God, Satan, and Suffering # 1

I have been reading a lot of Dietrich Bonhoeffer lately and my attention has been turned to the problem of suffering in the world. Perhaps it is because suffering is a major theme in Bonhoeffer's work; he proclaimed a Christian life that embraces suffering for the cause of Christ. His adult life consisted in much suffering as he faced Nazi persecution and time in a concentration camp where he was hanged. His work, I believe, is very relevant to today's American Christian, not because we face suffering, but because we do not. Our Christian life is comfortable and easy. We do not face persecution like many in other countries do. Rather, we live our lives happily in our multi-million dollar churches, driving our new cars, wearing our Christian T-shirts, listening to preachers tell us that it is God's will for us to have material success and to live a happy and comfortable life. While I could delve into that subject, my purpose today is to address a certain idea (heresy?) that I came across yesterday evening.

I was surfing around youtube watching some John Piper and Paul Washer videos. My attention turned to suffering, as I still had Dietrich Bonhoeffer on my mind and I thought I would watch some videos on that subject. Not wanting to be one-sided, I looked up some videos done by a well-known pastor who has a huge church in the Redding area. What I heard from him on the problem of suffering sounded great in my head, but ran in direct contradiction with scripture. His argument followed as such: "God is good, Satan is bad. Cancer is bad, therefore, Satan causes cancer." He went on to explain how it is always God's will that we do not have any sickness in our lives. That God never allows sickness into our lives so that we may grow in Him and provide sympathy and support to others. All problems we have stem from Satan, and if we are truly Christians, we'll have a life free from suffering.

This is not the first time I have heard this argument. I have heard it many times before from his followers. They have made claims such as, "I would never make one of my kids suffer in order to teach them something, that's child abuse. The standards I have for what is good, I need to apply that to God, because God is good." This sounds very nice at first, but it does not line up with scripture. When we look at this theory closely, we see that it strips God of His sovereignty.

The first problem I would like to point out in this post is with the first premise that Satan is the cause of all of our problems. I would like to point out that we live in a fallen world where death and sickness is a reality for human beings. Ever since man was removed from the Garden of Eden and lost access to the Tree of Life, he has been cursed with death and disease that he did not have before. We live in a world of suffering that is awaiting the time when God will restore it completely and do away with human suffering. In the meantime, we will get sick and get injured. This is where the controversy starts. If God is good, then he cannot allow us to suffer. He wants us to be happy. This is a really great idea that is popular in countries like America that have no suffering. However, Christianity means embracing suffering as discipline from God (note I said discipline, not punishment. Discipline means training.). Lets look at what the Bible says...

Job 1-2: Satan comes into God's presence and God asks him if he has "considered My servant Job?" Satan then proceeds to torment Job, but only doing what God allows him to do. What is he argument here? God is in charge of our suffering (in this instance he initiated it). I is also interesting to note that at the end, when God finally answers Job, He does not say the reason for the suffering is Satan being bad, He simply says Job is merely a man, and God is in charge of what happens.

Matt. 5:10: "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." Their is blessing in persecution and suffering.

2 Cor. 12: 7-10: Paul explains that he was given a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him from exalting himself. Whether this was physical or mental pain, he prayed three times to God that He might remove it. However, God tells him that "My Grace is sufficient for you" and that God is glorified through the sufferings of Paul. Did Paul not have enough faith? If it is God's will that we have no suffering and our healing is guaranteed, why did it not go away?

1 Peter 3:13-22, 4:1-2: Peter explains the role of suffering in the lives of Christians. He makes the argument that we are blessed in our sufferings because we are witnesses to Christ and his suffering. In 4:1, Peter even says that since Christ suffered, we should too, because it helps us to conquer our sin.

While the theology of material blessing, health and wealth is appealing to us comfortable Christians with itching ears, the Bible does not agree with that idea. So either the Bible is wrong and this new theology is right, or the theology is wrong and the Bible is right. I'll throw my lot in with the Bible. To say that it is not God's will for us to suffer so that we may share in the sufferings of Christ and grow closer to God as He guides us is wrong. I only quoted a couple verses on suffering, but would be happy to provide an extensive list. In my next post I shall explain how denying what the Bible says about God and suffering strips God of His sovereignty and leads to a shallow and insufficient faith.

