Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity - Book Review


Author: Soong-Chan Rah
Paperback: 229 pages
Publisher: IVP Books (2009)
Language: English
ISBN: 9780830833603


About the author:

Dr. Soong-Chan Rah is the Milton B. Engebretson Assistant Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Seminary in Chicago, IL. Rah also serves on the board of Sojourners and formerly taught at Gordon-Conwell's Center for Urban Ministerial Education in Roxbury, MA. Before moving to Chicago, Rah pastored Cambridge Christian Fellowship Church in the Central Square neighborhood of Cambridge, MA for over a decade.

Although Rah is frequently a speaker at national conferences, has been published in several journals and magazines, and even contributed to Growing Healthy Asian American Churches (IVP, 2005), the book being reviewed here, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (hereafter "TNE"), is his first major, solo published work. Rah brings to TNE his experience as a life-long evangelical, an urban church-planter, pastor, seminary student, and seminary professor. Rah also draws on his experience living and serving in Boston, his academic and ministry mentoring relationships with such notable scholars and ministers as Rev. Dr. Eldin Villafañe and EGC founders Doug and Judy Hall.

Another stream of experience that greatly influences Rah is his involvement with the Evangelical Covenant Church. With a Swedish heritage, the ECC has become one of the most welcoming and affirming fellowships for young, nonwhite, urban ministers. Both authors of The Hip Hop Church (IVP, 2006), Efrem Smith and Phil Jackson are ECC ministers along with pastor Dave Gibbons of California's Newsong church. The ECC has shown Rah that unity among American evangelicals of diverse ethnic and ministry backgrounds is more than just possible but an increasingly frequent reality.

About the book:

Rah's reason for writing TNE

Soong-Chan Rah loves God's church passionately and writes this book to lift the veil exposing what prevents many from seeing what the church is called to be. Rah writes TNE because he has grown up in American evangelicalism and has experienced significant pain resulting from the church's failure to be what God intends it to be. He writes, "...as immersed as I am in evangelicalism, I am oftentimes still seen as an outsider." (p.16) Through research and experience, Rah has identified not only several root causes for the American church's missional drift, but also several strategic action steps needful for recapturing the essence of God's world-wide redemptive mission. Rah also writes TNE as a witness of what he sees God doing amidst the overlooked and undervalued congregations that are transforming communities in every corner of this nation. As the result of these factors, TNE is not primarily a foretelling of American evangelicalism's natural progress or inevitable evolution. Rather it is more accurately a forth-telling of what the American church must do to violently take hold of the Kingdom Scripture reveals is God's dream for it.

TNE's structure

The introduction of the book perfectly lays the ground work for what will follow. By citing not only the remarkable demographic trajectory this nation will travel in the coming years, but also current statistics that are all-to-often overlooked, Rah demonstrates that the future of evangelicalism is now. It gave me great joy to see used in support of Rah's thesis the research of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC), a ministry I have been privileged to serve with several times and by which I have been strongly influenced. It is EGC that has charted Boston's "Quiet Revival" that exposes the general disregard even Christians show ethnic minority and immigrant churches when considering the vitality of American evangelicalism. While the mainstream media and even Christian groups mourn the decline of church-attendance and the closing of thousands of churches, EGC has been studying and proclaiming the explosion of life that is now present in myriad nonwhite, Boston churches.

The excellent introduction of this book is complemented by it's well-proportioned overall structure. The book is divided into three sections of near-equal length. The three sections are: (1) The Western, White Cultural Captivity of the Church; (2) The Pervasiveness of the Western, White Captivity of the Church; and (3) Freedom from the Western, White Captivity of the Church.

