A friend of mine wrote this recently. We have been talking about original sin, specifically the question of whether or not all humans are guilty because of Adam’s sin. Here are some interesting insights from my friend…

The doctrine of Federal Headship states that God holds people responsible for the actions of others who represent them. This is seen in the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin in which the guilt of Adam’s sin is held against all his descendants, since he was the head of the human race. Of course if all mankind was born guilty, then so was Jesus the moment he became human. If this were true, however, Jesus could not save anyone. He would need a savior of his own.

The key verse that seems to suggest that the guilt of Adam condemns the world is Romans 5:18-19: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” The problem with this interpretation is that it leads to universalism: The one act of Jesus on the cross justifies all men. Men are not automatically justified, and they are not automatically condemned either. The action of Adam leads to people being made sinners in the same way that the action of Jesus leads to people being made righteous: By the free choice of people to either follow Adam into sin or trust in Christ for salvation.

Several have pointed out that it would be unjust for God to punish one person for the sins of others. In fact, God himself warns the Israelites: “In those days they shall no longer say: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone shall die for his own sin” (Jer. 31:29-30; also Eze. 18:1-4). This would indicate that our sense of justice which leads us to reject the doctrine is informed by God’s own revelation of justice.

Some examples that could be cited to support federal headship might better be described as community responsibility. God will bring judgment on a nation if there is enough sin to deserve it. For instance, he would not allow Israel to conquer the land of Canaan until the iniquity of the Amorites was complete (Gen. 15:16). If there was enough community merit (righteous men), God would have spared the city of Sodom (Gen. 18:22-33). Whenever a nation is being judged, there are inevitably innocent people who suffer for the sins of others. The righteous are not generally separated from the wicked as they will be on the final judgment (Mt. 25:31-46). When God punished Israel and sent them into exile in Babylon, there were several innocent people like Ezekiel and Daniel who suffered as well. It is important to point out, however, that these were all temporal judgments. They had no eternal consequences, as the guilt of Adam would bring on all mankind if the doctrine of Original Sin were true. This makes these other examples quite different.

The classic example of federal headship is the case of King David. Because of David’s sin in taking a census, God sent a plague that killed 70,000 people (1 Chron. 21). But before we assume that these were innocent people paying for David’s sin, 2 Samuel 24:1 indicates that they were as guilty as their king: “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”” It seems that David’s pride was shared by the entire nation and God used David’s action to humble the people.

Some may point to the example of Achan whose theft led to not only his death but that of his family as well (Josh. 7:19-26). Though the text does not explicitly say it, there is every reason to believe that his family was held responsible because they were complicit in the deed. After all, they lived together in the same tent. Another example suggests that if they were innocent they would have been spared. We have in mind the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. They and all who sided with them were put to death (Num. 16:20-35). Years later, however, we learn that some of Korah’s descendents survived this judgment, no doubt because they would not side with Korah in his sin. The sons of Korah were even blessed to write some of the Psalms (Ps. 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87-88). So in families, children are never held responsible for the sins of their parents. If children sin as their fathers’ do, they will suffer the punishment of their parents (Ex. 20:5-6). It all depends on them. So the doctrine of Federal Headship, in addition to being unjust, seems to have no real support in the Scriptures.

The incarnation of Christ is the turning point of human history. God himself enters the arena of humanity and earns the title “Emmanuel” – God with us. Although most evangelical Christians would agree with the statement that Jesus was both fully man and fully God, there is disagreement over exactly how the two natures were able to coexist in one person. In one camp there are those who believe that Jesus had the full range of both human and divine attributes at the same time. In other words, Jesus as a human was spatially located, limited in knowledge, and limited in power, while Jesus as God was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Most people would agree that this is a profound mystery and a paradox, if not an outright contradiction.

In another camp, there are those who do believe that an outright contradiction exists in this view of the incarnation. These people believe that in order for the second person of the Trinity to become fully human as the Bible teaches he did, he had to relinquish the use of certain divine attributes that would had prohibited him from becoming fully human. In other words, a being who is fully human cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, since these are attributes which cannot accurately be used to describe a finite being. Christ did not have to relinquish all of his divine attributes (his divine holiness and love, for example) because these attributes can be granted to humans. Nothing about being fully human precludes us from perfect holiness and love (at least in theory) but it does preclude us from being all-knowing or all-powerful.