Charles Williams revisited

I have officially become a fan of Charles Williams. His science fiction is really hard to understand, but it is really enjoyable to read. He is one of the few authors that can have a story in which the supernatural is present and visible, but does not sound silly or corny. I've been impressed by two of his main thoughts so far. The first is the way one of the characters descends into Hell (hence the title "Descent Into Hell"). This character keeps having this recurring dream where he is crawling down this endless rope into Hell (presumably). The character, so far, is self absorbed and refuses to find love and joy in other people the way God (or the Omnipotence as He is called in the book) has willed it. This idea of us creating our own Hell is very similar to Williams' friend, C.S. Lewis and his book "The Great Divorce." I personally find this idea of Hell very convincing. Like Lewis says in his book, "In each of us there is something growing which will BE Hell unless it is nipped in the bud." Lewis and Williams both seem to argue that part of the horror of Hell is that we are consumed by our selfish sin. Lewis argues that Hell even begins with a grumbling mood. Imagine that, to lose every part of the common grace we have and be completely immersed in our anger, bitterness, lust, hate, addictions, complaints. That is Hell. By indulging these facets and focusing our attention on ourselves, we begin our descent into Hell, according to Williams. It is something I have felt to some extent myself, now that I consider this. When I am angry, arrogant, self-centered, cynical, or whatever, I feel that separation from God. The result is temptation to continue descending into it, even though it makes me miserable in comparison to doing something within God's will. I cannot imagine losing all faculties of love or joy and being abandoned into that Hell that I create. So I think Williams might have a point. Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to suggest Christians can lose their salvation and go to Hell, or that Hell is merely a figment of our imagination. I believe Hell is a real and physical place. Immersion into our sin and losing the image of God is the worst part of the punishment.

The second idea I liked of Williams is his idea of Substituted Love. In his novel, he argues that Christians should literally bear one another's burdens. When one is feeling oppressed we should not just offer them encouragement, but actually say, "I will carry your sadness for a while." How this happens, I don't know. What Williams says in this novel is that when the oppression comes, the person bearing the burden will take all the pain on himself and the victim will receive some rest. Perhaps we should try this. Perhaps that is what Christ really was getting at. I don't know, but it sounds nice. Disclaimer #2: I'm probably reading too much into this novel. These ideas that I am discussing in this blog post are purely hypothetical. By no means should anyone think that I am committed to them %100. They are just thoughts to ponder. If it turns out to be unorthodox, then I ask for your pardon. Please don't burn me at the stake.

Funny stuff for a theology student

These ten steps to becoming a full-fledged, bona fide theologian are taken off another blog, so I cannot claim any part of this as my work. I just thought it was a brilliant satirical commentary on the lives of us theology students. Sadly, some of it might be more true than I would like. Enjoy.

Advice for theological students: ten steps to a brilliant career

1. As a theological student, your aim is to accumulate opinions – as many as you can, and as fast as possible. (Exceptional students may acquire all their opinions within the first few weeks; others require an entire semester.) One of the best ways to collect opinions is to choose your theological group (“I shall be progressive,” or “I will be evangelical,” or “I am a Barthian”), then sign up to all the opinions usually associated with that social group. If at first you don’t feel much conviction for these new opinions, just be patient: within twelve months you will be a staunch advocate, and you’ll even be able to help new students acquire the same opinions.

2. At the earliest possible opportunity you should also form an opinion about your favourite theological discipline: that is, you should choose your specialisation. To communicate this choice to others, you should dismiss as trivial or irrelevant all other disciplines: the systematic theologian should teach herself to utter humorous remarks about the worth of “practical” theology, while the New Testament student should learn to hold forth emphatically on the dangers of systematic theology; and so on.

3. As far as possible, you should try to avoid all non-theological interests or pursuits. All your time and energy should be invested in reading important books and discussing important ideas. (Novels in particular should be avoided, as they are a notorious time-waster, and they furnish you with no new opinions.)

4. Every successful theological student must master the proper vocabulary. All theological conversations should be peppered with these termini technici (e.g. “Only a demythologised Barthian ontology can subvert the différance of postmodern theory and re-construe the analogia entis in terms of temporal mediation”). The less comprehensible and more sibylline the sentence uttered, the better. There are some stock-in-trade terms that are de rigueur (e.g. perichoresis, imago Dei, Heilsgeschichte, Bullsgeschichte), but the really outstanding student should find creative ways to deploy a wide range of foreign polysyllabic words. Phrases of Latin, Greek or German derivation are particularly prized. (Those of Hebrew of Syriac extraction should be used more sparingly – they are usually greeted with some puzzlement, or with cries of “Gesundheit!”)

5. Now that you’re a theological student, you will discover that the world is filled with people who don’t share your new opinions. Every conversation should thus be viewed as an opportunity to persuade others of their simple-mindedness and to convert them to a better understanding. If you’re feeling shy about this, you should start by practising on your family and closest friends. And it’s not always necessary to engage in a full-blown discussion; at times a single Latin term or a knowing smirk is all that’s required to demolish another person’s argument.

6. Were you raised in a conservative Christian family? If so, your theological education provides you with the perfect opportunity for rebellion. The benefits of theological rebellion should not be underestimated: rejecting all your parents’ religious opinions allows you both to assert your independence and to imply that your parents are backward and naïve. In this respect, theological education can be every bit as effective as smoking cannabis or moving in with your boyfriend: but without all the bad smells.

7. Every true theologian is an avid collector of books. The day you became a theological student, you entered a race to amass a personal library larger and more impressive than those of your peers. Books should be acquired as quickly and as indiscriminately as possible; second-hand books are even better, since they give the appearance of having been read, which can save you a great deal of time.