In the first section, Rah clarifies the problem he will address by identifying three of the most destructive aspects of Western, white culture: Individualism, Consumerism/Materialism, and Racism. By giving each it's own chapter, Rah is able to present arguments and examples of how these three aspects of Western, white culture are poisoning American evangelicalism and distorting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the second section, Rah zooms in on three examples of Western, white culture's pervasiveness by discussing: (1) The Church Growth Movement and Megachurches; (2) The Emerging Church; and (3) Cultural Imperialism. In particular, I was most impressed by Rah's engagement of the emerging church. While many evangelicals see this movement in America as the future, Rah shows that the emerging church is just as captive to the destructive aspects of Western, white culture as the form of evangelicalism from Modernity against which they are reacting. Rah writes, "...nonwhite Christians are not perceived as significant contributors to the evangelical postmodern dialogue." (p.118) Rah also writes, "...the emerging church has shut out nonwhite voices in their ability to engage on the issue of race." (p.119) But the quote that best encapsulates Rah's courageous and frank admonition of the emerging church has to be,

"I believe the real emerging church is the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I believe the real emerging church is the hip-hop church, the English-speaking Latino congregation, the second-generation Asian American church, the Haitian immigrant church, the Spanish-speaking store-front church and so forth. For a small group of white Americans to usurp the term 'emerging' reflects a significant arrogance." (p.124)

In the third and final section, using another three chapters, Rah confronts the issue of American Christianity's cultural captivity with four powerful lessons from four cultural communities: (1) Suffering and Celebration: Learning from the African American and Native American Communities; (2) Holistic Evangelism: Learning from the Immigrant Church; and (3) A Multicultural Worldview: Learning from the Second Generation.

In each of these three book sections, Rah keeps in clear perspective his experience of the evangelical church in America, his calling as an urban, multiethnic church-planter, and an evangelical theology that recaptures the biblical emphasis on social and racial justice.

TNE's thesis

If the American, evangelical church hopes to realize a shalom peace reflective of that which is spoke of in Micah 4, or if it hopes to become the multi-cultural, throne room worshipping assembly depicted in Revelation 21, it must break free of Western, white cultural captivity and embrace a vision of the Kingdom that celebrates and learns from every nation, tribe, and tongue as equally beautiful expressions of Christ's body.

This reviewer's impressions and recommendation:

When I first read the subtitle of this book, I immediately recalled a lecture Rah delivered in a course I took as his student. It was more simply called "The Western, White Captivity of the Church." Specifically I remembered that he mentioned his reluctance to include "white" in the title of the lecture, but he included it nevertheless. Therefore, the conspicuous absence of the word "white" from this book's subtitle stuck out to me right away. I can only conclude that Rah's publisher advised him against it. I was relieved, however, to see that he did not allow the word to be removed from the chapter titles in the first section of the book nor did he refrain from using the full phrase throughout the work. Rah's insistence on including "white" in the chapter titles is a microcosm of the pull-no-punches overall thrust of this book. In TNE, Rah speaks truth to power unrepentantly. It is my prayer that more authors with Rah's level of insight, from research and experience, will follow in his footsteps and produce more challenging works of this caliber.

Rah's discussion of mobility resonated particularly strongly with me due to my experience of living in New Orleans. Mobility was a major, differentiating factor between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in that city. Even though every resident I knew was keenly aware of how devastating the 'Big One' would be to the city, being below sea level and shaped like a punch bowl, very few (if any) of our neighbors, in the community were we lived and served, had the financial means nor the out-of-state support network needed to take the 3 to 5-day, impromptu vacation a city-wide, mandatory evacuation requires. Only the upper-middle to upper class of New Orleans were ever truly prepared to leave any and every time the city was warned of an imminent, potentially-disastrous storm. In the case of New Orleans and hurricane Katrina, the power and privilege of mobility proved to be the difference between safety and peril for tens of thousands.