A question that I have been pondering lately is this: when Jesus performed miracles, was he performing them as a human or was he tapping into his divine nature to bend and break the laws of the universe that he himself created? The answer that seems most natural is that Jesus, being fully God, made use of his divine power or knowledge to work miracles, heal the sick, control the weather, raise the dead, and read people’s thoughts. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I believe that Jesus performed miracles as a finite, limited, dependant human being, who relied totally and completely on his Father as his source of power and knowledge. Jesus’ miracles are not proof of his divinity. On the contrary Jesus’ life and miracles give us the best example of what it means to be truly human.

Scripture is clear that Jesus depended on the Father and the Holy Spirit on a regular basis. (Luke 4:1 – Jesus was led around the wilderness by the Spirit; Matt. 12:28 – Jesus claims to cast out demons by the Spirit of God; John 5:19-30 – Jesus says that he can do nothing on his own initiative, but can only do what he sees the Father doing. ) Jesus’ supernatural abilities are almost always attributed to the Holy Spirit or the Father working through him.

Scripture is also clear that we are to follow the example of Christ (Phil. 2:5, 1Cor. 11:1) who was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). But if Christ had the advantage of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence while here on earth, how can we possibly follow his example? If Christ possessed those attributes, it renders the exhortation to follow his example incoherent. Jesus also told his disciples, “He who believes in me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father” (John 14:12). I can imagine the disciples looking around at each other in disbelief, wondering how in the world they themselves would be able to perform greater works that Jesus. Just a few verses later, Jesus explains that He will ask the Father to send them another Helper, whose functions presumably include aiding them and all believers in accomplishing these “greater works”.

What I have been saying is that Jesus’ life was one of total and complete dependence on the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is the kind of life that all humans are called to. In fact, living a life of total surrender and dependence on God is the way that God designed humans to live. Living a life of selfishness and self-reliance is actually like living a less-than-human life. We are defined by our potential. To live a truly human life is to live in true submission to God. That is the way we were created to live. Jesus gives us the only perfect example of how to do this. His life was lived in total and utter surrender to the direction of the Father. He relied on the Spirit in everything. His life is a model of what it looks like to live up to our creaturely potential. And this is what excites me: the kind of surrendered life that Jesus lived (one of reliance on the Spirit and the Father, one of dependence on the Spirit for power, wisdom, and direction) is exactly the kind of life that we too are called to live. The sensitivity to the Spirit that Jesus demonstrated is not reserved for him alone – it is available to us! Jesus’ ability to surrender to God, to allow the Father to work miracles and healings through him – this is available to us! The intimacy and communion with the Father that Jesus enjoyed – this too is available to us!  To the extent that we follow his example of total dependence and submission to God, we will fulfill Jesus’ promise to us that we will do “even greater works” than even he himself did.

This is my first post in quite a while, but hopefully it will be the first of many to come.  I have been listening to some new music lately from a band called mewithoutYou. One song in particular has really gripped me, and I thought it would be appropriate to share it with all of you, and a little bit of what it means to me. The song is called “The king beetle on a coconut estate”. I think it would be worth your while to give it a read (lyrics below) and a listen (link below).

http://www.last.fm/music/mewithoutYou/_/The+King+Beetle+on+a+Coconut+Estate

As the moon rose and the hour grew late,
the day-help on the coconut estate
raked up the dried leaves that fell dead from the trees
which they burned in a pile by the lake.

the beetle king summoned his men
and from the top of the rhododendron stem
“calling all volunteers who can carry it back here,
the great mystery’s been lit once again.”

one beetle emerged from the crowd
in a fashionable abdomen shroud.
said, “i’m a professor, see, that’s no mystery to me,
i’ll be back soon successful and proud.”
but when the beetle professor returned,
he crawled on all six as his wings had been burned
and described to the finest detail all he’d learned
there was neither a light, nor a heat in his words

the deeply dissatisfied king
climbed the same stem to announce the same thing
but in his second appeal sought to sweeten the deal
with a silver ??? ring

the lieutenant stepped out from the line
as he lassoed his thorax with twine
thinking, “i’m stronger and braver and I’ll earn the king’s favor.
one day all he has will be mine.”