8. When you are asked to preach in a parish, you should take the opportunity to display the advantages of theological education. Every good sermon should quote the words of some great theologian (a “great German theologian” is even better). And the phrase “the original Greek says…” should be used sparingly but effectively – perhaps just two or three times in a sermon.

9. The goal of theological education is a good career: preferably an academic career, although in some cases you might have to settle for pastoral ministry (or worse, just a regular job). It’s never too early to get your career on track: every essay, every conversation with a professor, every question you ask in class – these are the opportunities to show the professor how deeply you share their opinions, and how superior your own insights are to those of your classmates. In all circumstances you should revere, admire and emulate your professors. Even if they are neither wise nor virtuous, your goal is to become their perfect reflection, mirroring back to them their own opinions, preferences and prejudices. To show that you are the professor’s true protégé: this is the beginning of wisdom, and the bedrock of any good career.

10. Under no circumstances should you resort to old-fashioned pieties like daily prayer and Bible-reading. There are far too many important things to be thinking about, and far too many important things to be reading. (Church attendance is acceptable, however, since it gives you the opportunity of improving your pastor’s theological education.)

Nice painting, bad message

This might make some people upset, but I feel I need to say it. I received a link by e-mail to a website in which the author of the painting above gave his thoughts on his work. While it is a very beautiful work, is extremely well done, full of historical references and figures, the subject of the painting sends a very bad theological message. As you can no doubt see, the figure in the center is Jesus, holding up a copy of the United States constitution. To the right are politicians, judges, and college professors holding their heads in shame for bringing the country toward socialism, as the author explains on his website. To the left, are farmers, school teachers, doctors, and an immigrant (The alarming thing about that is the artist adds some strange commentary explaining that the immigrant may not be a Christian. He does not call into question the faith of the mother, the farmer, or the doctor, however.).

Behind Jesus stands countless historical American figures such as George Washington, Ulysses Grant, General Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Each of them invaluable assets to our country's history. So where is the problem? The problem is that the author is sending the message that God is an American, Republican, capitalist. The author believes our constitution was inspired by God and that America is God's chosen country. This is incredibly wrong. While God may have blessed America over the years in allowing us to experience unprecedented prosperity, that does not mean we are a special people. While we may have a high concentration of Christians in our country, we still should not assume that what is best for us is God's will.

When our country was founded, our founding fathers, like the rest of the European world, held a predominantly Christian sense of ethics. While most of our ethics were in line with Christian teaching, the founding fathers themselves were of dubious spiritual state. A few were devout Christians, to be sure, and I thank God for them, but most were Enlightenment secularists who were influenced by the philosophies of Renaissance philosophers. The separation of church and state was there from the beginning; they never wanted a theocracy. They knew that for religion to thrive and remain pure, it must not have any governmental influence. The way the country was expanded was definitely not in line with Christian morality. I find it hard to accept, the way our forefathers treated the Indians: conquering, taking away their land, putting them on reservations, breaking their promises to them. That is not what Christ would have us do.

The way the painting portrays us as being God's special people, is not in line at all with scripture (the Jews are God's people, actually). God is not an American, nor is he a Republican or Democrat. God is not a socialist or a capitalist. God is the one "who gives and takes away." Read the Old Testament and see that God raises up nations and brings them down. God even blesses and uses pagan nations like Assyria and Babylon. Just because we are materially wealthy, should we assume that means God is on our side. Most of us sit comfortably in our easy chairs, watching tv, driving our expensive cars, going to our churches that resemble rock concerts, considering ourselves persecuted when people laugh at our Christian t-shirts while the rest of the world lives in poverty, dying of AIDS, never hearing the gospel of Christ. America is a great country that has undoubtedly been blessed, but if we are blessed, we should bless the other nations. As a Christian, I cannot divide people into categories. We cannot try to fit God into our political agendas. Why? Because the desires of men are sinful. Political agendas serve selected interests. My job as a Christian is to reach the world with the message that Christ came to save sinners. I cannot attach myself to a political ideology. God loves the people in Iraq, Kenya, Cambodia, Ecuador, and Germany just as much as he loves us Americans. To connect Christianity to being an American is wrong. If we do that, we shall no doubt see Americans continue to trust in their nationality, rather than Christ.

Gays at Church

I read an article today on the possibility of the Episcopal church consecrating a lesbian priest as the Assistant Bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese. If she receives this position she would be one of two homosexual bishops in the United States ordained by the Episcopal church (Gene Robinson of New Hampshire being the other). The ordination of openly, practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal church has caused much controversy over the last few years and is threatening the church with a major schism. Many conservative Episcopal churches have already broken away due to the acceptance of the questionable clergy.

I have been following this controversy for a couple years now, as the Episcopal/Anglican tradition has always intrigued me. Over the last couple months I have had the opportunity to attend St. Luke's Anglican church in Redding, and I must say, I have fallen in love with the Anglican style of worship. The Anglican church I attend is on the conservative side of the debate and opposes the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the clergy. Why is this an issue and what is the proper response to it?