Perhaps it is merely coincidental, but so many of the streams from which Rah draws to fill this exciting work with experiential credence and field-tested wisdom coincide with sources to which I also look. With Rah, I share the experience of being a newcomer to New England from a Christian tradition that feared Boston as a spiritual wasteland. In particular, Rah and I both have experience with the Central Square neighborhood of Cambridge where I also attend an evangelical congregation. In fact, Larry Kim, Rah's successor as pastor of CCFC, continues to be a mentor and friend from whom I have learned a great deal. With Rah, I share a common source of inspiration from the research and ministry of the Emmanuel Gospel Center. And with Rah, I too have witnessed first-hand the incredible ministry New Life Covenant Church is doing in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. I visited pastor Choco de Jesus' ministry over 5 years ago and was powerfully impacted by the transformation that community has underwent as a result of one church's commitment and faithful Kingdom witness. With so many common links it may come as no surprise that I felt a personal connection to TNE as I read it.

This reviewer highly recommends TNE. In this reviewer's opinion, TNE should be required reading in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries where Rah's thesis is the subject matter for an on-going dialog wherein nonwhite voices are given a platform and priority. Like his mentor Eldin Villafañe's The Liberating Spirit, it is clear that TNE will come to be recognized as a seminal work in the field of Christian social ethics. TNE is a challenging, prophetic call to action the American, evangelical church must heed if it ever hopes to resemble the portraits of the Kingdom Scripture paints. White readers in particular are called to a radical divestment of power. For far too long white evangelicals have guarded the status quo as their inheritance. Rah exhorts all evangelicals to celebrate the manifold expression of God's grace in the beauty of diverse cultural and ethnic communities.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Death of White American Christianity: Boyd recognizes Rah's New Book and Gives Me a Shout Out!


Greg Boyd is the senior pastor of Woodland Hills church in St. Paul MN, a prolific author, and noted contemporary theologian. Recently, on his popular blog, Boyd discussed a topic that has been widely publicized: the demise of American Christianity. Boyd encouraged Kingdom people not to mourn the decline of the American Christianity for at least 5 reasons: (1) America never has never been a "Christian nation" as too many presume; (2) there will be one less illusion to combat when inviting Americans to the Kingdom; (3) there will be one less distraction from doing the work of the Kingdom; (4) the Kingdom has always thrived when marginalized by mainstream society; (5) will expose the idol of American individualism.

I recommended to Boyd the book of my former professor at CUME and former CCFC pastor, Soong-Chan Rah, who now teaches at North Park Seminary in Chicago and just released The Next Evangelicalism (IVP, 2009; found here). I suggested there may be at least one more reason why Kingdom people should not mourn the demise of Americanized Christianity:

This "demise" seems to only be descriptive of white American Christianity.

While predominately white churches and denominations are shrinking and closing their doors, ethnic minority, immigrant, and multiethnic churches are expanding and thriving. For years (possibly over 20) the Emmanuel Gospel Center has been researching and charting the growth of churches in Boston and discovered that while the perception of the church in Boston was one of decline and stagnation, they found vitality all around them. It was true that white congregations were declining, but church-planting and church growth was exploding in Haitian, Cape Verdean, Portuguese, Brazilian, Korean, Chinesse congregations (to name a few). Boston's "Quiet Revival" has even been discussed in Christianity Today here.

In The Next Evangelicalism, Rah argues that the church in America more accurately reflects the values and characteristics of Western, white culture than those descriptive of the Kingdom of God from Scripture. I am 120 pages into Rah's book and hope to have it finished and a review written soon. Be on the look-out for that!

In Boyd's latest blog-post, he recognizes Dr. Rah's book and gives me a much-appreciated shout out for the suggestion: Only WHITE American Christianity is Dying!

I am excited that I was able to connect these two brilliant and prophetic scholar-pastors. I truly believe their research will be vital to Kingdom people in this century. Greg Boyd's ministry is exposing the theological and political captivity of the American church and Soong-Chan Rah's ministry is exposing it's cultural captivity. Both are advancing a radical return to a Jesus movement that more accurately reflects the Kingdom of God. That's the type of Jesus movement I want to be a part of!