but for all the lieutenant’s conceit,
he too returned singed and admitting defeat.
“i had no choice, please believe, but retreat
it was bright as the sun, but with ten times the heat
and it cracked like the thunder and bloodshot my eyes
though smothered with sticks, it advanced undeterred
carelessly cast an ash cloud to the sky, my lord,
like a flock of dark ravishing birds.”

the beetle king slammed down his fist
“your flowery description’s no better than his!
we sent for the great light and you bring us this!
we didn’t ask what it seems like, we asked what it is!”

his majesty’s hour at last is drawn nigh
the elegant queen took her leave from his side
without understanding, but without asking why
gathered their kids to come bid their goodbyes
and the father explained, “you’ve been somewhat deceived,
we’ve all called me your dad, but your true dad’s not me
i laid next to your mom and your forms were conceived
your Father’s the light within all that you see.
he fills up the ponds as he empties the clouds
holds without hands, and he speaks without sounds.
he provides us with the cow’s waste and coconuts to eat
giving one that nice salt taste, and the other is sweet.
sends the black carriage the day death shows its face
thinning our numbers with kindness and grace
and just as a flower and its fragrance are one,
so must each of you and your Father become.

now distribute my scepter, my crown, and my throne
and all we’ve known as wealth to the poor and alone
without further hesitation, without looking back home,
the king flew headlong into the blazing unknown.

and as the smoke king curled higher and higher
the troops flying loops round the telephone wires
they said, “our beloved’s not dead, but his highness instead,
has been utterly changed into fire.”

why not be utterly changed into fire?

There are several things that I find striking in this song, but the part that I want to talk a bit more about concerns the beetle professor. The beetle professor goes to investigate the great fire and returns with a detailed description, but there was “neither a light nor a heat in his words.” Later on in the song, the king criticizes both the professor and the lieutenant saying, “your flowery description’s no better than his / we asked for the great light and you bring us this/ we didn’t ask what it seems like, we asked what it is!”

I have spent quite a bit of time in my life talking about God. I have written essays about him, I have argued about him, I have tried to convince other people that my perspective of him is correct, etc. etc. What I have been asking myself lately is this: “ When I talk about God, is there a light or a heat in my words?” There are people in my life who are starving to know God. Not just to know about him, but to know him. When I have the opportunity to talk about God, do I disappoint them with flowery descriptions? Do I simply try to impress them with theological language? Or when I talk about God do people experience light and heat?

I think the light and heat metaphor has to do with both how we communicate about God, and what we communicate about him. In terms of how, light means revelation and heat, passion. In my writing, and in my conversations about God, I want there to be light and heat. Revelation and passion.

I value theological discussion, debate, and conversation, but it is not enough. We must go beyond it. Just like the king beetle refused to settle for second hand descriptions of the great light, we too must not settle for safe, distant, academic discussions of God who is Himself a consuming fire. The king beetle forsook all he knew, plunged headlong into the raging mysterious light, and was “utterly changed into fire.” When we move beyond talking about God and dare to truly experience God, we are changed. 2 Corinthians 3:18 “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

We are being transformed. Which brings me to what we communicate when we talk about God. In the words of the song, we are being “utterly changed into fire” as the beetle was. This transformation manifests itself in heat and light. Our words begin to emanate heat and light. Our lives begin to reflect His glory. Although we can never fully capture or convey in words precisely who God is, there ought to be something of the reality of his nature, his character, his existence that is tangibly present in our conversations. There ought to be some kind of heat in our words that makes people say, “ah… yes, what you are saying feels like the Lord.” There ought to be some kind of light that makes people say, “yes… that looks like Him too.” We may not be able to bring them the full experience of Fire (they will have to experience Him themselves for that), but in our lives and words, we can convey something of who this Fire is.

