The Present Situation

[to Stuart, owner of the comic book shop:] “I’m attending a party this weekend for a ninety-three-year-old woman. Can you recommend a gift? … I’ve been to the model train store, I’ve been to Radio Shack – this woman’s impossible to shop for.”

The Big Bang Theory S5 E19, ‘The Weekend Vortex’ (2012)

What a beautifully wrapped selection of presents. Of course, the fact that they’re all nice neat cuboids helps. Try wrapping a plastic raccoon, for instance – much less easy.

It took literally years of people recommending The Big Bang Theory to me before I actually started watching it, at which point it became immediately and entirely apparent why they had been so persistent in the recommendation. Out of the endless parade of American sitcoms that end up being broadcast on E4, I think this is the only one I have ever watched that hasn’t left me wondering why I’m wasting my time on it. It is genuinely, cleverly, adorably funny viewing.¹ A key source of the humour is, of course, Sheldon’s constant bamboozlement with the world of normal human social interaction, which I think partly works because all of us find ourselves similarly bamboozled on occasions, even if not to so great a degree. Take, for instance, the obscure fog of social protocol that surrounds gift-giving.

In the episode ‘The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis’, Sheldon finds out that Penny has bought him a Christmas present, upon discovering which he is incongruously dismayed.

“Wait, you bought me a present?”

“Uh-huh,” beams Penny.

“But why would you do such a thing?” wonders Sheldon.

Penny seems perturbed. “I don’t know, ’cause it’s Christmas?”

“Oh, Penny!” Sheldon laments. “I know you think you’re being generous, but the foundation of gift-giving is reciprocity. You haven’t given me a gift; you’ve given me an obligation.”

“Don’t feel bad, Penny,” interjects Howard. “It’s a classic rookie mistake. My first Hanukkah with Sheldon, he yelled at me for eight nights.”

“It’s OK,” Penny attempts to reassure Sheldon. “You don’t have to get me anything in return.”

Sheldon, however, will not be swayed: “Of course I do! The essence of the custom is, I now have to go out and purchase for you a gift of commensurate value and representing the same perceived level of friendship as that represented by the gift you’ve given me. It’s no wonder suicide rates skyrocket this time of year.”

Subsequently, Sheldon concocts a plan to buy every size of gift available at the local bath-item shop, then excuse himself once he has opened Penny’s gift in order to retrieve whichever prospective gift he decides is appropriate. He ends up, to great comic effect, offering his entire purchased selection of bath products in return for Penny’s gift, a napkin bearing both the signature and the saliva of Leonard Nimoy, whom Sheldon hopes one day to clone from the DNA contained therein.²

Amusing as all this is, I do think Sheldon has a point when it comes to the issue of buying presents for people.

Today was the penultimate Saturday before Christmas, and the city centre was packed. Aside from the Christmas market on Cathedral Green,³ I encountered two other clusters of stalls selling gift items just on my walk down the high street. Shops had festive slogans plastered across their windows and gift-focussed catalogues were stacked in receptacles flanking many a doorway. Bus-stop advertisements picked up the theme: a small boy clutched a toy bear under the proclamation, ‘Found it!’, lauding Debenhams as source of the perfect gift to the innumerable passers-by. There’s no question that society expects us to buy presents for one another – and, moreover, that it expects us to buy the right presents for the right people. Products are divided by suggested recipient in those gift catalogues I mentioned earlier; I remember a Boots catalogue that actually provided a checklist of people for whom to buy presents on the inside cover. I’ve even heard of long-lived family feuds with their origins in the unexpected absence of expected presents. And Sheldon’s right: there is an idea of reciprocity. It’s instilled in us from childhood that if someone gives us a present or even a card, we must do the same in return – even if it’s that kid whose mum wrote out a Christmas card for every pupil in the class.

Timely reminder to write your Christmas cards. You’re most welcome.

