The Premises

Normally, people always defend the premises. Whether it's home sweet home or long-cherished assumptions, we’re wired to dig in and fend off. I am not going to defend my premises. I am only going to define them, so that you can know how I am operating—the world in which I am moving.

You may be familiar with experiments that keep everything in a system static except for one element. That element is varied to see what difference that variation makes and so determine what part that element plays in the whole system. An example of this might be a recent episode of ABC’s “What Would You Do” with John Quiñones.

 

The larger experiment was to see how people would react when, upon giving cuts to someone in the grocery store checkout line, that person then won $500 for being the 5 millionth customer. You can imagine how that felt! The secondary experiment was conducted by changing what sort of person was asking for cuts. First, an elderly female actor was used, carrying only 2 items, explaining what a hurry she was in and asking to be let in ahead of an unsuspecting customer. She didn’t have much trouble, and when she won the $500, the people who “should” have won were generally accepting and happy for her.

The crew then made one simple change. Instead of a sweet elderly lady, a youngish burly male actor tried the same thing. As might be expected, the results were different. Yes, he was able to get cuts, but when he won the $500, people’s attitudes were quite different—visibly upset at the unfairness of it all, some even asking for a share in the money and storming off in defeat.

Change one factor; find out what difference it makes.

In this experiment I am going to change just one factor, suspend one premise. Here are the factors that I am not changing, the premises I am not interested in arguing at this point:

• I am not testing what I believe about the Bible. I will be treating it as a unified whole, meaning that it is legitimate to gain understanding of one passage by investigating others and the bearing they may have on the issue at hand.
• I am not testing the existence of God. I am assuming the existence of a God who created and sustains the universe as we know it.

I am testing whether the God of the Bible consistently measures up to the statement made twice in 1 John chapter 4 (verses 8 and 16): “God is love . . .” In other words, the question is not, "Is there a God of love?" The question is, "Does the Bible present a God of love or a capricious monster, or both, or something else entirely?"

And so, the factor I am changing in this study is my own commitment to seeing God as always loving in everything that the Bible records of His character, words and actions. For purposes of this project, I am suspending that belief and testing it.

For purposes of my life and how I live it, I am not suspending that belief unless and until I am forced by the results of my study. If you come along for the ride, I urge you to evaluate the extent to which I succeed in maintaining that dichotomous approach.

Before we proceed, we have one more item to take care of—a definition: What is love?

Stay tuned!

 

Is God Love?

Maybe it was the beginnings of his Alzheimers. Maybe it was clarity that I would like to dismiss as such, but the startling memory has stayed with me--my father declaring his bewilderment at Old Testament killing and violence ascribed to the God he loved and trusted. He was at his usual devotional spot, marked by the flattened and oil-stained cushion of the sofa where he sat and read and buried his head in prayer.

It was a surreal experience for a teenage son, used to his father's absolute comfort with his own authority. Fortunately, I had read the declarations of Ezekiel 14:12-24 and was able to share my conclusions with one of the most brilliant people I have ever known.

In recent years, as I have encountered more and more atheists, both in print and in personal connection, my father's question has echoed and re-echoed in their rejection of the God of the Bible. My continued faith in this God is seen as evidence that I am not truly looking at the evidence, that I am not really acknowledging the monster that is portrayed in the pages of the book I have taken as my guide.

The pointman for the great advent awakening of the early 19th century, William Miller, was challenged by his fellow deists when he abandoned their shared belief and accepted the God of the Bible. They had shared many laughs at the contradictions they found in the pages of that old book. With the honesty they had come to expect of this New England farmer/scholar, he set out to study the book with an eye to finding out if there were any true contradictions that could not be resolved--verse by verse, no faster than he could thoroughly process.

Taking William Miller as my example, I hereby begin a journey. I don't know how frequently I will post, and I make no promises, but I am setting out, story by story, command by command, to address my father's question in detail. I will focus on the stories and commands that seem so inconsistent with a God who declares Himself to be love--executions, judgments, and genocidal directives. I will see if there is any way to legitimately understand them to be rooted in the heart of love that He says He has.

I freely confess that, if I reach the "wrong" conclusion, it will cost me dearly. I freely confess that I come to this task with a great deal of bias in favor of One whom I count as my dearest friend.

Evaluate every position I take, every turn of reasoning, and see for yourself whether I have discovered truth or created it.