Obviously, this is an incredibly complex subject that volumes could be written on. However, I would like to share a couple of my thoughts. This is how I understand the church found itself in this predicament, in a nutshell. The Episcopal church is one of the mainline protestant churches to be heavily affected by the modernist movement that began approximately during the late nineteenth century and lasted well into the twentieth. The modernist movement did its best to remove the supernatural from daily life. Once the supernatural was gone, all that was left of Christianity was a very shallow social gospel. Working for the rights of the minority and oppressed became the sole focus of the church. What ended up happening was the church began to deny the full authority of scripture. During the sexual revolution, the LGBT community came out and became a force that all churches had to reckon with. Many of the more liberal churches of the modernist period gave the LGBT community more acceptance than the more conservative churches. Now here we are in 2009 and the question of homosexuals in the clergy is becoming more and more present.

What do we do with this? The first thing I want to affirm is that God loves all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Christ came to this earth to die for the gay man in San Francisco just like he did for you and I. When Christians hold up signs that say, "God hates fags," they are doing the exact opposite of Christ's work. Christ commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our love for our fellow men is supposed to be unconditional, just as Christ's love for us is.

The second thing I would like to affirm is that homosexual practice is wrong. To engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex is to take sex outside of God's will just like adultery is. That's right, adultery, if examined through the lens of scripture, is on the same level as homosexuality. Romans 1 is the classic text used by commentators to show that homosexual relations are outside of God's will, and I believe that other places in the NT such as Galatians 5:19-21 where Paul mentions immorality, impurity, sensuality he had homosexual relations in mind. In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul refers to homosexuality as a sin against God. In the context Paul was writing in, homosexuality was just as common as heterosexuality. In the ancient Roman world, one did not think twice about enjoying the pleasures of such a relationship. In the Church at Corinth, especially, many of the members would have had more than their share of homosexual experience. However, when Paul brought Christianity to them, he made it clear that they should give up those practices just like they should give up fornication or adultery.

My third point is my personal opinion on homosexuality and its relationship to the Christian. I do not believe people choose to be homosexual, per se. I believe that some people are born with that disposition, just like some are born with a disposition toward alcoholism or violence. It is simply the result of the fallen world we live in. However, they do have the choice as to whether or not they will satisfy that disposition. Ravi Zacharias tells the story of a well known Catholic priest who was homosexual, but lived a completely celibate life for the cause of Christ. We all have sins to struggle against. Whether it be lying, gossip, pornography, or homosexuality, God promises us that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able. I, like C.S. Lewis and many other Christians, believe that those Christians who struggle with it should be accepted into the fellowship of believers and that they can offer contributions to the church that are unique and real. However, (and I have scripture on my side in this) they must be chaste. To engage in a relationship when scripture forbids such is just as bad as one who is cheating on his wife. They should be corrected in love and encouraged to follow Christ in His calling to celibacy in that area.. For this reason, I cannot support the Episcopal church's support of practicing gay and lesbian priests and bishops.

Charles Williams

At the Simpson Library, I picked up a science fiction novel called Descent into Hell, by Charles Williams, and so far, it's pretty good. Williams was a close friend of both J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, two giants among fiction literature, and was a member of their "Inklings" club. I have been doing some research into Williams' life and have him to quite interesting. His life seems to be a great paradox in a couple respects. For example, Williams never had a complete, formal education, yet he lectured at Oxford. He was a devout Christian theologian yet was a member of a Theosophical occult society for a time in his life.

Despite his simple roots, Williams proves to be an incredibly brilliant, complex author. The novel I am reading is difficult to interpret at times. Whenever an author brings in elements of the supernatural, transcendent realm into his stories, I find it hard to know what to interpret as a literal aspect of the story or a clever metaphor. Williams makes this task difficult for me. I like his writing, however. It is artistic and eloquent. My verdict so far: read Williams; if you like Tolkien and Lewis, he is a vital part of your science-fiction/fantasy education!

"It's Not a Religion"

Last night, at The Stirring, the pastor made a point many protestants, especially in American evangelical circles like to make: Christianity is not a religion. Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I get really frustrated when my fellow believers say Christianity is not a religion. The reason for this: by every definition Christianity is a religion. Christianity believes in a deity and believes its adherents should worship this deity. Christianity believes in the special revelation of God through Jesus and scripture that guides our lives. From any outsider observing us, they would deduce we are a religion. Even the Biblical authors refer to Christianity as a religion (at least in English translations). For example, James 1:26-27 use the word religion to refer to the daily practice of Christians. Most theologians and Christian writers over the centuries refer to Christianity as the "Christian religion." This whole, "It's not a religion" thing seems to be very recent.