It is the Holy Spirit who fills our words with light. It is also God who can somehow be tangibly present in our lives and conversations so that people get a truer glimpse of who He is, and desire to experience Him for themselves. It is not our responsibility to conjure up heat and light. Our responsibility is to continually and consistently spend time in His presence. The more we are around the Fire, the more heat and light will radiate from us. The more His presence will fill our lives and words. It is our duty to get as close to the Fire as we can as often as we can. But better yet, why not be utterly changed into fire?

People can claim to believe all kinds of things, but the true test of belief is whether or not they actually live as though what they believe is true. What I find interesting is that in terms of prayer, relationship with God, responsibility for sin, and evangelism, most Christians tend to live as though open theism is true. Although I would have liked to cover all four of these areas with this one article, it was getting way too long, so I have broken it up into sections. This first article deals with prayer.

I realize that I am jumping into this discussion without laying a lot of groundwork for open theism. If you are unfamiliar with open theism, or need a refresher, a good summary can be found here http://www.opentheism.info/

The purpose of this article is not to demonstrate that open theism is biblical or logically consistent (though I believe it is both). Rather, my goal is two-fold: first, to show how the majority of Christians seem to live as though they believe in the God of open theism (doctrinal statements to the contrary), and second, to shed some light on why I find open theism so personally compelling. And so, without further ado, this is why I think that most Christians pray like (or ought to pray like) open theists.

Prayer.

Open theism appeals to me on several levels, one of which is in the motivation that it provides for Christians to pray. If you are a Christian who believes that prayer can actually accomplish something in the world that would not have happened if you had not prayed, you might be a closet open theist. One of the things that makes open theism unique among theologies is its view of the future as being open to possibilities, even for God. This has incredible implications for petitionary prayer. What it means is that God may actually bend his will, change a planned course of action, or even change his mind, based on the prayers or actions of his people. When open theists read in the Bible that God repented (sometimes translated relented, changed His mind, was sorry, or was grieved), they take it to mean that God actually was planning to do something, and then actually decided to do something else. Usually, when God does this, it is in response to the repentance or petitions of people on earth. Here are three examples from the lives of Jonah, Moses, and David:

In Jonah chapter 3, God told the Ninevites through Jonah that He was going to destroy Nineveh and its inhabitants. This was not a conditional statement; there were no conditions given. There was no “unless you repent” clause, at least not explicitly. A straightforward reading of Jonah requires us to conclude that God fully intended to destroy the city, as He said He would. His intentions changed when He saw the repentance of the Ninevites. Jonah 3:10 “When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented (KJV has “repented”) concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.” (NASB) The Ninevites truly repented, and God truly repented. To repent simply means to turn away from, or to change direction or course of action. If the Ninevites had not repented, God would have destroyed the city.

In Exodus 32:9-14, God sees the wickedness of His people, and says to Moses, “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”  Moses intercedes on behalf of the people, and God changes his intended course of action: 32:14 “So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” (NASB). The King James Version states it even more forcefully, “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (KJV). I do not believe that God makes idle threats, nor do I believe that He was simply testing Moses to see what he would do. In other words, if Moses had not interceded on behalf of the people, I believe that God would have carried out his perfect and loving intention to destroy his wicked, idolatrous people and begin anew with Moses, as He had done previously with Noah. An actually change in God’s intended course of action occurred.

One more example: 2 Sam 24:15-17, 25 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time, and seventy thousand men of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.  16When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.  17Then David spoke to the LORD when he saw the angel who was striking down the people, and said, “Behold, it is I who have sinned, and it is I who have done wrong; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me and against my father’s house…25David built there an altar to the LORD and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Thus the LORD was moved by prayer for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel.

(For a good overview of most (all?) of the passages that speak of God repenting, relenting, or changing his mind, I direct you to Micahthesewell’s theophilux blog on God being interactive. He posted a link to some audio of himself teaching on “Nacham”, the Hebrew word which refers to God repenting. There are around 35 different instances of this in the Bible.)