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Characteristics of Jesus' Life

The life of Jesus is many things to me. I made a list of characteristics I would use to describe it. I'm sure it is not exhaustive, but was helpful to me in organizing my thoughts. [These are in no particular order]

(1) Historical
It is important to me that the life of Christ is a historical event, and not merely some mystical parable of how life should be lived. Jesus' life was recordable and was recorded. It is important to me that Jesus lived in history because I live in history. It is important to me that Jesus lived in the 'real world' because I live in the 'real world.'

(2) Revealing
The life of Jesus serves as the primary and chief revelation of God's character and nature. In the life of Christ I find God. Just as my children know me because I dwell with them and they experience me, I know God as Father because in Christ He has dwelt with humanity and we have experienced His life. (Perhaps slightly off-topic, one means by which I continue to experience God as Father is by the indwelling of the Spirit.)

(3) Revolutionary
In the life of Jesus I am confronted with the subversive and counter-cultural nature of God's Kingdom. The life of Jesus revolts against every norm and status quo. Jesus turns on it's head the expectation and presuppositions about the Kingdom and God.

(4) Relational
Jesus' life reveals the relational nature of God and the importance of relationships to the Kingdom and to God. Jesus sups with humanity, fellowships with humanity, and shares in all our pain and ugliness. Jesus cares tenderly for others and is cared for tenderly. Jesus has a mother, father, siblings and friends.

(5) Exemplary
Jesus' life serves for me as the example of the life I am to live. As Jesus loved, so am I to love. As Jesus served, so am I to serve.

(6) In-breaking
Jesus' life is a breaking-in of the Triune God into human history. It interrupts the natural order of human life. Jesus' life marks history profoundly, and demonstrates God's rescuing, intervening, passionate love.

(7) Cultural
Jesus' life must be understood with regard for his Jewish religio-cultural heritage. That Jesus' life included and celebrated his earthly contextual environment. This is important because it affirms God's inspiring presence in cultural formation/development. Culture is not inherently sinful or else Jesus could not and would not have identified with his own culture. Jesus' identification with his culture empowers us and commissions us to celebrate our respective cultures insofar as they do not cause us to sin.

(8) Incarnational
That Jesus' life is the life of God in the flesh is unquestionably important. In Christ, God is with us. John says the Word "dwelt" with us, tabernacled with us---literally "pitched his tent" with us. That Jesus identified with humanity and shared in humanities joys, sorrows, destiny gives us the most profound glimpse into the heart of God.

(9) Inaugurating
The life of Jesus inaugurates God's reign. In Jesus' life we taste a sampling of the marriage supper of the Lamb. In Jesus' life we are given a glimpse of what the Kingdom is currently and will be to the full in the eschaton. Jesus' life begins the end and summons from afar the consummation of all things.

(10) Inclusive
In Jesus' life we see the bringing near of the outcast, the exultation of the downtrodden, the honoring of the oppressed, and praise of the despised. Jesus intentionally turns upside-down all the notions of righteousness and piety held by the religious authorities. Jesus life includes those who were most often excluded from thoughts of Kingdom citizenship.

(11) Intimate
Jesus' life presents us with the story of a friend who had intimate relationships that transcended mere religious affiliation. In contrast to other rabbis, Jesus held unusually close relationships with his disciples. He considered them his friends.

(12) Spirit-filled, -led, -empowered
Jesus' life is characterized by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is led by the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit. Jesus does signs and wonders in the power of the Spirit and is anointed by the Spirit. In Jesus' life, we can see what our own lives can be when surrendered to, led by, empowered by the Spirit.

(13) Peace-making/Just
Though often controversial, Jesus' life is marked by a peculiar peace. He heals the ear of a soldier who is sent to arrest him. He brings peace to the hearts of those lives he touches. Jesus teaches and models peace throughout his life. It is important to note what Dr. King said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice." Jesus is an advocate for the poor and oppressed. Jesus speaks truth to power. Jesus teaches and models justice.