Now I know what others mean when they say Christianity is not a religion. They are trying to say that the essence of Christianity is not strict observance to a divinely inspired code of laws and ethics, but a personal and living relationship with God Himself revealed through Jesus Christ. I agree with that totally. However, I ask the question, "How do we get that personal, deep relationship with Christ?" Certainly by not just praying a prayer and doing our own thing. We are saved from Hell the moment we decide to trust Christ's finished work on the cross for our forgiveness, but I would argue that it all doesn't stop there. While we may be "saved," Christ demands us to "take up our crosses and follow Him" (Matt. 10:38. paraphrased). By denying ourselves the pleasures of sin and practicing prayer, study, good deeds, and gathering at church with other believers does our relationship with Christ grow and become deeper.

My point is, these are all religious practices that serve to make the relationship more real and personal. To say Christianity is just a relationship and not a religion is just to play a word game with non-believers that leaves them feeling flustered (almost as bad as calling atheism a religion). I feel that this hostility to religion as a definition stems from some of the baggage that comes with it (extremists, legalists, I'm better than you attitudes). However, I fear that saying Christianity is simply a relationship can leave the new convert in a state where he believes he is free to do whatever he wants because him and God are just "friends." Why go to church? That's being religious, so it's not that important. Why do any serious study of the Bible? Since Jesus is my "home-boy" we keep our relationship at the same level it started at. Like I said before, it also irritates the people we try to dialogue with. So what do we call Christianity? I suggest that we don't shy away from the term "religion" but embrace it just as we would embrace the term American, even though we are really citizens of Heaven from a theological perspective. For all practical purposes, I am a religious person. What I do try to do is to show that my "religion" is a coherent worldview that involves a very deep and personal relationship with the God of the universe through His son Christ and the Holy Spirit. When those whom I share with understand this, they find it more helpful and understand it better than if I sit and argue about definitions. Those are just semantics, and in our day to day lives it is sometimes helpful to be anti-semantic!

Alister McGrath, science and God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou83izOVslI

This is the first in a series of videos that Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford university, explains how he became a Christian and the relationship between his science and his faith. Alister McGrath is one of the theologians I respect the most. He has written many books on theology as well as science and atheism. My favorite book of his is called Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-- A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-first.

Strange Experiences

This morning in the cafeteria, I witnessed a spiritual phenomenon that really disturbed me. At a certain table, a group of students who go to another school in the area were sitting in a circle, touching each others' shoulders and experiencing a strange phenomenon. One of the students began to swoon, his eyes rolling into the back of his head so that all we could see was glazed, white marbles peeking out of his eyelids. He would swoon and then come out of it. This is not the first time I have seen such strange behavior exhibited. I have also talked with these students and have been alarmed by some of the more questionable elements of their theology. Before I proceed, I want to make it completely clear I am not on a witch hunt or anything. I believe these people are Christians and that they love the Lord; in fact, many of my good friends are involved in this movement. I do not wish to offend anyone. However, I do believe some of these strange practices I witness and hear about are neither Biblical or traditionally part of Christianity. The Bible teaches us to "be wise as serpents," "to test the spirits to see if they are from God," and "Not to be carried about by every wind of doctrine." I believe some of these practices are erroneous, when examined in the light of scripture, and could lead to deception. Let me reiterate: I do not want to offend, I just want to critically and logically evaluate some of these teachings in the light of God's Word, like any Christian should.

Today I shall examine the phenomenon I saw today. Though there may be some other term for it, what I witnessed is a phenomenon that I believe is commonly known as being "Slain in the Spirit" (though what I saw seemed more similar to an energy circle where one of them was in a trance). The idea of being slain in the spirit is not found in the Bible, or throughout the history of the Christian church. It was a phenomenon that originated during the last two hundred years in American revival meetings. While there are many instances throughout the Bible of people falling before the Lord, all of those contexts involve voluntary action.

This phenomenon is also closely related to being Drunk in the Spirit, an experience in which the person is overcome by the Spirit of God and jerks about and thrashes on the ground. Sometimes accompanied by ecstatic speech or laughter. While God is not opposed to joy or laughter, this phenomenon has no Biblical or historical basis. The text usually cited to refer to this is found in Acts when the apostles are receiving the Spirit of God and speaking in other known languages. Mockers call them drunk and Peter emphatically denies it. He mentions nothing about being drunk with the spirit. Another text is the one which tells us "not to be drunk with wine, but filled with the Spirit." This verse, however, is a contrast. The Bible also tells us that a symptom of being filled with the Spirit is self-control (Gal. 5:23). The erratic, uncontrollable symptoms of being "filled/drunk in the Spirit" seem to stand in contrast to how the Bible describes it.

I hope I have not offended anyone. The point of this post was to hopefully alert my fellow believers to some of the questionable doctrines floating around today, though I've only touched on two of them. My goal when I study the Bible or history or science is to come to a conclusion that fits the evidence the best. When some of these experiences are researched, there seems to be little, if any, Biblical or historical support. My belief is that we should stick to the traditional, contextual interpretation of spiritual matters. I am reminded of the words of R.C. Sproul who said, that "If you come across an interpretation of scripture that has escaped the notice of theologians for two thousand years, then the chances are your interpretation is probably wrong and should be abandoned" (paraphrased). My concern is that people could be led down a path of an incorrect view of God. I encourage everyone to examine every teaching in the light of scripture, taken in its proper context and historical use.