Let me answer a few objections that will surely be raised at this point. Someone will ask, “Isn’t God repenting simply an anthropomorphism? Isn’t that just our human way of trying to understand God, like saying that God saved his people with his “right hand”? God doesn’t have a hand, but we use a human analogy to speak of God in order to understand his ways. My answer to this objection is that anthropomorphisms (human analogies) like God’s “right hand” are symbols that point to something else. So, God’s “right hand” is a symbol for his power to save, or his divine protection. But what on earth could God “repenting” refer to? If “repentance” is the symbol, what is the referent? The same holds true when we read in the Bible of God grieving, or rejoicing, or becoming angry. Open theists tend to infer that God is actually experiencing these sensations. If using emotions to describe the way God works in the world is merely making use of human analogy, what do those symbolic emotions refer to?

A second likely objection is that since God is immutable, he does not and cannot change. Since God cannot change, when He “repents”, it does not mean He has actually changed. We may not be able to understand what is happening in God when He repents, but it must be something other than an actual change, since He “changest not”. My response to this objection is that His immutability applies to His character and His nature, not His actions, intentions, plans, and emotions. His character does not change, and his nature does not change, but His actions and His plans may. His plans are perfect, but they are subject to change based on the free choices of humans. God is infinitely resourceful, and has no difficulty altering his plans to accommodate our choices. His new plans will be as perfect as His previous ones.

But I have digressed from my original purpose which was to look at some ways that most Christians seem to live as though they believe in the God described by open theism. The first of these is prayer. People who believe that their prayers can actually influence God to intervene in a certain situation will pray fervently and effectively. People who believe that the future is not entirely fixed and certain, but at least partially open to possibilities even in God’s mind, will pray as though their prayers can actually sway the hand of God towards or away from one of these possibilities. On the other hand, people who believe that God’s will is always accomplished on the earth irrespective of human choices, that everything that happens on earth was divinely ordained or foreknown by God will find it difficult to find the motivation to pray, since, que sera sera, whatever will be, will be. The point I am trying to get at is that if you pray like your prayers can actually move the hand of God… if you pray like the outcome of a future event may actually depend in part on whether or not you pray about it… then you are praying like an open theist.

The Ninevites heard the Lord tell them that He would destroy their city. They repented, threw themselves at the mercy of God, and God relented from the disaster. God told Moses to get out of the way, so He could wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Moses refused, (the audaci

ty!) pleaded before the Lord, and the Lord changed His intended course of action. David interceded on behalf of Jerusalem, the Lord was “moved by prayer”, and He repented of the disaster He was about to bring to the city. What an incredible God! This God who listens to the cries of His people! This God who even hears the genuine, desperate cries of a heathen city like Nineveh! He truly is slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness. God has chosen to create a universe in which we, His creation, get to partner with Him in directing the course of history. He has chosen to subject Himself to us in a sense, bending His will and changing His plans based on the repentance and intercession of lowly humans. He is not aloof, uninvolved, and detached. He is interactive and relational. In His love and wisdom He chooses to bring about His plans and intentions in history by allowing us to take part in them. This God who responds to us, who takes our prayers seriously, who is big enough to be sovereign without micro-managing… this is a God that inspires me to worship Him. This is a God who challenges me to engage Him seriously in prayer and intercession. This is a God who invites me to join with Him in bringing about His kingdom on earth, and I cannot help but fall more in love with a God like that.

This subject has finally begun to get some serious attention in evangelical circles, and all i have to say is that it’s about time. Ever since I was a young boy, I have always found the typical Christian perspective on the environment difficult to understand. When people were chaining themselves to trees to save a patch of forest, for some reason the Christian thing to do was haul them off to jail, level the forest, and make room for new factories and shopping centers to be built. Hooray for industrialization! I understand that most tree-hugging types tend to have a “save the whales, kill the unborn babies” kind of worldview… but can’t we at least agree that whales are worth saving if possible?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a tree hugging hippie, nor am I against advances in technology, nor am I against new factories or shopping malls. Someone has pointed out that the Bible begins in a garden and ends in a city. I am all for progress. But I am not in favor of progress at any price, especiialy when the price is as costly as God’s beautiful creation. Here are a few reasons why I believe it is every Christian’s responsibility to care for the environment.