(14) Prophetic/Proclamational
Jesus' life can also be seen as prophetic and proclamational. Jesus' life pointed to the Kingdom and the Father. His first recorded 'sermon' was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Being very God, Jesus spoke with unique prophetic authority. Like no other prophet, Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom as its King.

(15) Human
The fully human nature of Jesus is important to his life. Jesus is touched by the feeling of humanities infirmities. Jesus is tempted in every way as a man is. Jesus is fully human. Jesus identifies fully with humanity.

(16) Divine
In the life of Jesus, we are confronted with the life of God. Jesus is God in the flesh. Fully and very God, Jesus speaks with God's authority and claims oneness with the Father. Jesus' full divinity is essential.

(17) Self-sacrificial
Jesus' life, not just his crucifixion, is characterized by self-sacrificial love. Jesus' mission was to serve and he modeled servanthood and sacrifice throughout his life.

(18) Trinitarian
In the life of Jesus we can clearly see the life of the triune God revealed. Jesus is sent by the Father and sends the Spirit. Jesus is honored by the Father and empowered by the Spirit. Jesus is led by the Spirit and obeys the Father. Jesus does only what the Father *IS* doing and tells him to do, while doing it in the power and anointing of the Spirit. Jesus prays to the Father by the Spirit.

(19) Victorious
Jesus' life is characterized by victory, not triumphalism. In Jesus' surrender to his Father, he lays claim to authority and victory over demons and Satan. Jesus rebukes Satan with the Word and is victorious over sin and death. Jesus a the Warrior King like David but his victory is cosmic and not merely terrestrial.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Theological Traditions & Photoshop Fun

When I'm bored, I sometimes indulge in a little Photoshop fun. In this composition, I have represented two theological traditions by a select number of their adherents. For the Theological Determinism tradition, I selected John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, St. Augustine, and Plato. Yes, I included Plato :) For the Free Will Theism tradition, I selected Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, John Polkinghorne, Jürgen Moltmann, Jacobus Arminius, Luis de Molina, and Origen.

I realize that some might object to grouping of Open theists with Arminius and maybe even Molina. While Open theists certainly don't share all the views of these 16th century theologians, Arminius and Molina did pave the way for the view these scholars hold. Open theism could be better thought of as a type of Neo-Arminianism or Neo-Molinism. Moltmann shares in this tradition for the critique of the classical-biblical synthesis he shares with Open theists.

For more on Open theism's relationship to Arminianism, read this article by Dr. Steven Studebaker.

Also, I like to use photos of nebulae to represent the beauty and complexity of this theological subject, and the particular nebula I used in this comp is called the "God's Eye" nebula. I thought that it would be ironically appropriate.

Friday, April 10, 2009

The Peter Event - An Open View Analysis

Recently, I was asked by a friend who is a classical theist of the Calvinistic variety, how Jesus was able to so accurately predict Peter's denial through the lens of the Open view. He grants that even in the Open view Jesus could know Peter's heart perfectly. But he asks further: How Jesus could have known the number of times Peter would be confronted and thus deny Him?

What follows is my response:

Re: The Peter Event

Without God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and omni-resoucefulness in mind, I can see how it could be difficult to imagine how God could orchestrate the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. But when one considers all that is at God's disposal, it becomes clear that the future needn't be exhaustively settled nor known as exhaustively definite for Jesus to have made such an accurate prediction about the future.

Recall the context in which the Peter event takes place. Jesus and the disciples have been ministering in Judea for 3 years and have caused more than a small commotion. Jesus is what everyone is talking about! He has performed amazing miracles: healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. If you'll permit me a tiny bit of creative license, I'd like to use a somewhat uncomfortable analogy.

Do you remember what it was like in 1994 shortly after the 'low-speed chase' of O. J.'s infamous white bronco? No one talked about anything else! Imagine now that instead of O. J. being the singular person at the center of all the attention, he had a well-know entourage with him during it all. Now, let's stretch the analogy a little further. Imagine members of O. J.'s entourage were outside the courthouse in L. A. during his history-making trial. Would I need omniscience to predict that bystanders would recognize a member of O. J.'s entourage, one like Peter? If O. J. had been accompanied by an entourage throughout his exploits the probability that someone would NOT have recognized those guys during O. J.'s trial would have been on par with Lotto odds--astronomical.