Karl Barth

After reading a comment on my blog this morning on the nature of how Christians should respond to evolution, I said I found a letter that was written by Karl Barth, the Swiss Reformed theologian who was one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century. He is respected by most mainstream, theologically conservative Christians. I believe what Barth has to say on this issue is very relevant for how we understand the nature of God's created order and process.


Basel, 18 Feb. 1965

Dear Christine,

You have had to wait a terribly long time for an answer to your letter of 13 Dec.—not because of indifference, for I am sincerely interested in your welfare, and in that of your mother and sisters, and am always pleased to have good news from Zollikofen [near Bern, Switzerland].

Has no one explained to you in your seminar that one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner—that there can be as little question of harmony between as of contradiction?

The creation story is a witness to the beginning or becoming of all reality distinct from God in the light of God’s later acts and words relating to his people Israel—naturally in the form of a saga or poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality in its inner nexus—naturally in the form of a scientific hypothesis.

The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation. Thus one’s attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely from faith in God’s revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding.

So tell the teacher concerned that she should distinguish what is to be distinguished and not shut herself off completely from either side.

My answer comes so late because on the very day you wrote, 13 Dec., I had a stroke and had to spend several weeks in the hospital.

With sincere greetings which you may also pass on to your mother and sisters,

Yours,
Uncle Karl

Ken Ham

This evening I enjoyed a book written by Ken Ham back in the 1980s. Ken Ham is amusing, to say the least. For those who are not familiar with him, he is an Australian Young-earth creationist who founded Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He is a blast to watch on dvd. Nothing is more fun than him telling us there are no missing links in the fossil record (not true by the way) when he looks like one, himself thanks to a pair of large, red mutton chops running down the side of his face.

Reading him, however, discourages me. The reason it discourages me, is because Christians everywhere are buying his book which claim the earth is only 6000 years old, there is no evidence for evolution, and if you interpret Genesis any other way than he does, you are going to become a godless liberal. He claims evolution is the reason for the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, pornography, world war II, and a host of other evil crimes we see today. If you accept evolution, you cannot be a Christian.

This is ridiculous. Thousands of Bible believing Christians all over the world accept evolution as the mechanism by which God created life on earth. In fact, the Catholic church publicly endorsed the theory of evolution under Pope John Paul II, and they are just as outspoken, if not more so, against homosexuality, abortion, pornography, eugenics, and racism than even Ken Ham himself.

Ken Ham claims the church has commonly accepted the idea that the days in Genesis were literal 24-hour periods. Sadly, this is just not so. Origen and Augustine were two early church fathers who warned against taking the days literally. At some periods of church history, it was believed everything was created in an instant. Only in the last hundred and fifty years has this even become an issue. This was made an issue by a small group of churches who felt that the evidence for an old earth and evolution was incompatible with scripture. They gave rise to the modern fundamentalist movement, while most mainline, orthodox theologians had no problem accepting it. Even Benjamin Warfield, a theologian admired by many evangelicals today said there was no conflict between evolution and Genesis. Why? Because Genesis is not trying to give us a scientific paradigm. Its trying to combat common near eastern myths floating around and establish the structure of the way the universe is. That is why you have two creation stories that are seemingly in conflict with each other if both is taken completely literally.

This should not be a big deal within the church. Just like in Galileo's time, the church persecuted him for making claims about the universe many felt were in contradiction with scripture. Evolution is not only compatible with scripture, it is also supported by scientific evidence. The way God created the universe has no bearing on the facts that we are all sinners in need of a savior, that Christ was divine, and that he died and rose again to save us from our sins. Below I've made a list of some well-known Christians I know who accept evolution as God's creative method.

Benjamin Warfield, Presbyterian Reformed theologian
C.S. Lewis, Anglican writer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lutheran pastor and theologian
Karl Barth, Swiss Reformed theologian
Alister McGrath, Anglican theologian and scientist
Timothy Keller, Presbyterian pastor and theologian
Dinesh D'Souza, Roman Catholic political and apologetic writer
John Lennox, Anglican Mathematician
Francis Collins, Evangelical geneticist and head of Human Genome project
Kenneth Miller, Roman Catholic biologist
Theodosius Dobhanzky, Russian Orthodox scientist

Ethics # 2

I came to the conclusion that doing what is ethical is doing what the will of God is. I also deduced that good and evil do not exist independently of God. In other words, God is the creator of the standards of good and evil. God put within His creation to do things which are more in accordance with His nature (what we would call good) or to do things that are not in accordance with His nature (what we would call evil). In the days of the nation of Israel, God's people were commanded to do things that would enrage our Christianized western sensibilities. But on the other hand, God has a right to punish those who are doing that which is against His nature (which is what the Canaanites had been doing for hundreds of years). In the ancient world, it was not a foreign idea that a god would use a people group to deal out his/her punishment against another. To the Israelites, obeying God's command to deal out this justice was perfectly natural (though they did not completely eradicate the Canaanites; later Biblical texts make that clear).