1. God has entrusted us with His creation.

This reason ought to be enough for us. We are called to be stewards of His creation. He made this beautiful world for us to live in. It is perfectly suited to sustain human life. He engineered it for us, and He placed humans here as caretakers of it.

Gen 2:15 “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Working the earth means cultivating it, nurturing it so that it produces more and can sustain more life. God gave us dominion over the earth, not so we could do whatever we want with it, but so we could care for it, tend it, work it, even improve it in some ways, with new technologies, etc.  God placed us here, and said, “Now, show me what you can do with what I have given you”. I am reminded of the parable of the talents – we are stewards of all God has given us, and this applies to His Creation which He loves. Let’s try not to mess it up.

2. To the extent that we allow creation to deteriorate, we are distorting God’s ability to communicate to us.

Ps 19:1-4a “The heavens declare the glory of God;
       the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

 2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
       night after night they display knowledge.

 3 There is no speech or language
       where their voice is not heard. ^[a]

 4 Their voice ^[b] goes out into all the earth,
       their words to the ends of the world.”

God communicates to people through his creation. Let’s not mess it up.

3. God reveals his nature to us through creation.

Rom. 1:19 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

The beauty and order of creation are clues to us as to what kind of God we serve. He is creative, artistic, orderly, complex, etc…. When species of plants and animals go extinct, there are facets of God’s nature that we can no longer appreciate through those specific parts of his creation. It is difficult to appreciate the beauty of our Creator by observing a beautiful sunset which is obscured by smog, or by observing a beautiful ocean front with garbage littering the shoreline.

4. It is a way to “love your neighbor as yourself”.

The parable of the good samaritan redefined for the pharisees who counts as a “neighbor”. Jesus opened it up to mean “anyone in need.” Can we not also consider future generations as “neighbors” of a sort? I certainly want my children to have clean drinking water and clean air. I want the same for your children. To the extent that we pollute, waste, and live excessively, we are messing up the environment for our current neighbors, and for future generations. This is not loving behavior… in fact, it is a little selfish.

5. Heaven is a place on earth.

Contrary to popular Christian fiction, and much popular theology, this world ( ie. planet earth) will probably where we spend eternity. And somehow the things that we do in this life carry on into our resurrected lives on the New Earth. (Jesus’ resurrection body still bore the marks of his crucifixion, he ate food, etc.)   This is not something I have studied very much, but I do believe that when Jesus returns to restore the heavens and earth, he will indeed RESTORE this earth. It will not be destroyed and made new. It will be transformed, much in the same way that our bodies will be transformed. If Jesus’ body is any clue as to what the new earth will look like, it is at least possible to imagine that the ’scars’ we create in this life will somehow carry over into the restored earth.

This last point, I can live without. I am sketchy on my eschatology, but I think the other 4 points still carry the day.

God is green, the earth and all that is in it belong to him… let’s not mess it up.

I have been meaning to write about this for quite some time, and i have finally gotten around to it. This isn’t a theological treatise or an exegetical paper. This is a personal testimony of a miracle the Lord worked in my life this past June at a conference in Atlanta, GA called, “Jesus Culture”.

As I settled in for the long drive down to Atlanta with a bus full of noisy, excited teenagers, I really didn’t know what I was getting myself into. (which reminds me… this is a rather lengthy story, so you might want to settle in yourself). I was at a pretty difficult place in my life. For the last two or three years prior to this trip, my heart and mind had slowly but surely begun to fill with doubts of all kinds. I had doubts about the reliability of the Bible. I had doubts about the existence of God. I doubted my own experiences with God. I doubted other people’s experiences with God. There was almost nothing that I had ever believed about God, the church, Christianity, and life in general, that was not coming under deep, genunine, soul-wrenching doubt.

For a time during this season of doubt, I had continued searching for answers. I had continued to search for something or someone who would finally put my doubts to rest, and give me the answers I was looking for. After I began to believe that no answers were forthcoming, I all but abandoned seeking for them. I had been wounded by the silence I was hearing from God, and I was scared to keep asking questions lest my doubts be proven true.

