Young and others and believe in universal reconciliation.

I do not.

However, if one chooses to reject the doctrine of God's distinguishing love and finds universal reconciliation distasteful (as many Southern Baptists do), then the only alternative is to deny the sovereignty of God and make Him into a fickle human being whose love is dependent on the performance of those being loved. That isn't good news, it's really rotten news. When you make your god as fickle as we are, you have turned him into a person just like us.

Thankfully,  God is not like us.  His love is an artesian spring that is not drawn out by our loveliness nor diminished by our ugliness. He is love. His love continues. His love never ends. Love can't end, because He continues and He never ends. To rightly believe in God's sovereignty and God's unconditional love you must either be a Calvinist or a universalist. The only other option is to believe in a God who is not sovereign and a love that is always conditional; I want nothing to do with that kind of religion, for it is has no good news.

In Defense of KFOR Weatherman Mike Morgan

Weather in the Oklahoma City metro is big business for television stations. Some of the best meteorologists in the nation are in OKC  because the National Weather Service Forecast Office is in Norman, Oklahoma; the premier meteorology department in the country is at the University of Oklahoma; and, of course, OKC is ground central for tornadoes. Gary England of Channel 9 is in his seventies and had a starring role in the Hollywood movie Twister, and he was recently featured in a LA Times feature. Gary is often considered the standard bearer for local meteorologists, but in my book, Mike Morgan of KFOR Channel 4 is the best. Imagine my surprise when I read today an article from Reuters that vilifies Mike Morgan for giving "irresponsible" tornado advice last Friday evening during the El Reno F-5 tornado.

My daughter and her husband have recently moved to OKC from Mississippi. They temporarily live at a hotel on SW 15th and Meridian, a place DIRECTLY in the path of the super tornado last Friday night. I was on the phone with our daughter when Mike Morgan described the dimensions of the tornado, the direction of its movement (bearing directly toward our daughter and her husband), and when he declared that if you can't get underground, you need to move SOUTH and get out of the tornado's path. The hotel where our kids live has no shelter, no underground safe place, and I immediately told my daughter and her husband to "get out and move south." They did and I guided them over the phone. Like thousands, they became stuck in traffic and eventually took shelter in a restaurant at SW 59th and May - two miles south and one mile east of their original location. It was a scary, difficult time for us all.

I had just spent several days in Moore helping victims of the May 20 tornado. I was in Moore the night of the May 3, 1999 tornado. I was in Diamondhead, Mississippi within 12 hours of Katrina coming on shore (Diamondhead was ground zero), and I have been at every major tornado disaster in Oklahoma since the mid-1980's. I did not take Mike's advice because Mike said it. I took Mike's advice because I believed it to be best -- and still do. I was in El Reno and Union City within hours after the tornado hit last Friday and I came home Saturday night and told my wife that the El Reno tornado was an F-5 and a worse tornado than the May 20 Moore tornado of eleven days earlier. She didn't believe me. She said the National Weather Service was calling the El Reno tornado an F-3. I assured her it was worse than the Moore tornado. Sure enough, this week the El Reno tornado was classified as the widest tornado in history, and it came just a few miles per hour away from being the strongest tornado ever. As it was, it was super strong F-5 tornado. Had it not dissipated on the west side of OKC, it would have DESTROYED my daughter's hotel. She and her husband would have been just out of the reach of the massive 2 miles tornado in their shelter at SW 59th and May - just barely, but still out of its reach. I believe it was the right decision for my daughter and son-in-law to leave. If you don't have a basement, shelter, or safe place underground, you need to be out of the path of a major tornado. The problem with our kids is they waited almost too late.

Mike Morgan posted on his Facebook that he has shed many tears since last Friday because of the criticism coming his way. Obviously, some wish to blame him for the deaths that occurred, but that's absurd. Pundits and other television stations will continue to vilify him. I will not. Why? Because it is always best to be outside of a tornado's path, and Mike Morgan pinpoints the tornadoes better than anyone else on television and gives precise and accurate information. He did it on May 3, 1999; he did it on May 20, 2013; and he did it on May 31, 2013. He's the best in my opinion. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks he is the best. Why?

Because the roads were jammed.