Now we get to the million dollar question. If it was ethical for the Israelites to kill God's enemies then, is it ethical for Christians to kill God's enemies now? Is it ethical to kill anyone now? This is something we have to deal with because it is a very real issue today. Islamic fundamentalists say they are blowing themselves up and killing others because it is the will of Allah. Some Christian sects have bombed abortion clinics saying they dealing out justice to God's enemies. I cannot speak on behalf of the Muslims, except that I believe their religion to be false. However, I can for the Christian position on ethics.

The first misconception is that we can deal out God's justice in any way. God has already dealt out the justice through the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. As we can see through scripture (both Hebrew Bible and New Testament), God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God did not like the fact He had to punish the Canaanites and in many cases His own people in ancient times. However, through the crucifixion, God's wrath against the world is satisfied. His will now is that all should come to Him since He has forgiven their sins (note: this does not imply universal salvation). Through the teaching of Jesus, we see what God's will for the world is. It is not war, hate, and death, it is peace and reconciliation. It is God's will that we do not have an "us versus them" mentality, for God desires us all to be one through Him. Our mentality should be one of trying to reach out across boundaries of hate. We are to be pursuing peace.

The question comes to mind, what about in times of war? What about the woman at Fort Hood who shot the shooter? Are the soldiers in our military or the policemen doing God's will when they kill someone? The answer to those questions could be either yes or no. No, they are not doing God's will because it is not God's will for there to be war or criminals. However, they are doing God's will in that by averting tyranny or crime, they are preserving law and order in the world and in society. It is interesting to note that when a soldier came to Christ or the apostles, he was never told to give up his profession. The reality is, there are people out there who do not want to live according to God's will, and when they try to cause violence, it is sometimes necessary to use violence to stop them. If the woman at Fort Hood had not shot the man who was on a rampage, he would have killed many more. In that case, I believe her action was ethical; she was defending others and preserving life. The soldiers who go into battle to protect their homeland from an aggressor do it to preserve the lives of those who cannot defend themselves. The person who lied to the Nazis about hiding the Jews in his basement did so to preserve the lives of innocent people. None of these situations are in accordance with God's will. God does not want us to kill or lie since He values every human life. However, since He values human lives, it is more in accordance with God's will to take the life of one to save many, or to deceive killers to save innocents. Our job as Christians is to work for the most peace possible. It means supporting a war only if it is just (is it truly saving the lives of our fellow citizens in the world, or making a leader money?). When we do make war or have to use violence to put down violence, we should do no more than is necessary to bring it to a stop. Stop the violence and work for reconciliation.

God loves the world, He has redeemed it through Christ. Doing what is ethical means doing what the will of God is. God's will is that all will come to know Him. There is no "other" in God's eyes. God loves the Palestinian or IRA terrorist like He loves Mother Theresa or Billy Graham. All we can do as Christians is to stand up against the things God hates (like violence, idolatry, immorality, etc) and work for the things God loves (like peace, reconciliation, love). To believe we are involved in any sort of Holy War where violence is a key component is to deceive ourselves. While we may need to defend others to save their lives, Christ won the world through peace, and tells us to do so as well.

Ethics # 1

Yesterday I ended my post by asking several questions about the nature of ethics that each Christian (or any human being for that matter should ask). Questions on whether or not ethics are absolute or situational? What do we do with the places in scripture where ethics appear situational? Are good and evil independent of God, or does God decide what is good and evil? I would like to begin to think through some of these questions. This post will deal with the first two questions.

Are ethics absolute or situational? Either option has heavy baggage attached to it. If ethics are absolute and unchanging, i.e. lying is always wrong, then is it wrong to lie to save a life? If I was hiding Jews from the SS would it be wrong of me to use deception and to lie to save the Jews. On the other hand, if ethics are situational, then how do we condemn the suicide bombers the middle east is rife with? If you ask a Palestinian living in the Gaza strip right now why they are using suicide bombers, he is likely to tell you it is because they have no other way of resisting. To them, their ethics are perfectly justified. Does the existence of God make a difference either way?

As a Christian, I obviously believe in the God of the Bible, YHWH. My first instinct when I come to the question of the absolute value of ethics is that, yes, there is an absolute standard of ethics. Throughout the pages of scripture we see God giving instructions to His people on what the right thing is to do and what the wrong thing is to do. It seems very straightforward until we come to certain parts of the Old Testament where God seems to command the Israelites to do things that are the exact opposite of ethical. When taking the land of Canaan, they are instructed to go into cities and kill every man, woman, and child. That should make all of us squirm. Why? Because we believe God to be perfectly good, and genocide is not good. To further complicate matters, if you are a Christian, then you also believe in the New Testament where we have Jesus, God in human flesh, telling us to turn the other cheek, to work against violence. The Old Testament prescribes capital punishment, Jesus is against it (see the story of the woman caught in adultery). What is going on here?