All this means that buying gifts can be really quite stressful. Is this person expecting a present from me? How much money is it appropriate for me to spend on him or her? Is there anyone else who will be upset at not receiving a present, or not receiving a present of equal value, if I buy a present for this person? What can I afford? How do I best allocate my resources? What presents have I been bought in the past that I need to make sure to reciprocate accordingly? And that’s before we even start on the matter of what kind of present this person might actually appreciate.

Strangely enough, I have a sneaking suspicion we’re getting something wrong here.

“Now to the one who works,” writes Paul in Romans 4:4, “his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”⁴ Note the contrast he draws there. The gift, unlike the wages, is specifically not earned. In fact, anything earned is, by definition, not a gift at all.

This idea strikes a hefty blow at Sheldon’s assertion that reciprocity is the foundation of gift-giving. Sheldon was upset by Penny’s gift because he felt obliged to earn it, in this case by giving her a gift of equal value in return. In fact, he was so stubborn in this that he refused to accept her reassurance that he didn’t have to get her anything in return, however genuinely meant. In other words, he refused to accept the gift as a gift.

An often-cited Bible verse on generosity is 2 Corinthians 9:7: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” And a great verse it is, but have a little look at what’s going on in the preceding part of the chapter as well. Essentially, Paul is telling his addressees, the church in Corinth, that he is sending some people to them, to organise the preparation of a gift they had promised to give for the benefit of other believers in Jesus. “I thought it necessary to urge the brothers [i.e. fellow-believers] to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the blessing you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as a πλεονεξία [pleonexía].”⁵

Forgive me for lapsing into the Greek there; it’s a tricky word to translate. The legendary Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek dictionary defines it primarily as ‘greediness’, ‘assumption’, or ‘arrogance’; stick a preposition on the front and the phrase can mean ‘with a view to one’s own advantage’.⁶ The picture that emerges is slightly different to that painted by the ESV’s translation of ‘exaction’. Paul is not just saying that he doesn’t want the Corinthians to give this gift they have promised reluctantly; he also doesn’t want them to give it with the expectation that they will receive something in return. Again, if it is really a gift, the recipient doesn’t, by definition, have to earn it in any way.

And it’s at this point that we get the famous ‘God loves a cheerful giver’ line. And why does he love a cheerful giver? Because he himself is a cheerful giver: “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.” Generosity – giving without expecting anything in return – is characteristic of Godlike righteousness. That’s why God wants to see this quality in us.⁷

What does this all mean for Sheldon? Well, for one thing, by asserting that all gifts must be appropriately reciprocated, he is making it clear that he is not personally interested in giving without receiving anything in return. More than that, though, he is robbing Penny of the opportunity to be generous by insisting that he has to earn her gift. Applying a principle of reciprocal gift-giving represents a move away from the character of God. On top of that, if I insist on earning gifts given to me by other people, it won’t be long before I start having the same mindset towards gifts given to me by God – and that’s a dead-end street if there ever was one. Attempting to earn my God-given salvation is not only pointless, but spiritually dangerous. Paul has a right go at the church in Galatia over this: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”⁸

Therefore, O Delightful and Appreciated Reader, if you happen to be shopping for Christmas gifts in the next few days, I encourage you to bear in mind what a gift actually is. It is not earnt. That means, on the one hand, that you are not obliged to buy people gifts of equivalent monetary value to those they have previously bought for you. On the other, however, you are also not entitled to expect anything in return for the gifts you give. Give them because you want to, because giving is good and joyous and says a little something about the character of the God who gave you the most valuable gift in the whole of history, his beloved Son. Insisting on reciprocity in gift-giving when the gifts in question are being given in order to celebrate the birth of that greatest, priceless, unrepayable gift does, after all, seem just a little bit ironic.⁹

Footnotes

¹ If you’re feeling prompted to watch an episode or several, there are always a good number available on 4 On Demand: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-bang-theory. 

² I feel the Big Bang Theory’s incredibly detailed Wikia deserves a credit here for helping me track down the episodes I wanted to mention in this post: http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. 