All my seeking left me only with more questions and more doubts. I had come to a place where I felt like if I asked one more question and was met with silence, or if I stepped out in faith one more time, and was left grasping at nothing, I might end up in hopelessness and despair. I had a picture of myself during this dark time – There was a ladder coming down out of the sky, its bottom rung high in the air, and I was clinging desperately to it with both hands, too terrified to reach for the next rung. I feared that if I reached out again, and missed… there would be nothing beneath me to catch my fall. My fears and my doubts had paralyzed me.

So there I was, on my way to a conference in Atlanta, barely clinging to faith, not daring to expect God to reveal Himself to me in any significant way. Besides, what kind of name is ‘Jesus Culture’ for a conference anyway?

One of the first sessions I attended, the speaker gave a message about increasing our level of expectation. His point was that we serve an infinite and incredible God who loves us, and we ought to expect for this infinite God to accomplish astonishing and incredible things in this world. This message convicted me, and I began to ask the Lord to increase my expectations. I could not yet bring myself to ACTUALLY expect the Lord to do something astonishing, but i could ask Him to help increase my expectation for something astonishing.

The session that evening convicted me even more. The main thrust of the message was that since we serve an infinite God who is also relational, there is no limit to how well we can know him; His love, his character, his Being, is an inexhaustible fountain… how can we ever be satisfied with our present state of knowing Him, and experiencing Him? There are always new depths to explore, new sides of Him we have never experienced in our own lives. Our God is a Lion and a Lamb, a Warrior and a Servant, a Savior and a Healer. He is all of these things, and all of these sides of Him are infinite – we can always experience new dimensions and new realities of who He is. And, what is more, God deeply desires to reveal Himself to us, as fully and completely as our finite beings can handle.

After hearing these two messages, I began to repent – but not for my doubts. My doubts were genunine, and I have never thought that my doubting was sinful. I had honest questions, and was seeking honest answers. I repented of my lack of expectation, and of my being satisfied and complacent towards God. I had stopped pursuing a deeper relationship with this God of infinte depth, and that filled my heart with regret.

I will never forget the deep, unconditional love and forgiveness I experienced from the Father that night. I simultaneously experienced a profound recognition of my own unworthiness and guilt, and a profound sense of joy and worth as the Lord forgave me, showered me with his love, and declared me righteous in his sight.

But God wasnt finished yet. He had another miracle to work in me.

Over the course of the conference, I had the opportunity to receive prayer for healing on several occasions. I have been a diabetic since the age of sixteen. Whenever there was an opportunity to receive prayer for healing during this conference, I got it. Experiencing the Lord as our Healer was one of the main thrusts of the conference, in fact. I was prayed over numerous times for diabetes, and at least once for healing for my eyesight which is terribly poor. People were giving all kinds of testimonies throughout the weekend, of God healing them from all kinds of ailments and diseases. 

After all that prayer, from all kinds of different people, when I came back from Jesus Culture, I still had diabetes. I still depended on prescription glasses. And I had actually gotten some kind of flu, so I came home more sick than when I had left! (Three strikes, you’re out).

Now, here is the miracle. When I left for Atlanta, I was barely clinging to faith. All it would have taken was one more disappointment, and I would have slid from depression to despair. When I came back from Atlanta, I had experienced three significant disappointments – three things that should have knocked the winds completely out of my sails in the fragile state I was in. But, somehow, against all reason, I came back from Atlanta with a heart full of faith. It was not something that I tried really hard to bring myself to, it was not a choice that I made to believe in God. I just suddenly had faith. It was a gift from the Lord, pure and simple. Days before, I had found it nearly impossible to believe in Him, and now I found it nearly impossible NOT to believe in Him. I have no explanation other than that God gave me the gift of faith. It was a miracle. 

So, that is my story. I welcome your thoughts and comments about any part of it, including theological statements you may agree/disagree with. Don’t let the fact that it is a testimony, not a treatise, stop you from jumping in with questions or whatever. If you have had a similar experience, I would be interested to hear about it… especially if anyone  has gone through a similar time of great doubt and confusion.

Thanks for reading. That’s my two sense.