And to make the odds even more astronomical, Galileans had a distinguishable accent, much like different regions of England (which btw people from other regions of England can identify easily after only a few words. I've witnessed this first-hand.) This seems to be precisely what is indicated by verse 73 of Mt. 26.

Now, given that the disciples were famous members of Jesus' entourage, and the talk of Israel (especially Jerusalem), the aspect of Jesus' prediction that Peter would be confronted is not all that remarkable. You are correct, however, to note the remarkable nature of the precise number of times Peter is asked about his relationship to Jesus. This may on the surface appear to be a difficulty for the Open view, but I can easily demonstrate that it isn't.

First, Open theists hold the same view of free will as all other Christians in the Arminian theological family/tradition (the majority of Christians world-wide) including: all Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.), all Pentecostals, Charismatics (such as the Vineyard), many Baptists, most Roman Catholics, and all Eastern Orthodox traditions. (I'd also like to add, just as a jab at Calvinists, the theological tradition of the Black church in America has always accepted the Libertarian understanding of free will and rejected the deterministic view). The way all these Christian traditions understand free will from Scripture is commonly known as the 'Libertarian' view. This view holds that a person's decisions are free because they have the capacity to choose between options---to choose 'otherwise.'

This view is in contrast to the deterministic theory of free will called 'Compatibilism' that is held by a minority of Christian traditions which includes: "Reformed" traditions, most Presbyterians, some Baptists, and the deliberately Calvinist churches such as 'Sovereign Grace' and Calvary Chapels. The Compatibilist theory holds that a person's decisions are "free" because they want to do what they decide---even if their "wants" are pre-programmed by God and they cannot choose otherwise. (As an aside: Compatibilism does not resolve the contradiction between God being responsible for people's desires, but not for their sin, even though Compatibilism claims we can only choose what we desire and that we are born desiring only sin and can choose nothing else. This is a tremendous flaw in Calvinist theology that is irreconcilable with Scripture: e.g. James 1.13)

Since, with the majority of Christians world-wide and throughout church history, I hold the Libertarian understanding of human freedom, I believe each person who spoke to Peter that day could have chosen not to. Moreover, I also believe that more than three individuals and/or groups of individuals could have chosen to confront Peter. This does not, however, put in jeopardy the accuracy of Jesus' prediction beyond the contingency present in every prophecy of future events God Himself will not be preforming. Therefore, I will now argue that there is at least two ways Jesus (and the Father and Spirit) could have orchestrated the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial without removing the participants freedom. Following that, I will argue that the deterministic understanding Calvinists propose (including an exhaustively settled future) is actually quite damaging to an Evangelical understanding of Scripture's authority and trustworthiness.

Since the future is not exhaustively settled, but is composed instead of many contingencies or possibilities, a Christian who believes in God's omniscience must believe that God knows the future perfectly as it is. Since I am a Christian who believes in God's omniscience, I believe God knows the future perfectly as composed of partly settled events and partly indeterminate (open) events. God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and possession of all the resources in the universe gives God the most exalted and transcendent view of the future possible. God alone is able to see every possible outcome that may result from every possible decision that every single person may make. God knows exhaustively every possible future and is prepared for every possible outcome. This does not mean, however, that anything is possible. Some things are not possible or contingent. Put another way, some things are determined either by God or causally by previous decisions made by free agents (human and angelic beings). Where I was born, when I was born, to what family I was born (and as a result my genetic make-up, characteristics) are all examples of parameters for which God is at least partly responsible along with the decisions of other free agents (such as my parents, and their parents, and so on.) We are not free to do or be anything of which we can conceive. Even genuine freedom (Libertarian) is constrained in large part by innumerable parameters at any given point in our lives. Parameters outside of which our freedom does not allow us to venture does not negate the existence of freedom.