³ It’s quite a good one – definitely worth a look if you happen to be in the area: http://www.christmasmarkets.com/UK/exeter-christmas-market.html. 

⁴ It’s the chapter where Paul proves that righteousness has only ever been attainable by faith right back to Abraham: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+4&version=ESVUK.  Gorgeous stuff. 

⁵ Don’t take my word for it – check out the whole chapter for yourself: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+9&version=ESVUK. Otherwise, you can’t know I’m not just lying to you to propagate my own perverted view of the gospel... 

⁶ My life as a Classicist is made so much easier by the Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pleonecia&la=greek#lexicon. Click on ‘LSJ’ for the full list of definitions. 

⁷ “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called…” Romans 8:28-30 (which may seem a tad familiar if you read last week’s post): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=ESVUK. In other words, as far as God is concerned, what’s good for us is to become more like Jesus. Big concept, that – give it some thought. 

⁸ Wow, look at all the links to Bible Gateway there are in these footnotes! This post must be super extra holy. (Hint: I’m joking.) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3&version=ESVUK. 

⁹ In which spirit, fancy watching a remake of this year’s John Lewis Christmas advert, based around the idea of that very greatest gift? Of course you do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoxTF_31yyE.

Freedestination

“Most of what I am, I get from my genes, right? Which is you. And the rest of what I am, I get from my environment. Which is you. So, whichever way you look at it, everything I do is down to you … including all the naughty bits.”

Outnumbered S3 E6, ‘The Hospital’ (2010)

Many thanks to the Christian Memes Facebook page for this wonderful creation. Do take a look at their other offerings; you will not be disappointed: https://www.facebook.com/MemesForJesus/?fref=ts

Yes, that’s right. Predestination versus free will. That’s where we’re going today. Buckle your seatbelts and hold on tight, folks.¹

The ever-raging debate goes something like this. One possibility is that God, having sovereign power over everything, decides in advance (pre-destines, see?) whether or not any given individual will come to know and love the Lord Jesus. A second possibility is that God allows each individual a free choice about whether or not he or she wants to come to know and love the Lord Jesus. The first point of view is often termed ‘Calvinism’, after the early-sixteenth-century French Protestant Reformer John Calvin. The latter one is often termed ‘Arminianism’, after the late-sixteenth-century Dutch Protestant Reformer Jacobus Arminius. This is, of course, a gross and highly problematic oversimplification, but if you really have a desperate urge to know the minutiae, then the theology section of your nearest decent library is almost certainly a better source of information than that great encylopædia informally known as My Brain.²

The trouble is that both points of view have a lot of rather good evidence behind them. Shall we allow each side three witnesses?³ In favour of predestination:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” Ephesians 1:3-6

And now in favour of free will:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19

“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7

“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3-4

But each line of argument raises problems as well. If predestination is a thing, does that mean God predestines some people to face eternity without him? Why doesn’t God just cause everybody to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour? In fact, scratch that, why is the world so completely messed up that there was ever a need for Jesus’ sacrifice? Was human sin – the cause behind everything that’s distressing and painful and wrong – all part of God’s grand plan from the beginning? In which case, what kind of sadist does that make God? And how unjust does that make him, to blame us for our sins when we never had any choice in the matter? On top of that, what exactly is the point of telling people about Jesus if every human being’s eternal fate is already set in stone?

Opting for the free-will argument would seem to solve these kinds of problems, which, I hazard, is probably why that argument pops up so frequently in the field of Christian apologetics. As well as dodging the whole God-is-a-sadist accusation, it spares one the rather depressing duty of having to tell one’s opponent that he is in fact incapable, of his own volition, of changing his mind. But, as YouTuber Kevin McCreary notes in his hilarious and accurate review⁴ of God’s Not Dead (a film which provides a quite stunning example of preaching to the converted, although, being one of the converted, I rather enjoyed it), free will perhaps isn’t the best concept to use as a major support of an argument in favour of Christianity, when many Christians aren’t too convinced by the idea themselves.

