The Elephant Experience

The Elephant Experience
Yesterday, I attended "The Elephant Room" live in Aurora IL and, somehow, ended up on the front row a few feet from Pastors James MacDonald, Perry Noble, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Steven Furtick, Mark Driscoll, and Greg Laurie. I even fist bumped Platt (which demonstrates that I was the most uncool guy in the building for fist bumping is sadly becoming a relic of the past--I am singlehandedly fighting for its return). The event was shot in a state of the art facility with a studio audience while being simulcast throughout the country. The idea was to put a group of influential pastors in a room together and talk about "the elephants in the room." These elephants ranged from methods of worship to poverty theology to the satellite church strategy. I found the experience exhilarating and ingenious. Whoever thought up this idea wins the cigar (and may smoke it in this crowd). Let me share what I liked and what I didn't like.
Liked: Honest, deep, engaging, and sometimes heated conversations about primary issues affecting our churches today. It was fascinating to watch different generations, theologies, techniques, and personalities engage one another on controversial subjects. My favorite segment had to do with whether it's spiritually mature to give away all your resources for ministry endeavors even when doing so may negatively affect your family. MacDonald made a strong case for enjoying the benefits of God's blessings while also being generous in the Spirit of Christ. He also pointed out the terrible wastefulness of missions programs in many churches and effectively questioned the traditional methods of missions allocation. Platt was inspiring due to his clear heart for "the least of these" and his challenge to the affluent to dethrone the god of materialism. I also enjoyed the banter between the participants. Driscoll's comment to Furtick that his reading list was similar to a "meat-loving vegetarian" was classic. But there were some lines crossed at times, which brings me to my dislikes.
Didn't Like: There were a number of times when some of the guys semi-cursed and made off-colored jokes. Listen, I'm no prude. I grew up in Redneck Louisiana. Swamp People is not just a television show for me. It's home! Cussing is my native language! But God has been urging me to be more holy for many years now and has convicted me on course jesting and the use of questionable words. It wasn't helpful to me to see pastors I respect push the envelope here. Case in point: all participants agreed that joking about homosexuality was not helpful. Yet MacDonald, the host of the event and clearly a mentor to the younger guys, jokingly states that Driscoll has a "man-crush" on Chandler. Funny, but didn't feel right. Although, I must admit, I laughed--couldn't help it.
Surprises: It's worth mentioning a final category of surprises. I was surprised at how witty Driscoll is. Some of his one-liners seemed to come from alien intelligence. It was like watching Spock with a personality. When he referred to God speaking through a donkey as “the Shrek verse,” I thought I saw pointed ears. I was also pleasantly surprised at Platt's humility. His heart for the hurting, quiet persona (MacDonald even had to ask him to speak up), and his kind demeanor were refreshing. I walked away convinced he is the real deal.
I'd like to see them do another one in the years to come with a new line-up. It would have been interesting to see greater stylistic and generational diversity. For example, a Chuck Swindoll with a conservative, Evangelical Anglican would have been interesting as well as racial diversity. But overall, it was an awesome experience.

“SUPRA” and “INFRA” LAPSARIANISM

Supra what? Infra who? Someone once asked me what my view was on supralapsarianism. And why do we care?

Supralapsarianism means “before the lapse of the Garden.” It's the idea that God decreed, even before the Fall, that some would be saved and others lost.

Infralapsarianism means basically that God made his decisions concerning salvation “after the Fall.”

Doesn't seem to be much difference between the two because both still teach that God ordained who is lost and saved. He permitted the Fall in the infralapsariansism view, while He sort of planned the Fall in supralapsarianism. But practically speaking, the results are the same, as are the major objections.

God certainly has the right to decide who will be saved without sacrificing His character. It makes philosophical and logical sense. But (and this is a big but), it doesn't gel well with passages where God shows deep sorrow over the poor decisions of humanity.

Scripture suggests that God in some way suspended His absolute sovereignty to enable real choices in the human race, otherwise it is illogical for Him to weep over the lost (see Luke 13:34)

[34] "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" and Hosea 11:8 " [8] How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart is turned over within Me, All My compassions are kindled."

Why would God's heart be in so much sorrow and why would Jesus long so much for Jerusalem's repentance if it was all decreed before existence? The typical hyper-Calvinist response is that these biblical references are anthropomorphisms and not actual descriptions of God's emotions.

I think that does violence to the Text. At any rate, I think there are probably certain situations where God suspends his sovereignty in some ways (ex. the incarnation itself, the crucifixion, in the realm of prayer--prayer really does move the heart of God, and in some way with the choice to accept or reject Him . . . I do lean toward prevenient grace--the idea that with the cross, the Spirit enabled the world to accept Christ as a real choice, though, technically, even the ability to choose comes from God).

How's that for an answer?