Here's an analogy that I think will clear up some confusion about Libertarian free will. Imagine that I am accustomed to shopping for soda at a Super Walmart that has 126 different varieties of soda from which to choose. Unfortunately, for some reason, I am unable to get to the Super Walmart on a particular day and must instead shop for soda at the 7-11 on the corner near my house, which only has 26 different varieties of soda. Have I lost my capacity to freely choose which variety of soda I want to purchase simply because my options are now fewer?

No, the quality of my freedom has not been diminished, only the quantity of my options.

Therefore, one possible scenario in which God could have easily orchestrated the circumstances around Peter's denial is one in which God constrained the options of those with whom Peter had contact. Everyone was well aware of the Galileans who were with Jesus. They were rock stars. God did not have to determine that the bystanders confront Peter---that much was a given. The precise number of times Peter is asked, and thus has to respond negatively, is something that God could have constrained while not removing anyone's genuine freedom (e.g. via Compatibilism). Limiting the number of options from which a genuinely free being has to choose does not remove that being's freedom.

A second possible scenerio in which would have resulted in the circumstances that surrounded Peter's denial is in God's omniscient foreknowledge of all possible future contingencies, no possible future existed in which neither more nor less people/groups would confront Peter rendering Jesus' prediction inaccurate. Open theists do not believe simply because God knows every possible future, that every CONCEIVABLE future actually does exist. Here's another example: It is conceivable that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with President Obama in person. However, only God knows if there are any possible futures in which this is an actual possibility. There very well may not be. Simply because I can conceive of a future in which this is possible, does not mean that a future with this possibility actually exists. Furthermore, it is conceivable to me that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with the Dali Lama in person. Only God knows if a future with this possibility actually exists. And if one did actually exist, only God knows how likely or improbable is that possibility. A future might actually exist in which an in person meeting with the Dali Lama is possible, but it might depend on an astronomical number of choices lining up to produce this event. Perhaps the number of improbable choices that would have to occur for this possible future to become realistic are so astronomical that it is virtually impossible.

To be clear, I am not claiming that either one of these scenarios NECESSARILY HAS to have been THE scenario that allowed for the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. There may be several additional scenarios that I have not thought of. I am only arguing that these two constitute at least two feasible scenarios that do not require the removal of freedom via determination.

Now, I will argue that if we take the Calvinistic approach to biblical prophecy (that includes the assumption of an exhaustively settled future), we will forced to at least adjust our view of the Bible's trustworthiness and authority, if not replace it altogether.

In Ezekiel 26, God speaks through the prophet and prophesied against Tyre saying He would raise up Nebuchadnezzar against them. Tyre would be made "a bare rock" and will "never be rebuilt." (v.14) First, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre for 13 years and failed to conquer it. But it was Alexander the Great (nearly 300 years later) who eventually conquered the island city, but even he did not utterly destroy it as was prophesied. Tyre never became a "bare rock," has been "rebuilt" after every conquering, and STILL EXISTS TODAY!!!

This fact is unfortunate for the Calvinistic view. Since history has proven that some biblical prophecies have utterly failed, we will either have to deny history (the same history that confirms the accuracy of other biblical prophecies), making us hypocrites who only seek to affirm history that supports our view. Or, we will have to change our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, truthfulness. Or, we will have to change our view of the future, and therefore the nature of prophecy itself. As I see it, there is only one honest and reasonable option between these three. We cannot discount only the history that does not support the Bible, while affirming the history that does, making us hypocrites on part with any cult (i.e. Mormonism). And we cannot compromise our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, or truthfulness. Therefore, we must reconsider our view of the nature of the future and biblical prophecy.

The only way to prevent academic dishonesty/hypocrisy due to the historical evidence, or compromise our shared view of the Bible's divine origin, is to adopt an view of the future (and therefore of biblical prophecy) that includes genuine contingency.