The thing is, the free-will argument presents its own set of problems. If we have free will, can God really be sovereign? If the introduction of sin into the world was never part of God’s plan, does that mean we are able to use our free will to disrupt God’s plans? Who’s to say we won’t disrupt them further in future? Plus, if we choose salvation for ourselves, does that allow us to take some of the credit for it? And does that mean that some of the responsibility is ours, in a kind of back-door version of salvation by works?

In short, the predestination argument robs God of his justice and his love; the free-will argument robs him of his power and his grace. Yet both are clearly attested in scripture. And that’s the only possible solution: both are true.

It might seem nonsensical, but think about it: a pretty sizeable proportion of Christian doctrine consists of apparently incompatible truths. Is Jesus human or divine? Both. Did Paul write the Epistle to the Romans, or did God? Both. Is God Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? All three. We really ought to be used to having to hold these kinds of opposing strands together.

To borrow a metaphor from Krish Kandiah,⁵ it’s a lot like the nature of light. Not without reason did I drop Physics after AS-level, but, as I understand it, it’s possible to do one set of experiments and prove that light has all the properties associated with a particle, then to do a different set of experiments and prove that it also has all the properties associated with a wave. So, after a few moments of head-scratching, scientists came to the only logical conclusion, that light is both a wave and a particle, even though such a thing doesn’t really seem to make a lot of sense, and everybody moved on with their lives.

Give it some more thought. You would never say that you follow Jesus against your will, and yet you would also never claim the credit for making the choice. You recognise that you owe your salvation entirely to God, and yet you remember personally making the decisions that led you to that salvation. You only repented and believed because you wanted to, and yet you know that you only repented and believed because God wanted you to.

The evidence allows neither predestination nor free will to be discarded. And if that’s mind-boggling, then good – God wouldn’t be all that impressive if he weren’t capable of boggling our tiny minds. And ultimately, that’s where wrestling with this paradox should bring us back to, standing in awe of God and the fullness of his justice and his love and his power and his grace. Make the decision of your own free will to follow the God who predestines all things, and never go another day without having your mind boggled. Shall we call it ‘freedestination’?

Footnotes

¹ I’m not going to talk about Captain America: Civil War any more – that was just a fun meme to get things started – but here’s a link to the trailer if you wanted to watch it again. (Which you did. Obviously.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnv__ogkt0M.

² If plumbing the depths of your local library’s theology section sounds distinctly unappealing, but you still feel as if you really ought to know more about theological history, I recommend A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity by Nick Page (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2013) on the grounds that it is extremely informative about the historical development of various theological ideas, completely hilarious with it, and an awfully good reminder of the unfortunate kinds of things that tend to happen when Christians start caring more about a particular side in a debate than they do about knowing Jesus better and becoming more like him. You can get it really quite cheaply on Amazon, http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Nearly-Infallible-History-Christianity/dp/1444750127, but if you’d rather support your local Christian bookshop, I would consider that admirable.

³ Of course, you don’t make much of a jury if you don’t familiarise yourself with the verses’ surrounding context. Here’s the Ephesians one to get you started: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+1&version=ESVUK.

⁴ The YouTube version of the video is unfortunately blocked in the UK, but Kevin helpfully posted a link to a Vimeo version in the description: https://vimeo.com/139840667.

⁵ In fact, you might think that quite a lot of this post was borrowed from Krish Kandiah, considering that I’ve recently been reading his book Paradoxology (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014), which contains a chapter called ‘The Judas Paradox: The God Who Predestines Our Free Will’. I actually reckon I’d reached the main gist of my argument here before I got to that particular chapter, but all the same, Paradoxology is definitely worth a read. Again, it’s available pretty cheaply on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paradoxology-Krish-Kandiah/dp/1444745360/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449366815&sr=1-1&keywords=paradoxology.