To give a brief answer to this (books could be wrote on these matters), I shall try to construct a paradigm for how to understand the nature of ethics from a Christian, theistic point of view. I believe the answer could lie in the phrase we Christians so often throw about but don't much consider: "God is good." We say we believe this, but often what I think we mean is, "Good is God." That is, our perception of the nature of goodness is what God is. We seem to think that there is an ideal of good and evil that God Himself must adhere to. What we seem to forget is that all things are created "By Him, through Him, and for Him," and that he "causes the sun to rise on the just and unjust." Nothing, including ethics, exists independently of God. God is the one who decides what is right and what is wrong. To say that good and evil exists independently of God is to make good and evil God. Doing what God says to do, then, is what is ethical. To do what is most akin to God's nature is what good is. This helps to explain the reasons for those hard Old Testament passages. God's nature is such that he cannot tolerate evil, doing things against his nature. When the Israelites enter the land, the Canaanites have been doing things against God's nature for centuries. God, therefore, has the authority to eradicate that which is against His nature (or to tolerate that which is against His nature. In this case he chose to destroy it.). Therefore, acting on the command of God was not unethical. How that makes us Western, post-enlightenment, Americans with long lists of rights squirm in our seats!

God has a right to do this. We do not like to acknowledge the fact that God would kill people, but when we turn to the pages of scripture, we find out He does. However, we do also find out that God's nature is also that of compassion. He makes it clear He "has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." He destroys them not because He enjoys it, but because allowing them to influence others to do things against His nature would cause even greater separation between Himself and humanity. In fact, this part of the nature of God helps to make the incarnation understandable. In Jesus, we see God pouring out the wrath He has against those who are contrary to His nature on Himself. That why Jesus calls us to work for peace among each other and among the nations. God's wrath has been spent. All the sins of every man are forgiven (sorry hyper-Calvinists, but it's what the Bible says). Therefore, doing violence against any man is going contrary to God's nature because He, Himself carries no violence against the world.

So are ethics situational or absolute? I'm afraid all we can say for now is that doing what is ethical is doing what is in accordance with God's will. It seems as though God's will is different at different times. So where does that leave us? The question we need to answer is what is God's will in every situation? If we should do no violence against any man under the New Covenant, then what about defending our family, friends, our country? Should Christians be police officers, soldiers? Could we lie to save the Jews we have hidden in our basement? These are questions for another post.

The Cost of Discipleship

Yesterday I gave a short speech on the life of one of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. When reading him, there is something about the way he writes and challenges me that moves my soul like no other writer can do. Perhaps the reason for this is because Bonhoeffer did not just write good theology, but lived it out. Executed in the Flossenburg Concentration Camp for being linked to a group of conspirators who tried to assassinate Hitler, he is widely regarded as a Christian martyr in the fight against the forces of evil. However, I heard something about him that disturbed me. I was referred to an article that alleged Bonhoeffer was not a true Christian, but a proponent of liberal theology. I'm glad I heard about this, because it prompted me to really find out what he thought theologically. I spent several hours pouring over his writings and came out convinced that the article misinterpreted him. Without going into great detail, I would like to present my findings against some of the objections raised to sort of collect my ideas on how he thought.

Objection # 1. Bonhoeffer did not believe in the divinity of Christ.
Answer: Bonhoeffer did believe in the divinity of Christ. In 1933, he gave a lecture on Christology to his students at the University of Berlin. I cannot count how many times he makes reference to the incarnation (that God became a human being). For example, he says "He (Jesus) is not the one adopted by God, he is not the one clothed in human characteristics. He is God who became human, as we became human." Here he affirms just like the historic creeds (not to mention the Bible) that Christ exemplified both God and man, was, in fact, both.

Objection # 2. Bonhoeffer did not believe in the historical resurrection of Christ.
Answer: Read Bonhoeffer and you will see that he did. The article said Bonhoeffer said the resurrection was historically ambiguous. The article conveniently left out the first part of the quote where Bonhoeffer said the world considers it historically ambiguous. In his various sermons he makes references to the resurrection that seem to suggest he accepted it.

Objection #3. Bonhoeffer argues for situational ethics.
Answer: This is a little harder to answer and should probably be left to more educated philosophers and theologians to debate. However, this is how I understand Bonhoeffer's ethics. As a scholar on a Youtube video said, Bonhoeffer believed one should ask what the will of Christ was in every situation. The sermon on the mount gives us an idea on how one should act as a Christian. This is what led him to become a pacifist. He believed that if one took Christ's teaching seriously, you had no choice but to accept the path of nonresistance as that is what Christ did and the early church preached. However, it appears he believed that in some cases, God's will would be to choose the lesser of two sins. That is, violence can be resisted, but in the long run it may give rise to more evil. Professor Craig Slane, a distinguished Bonhoeffer scholar said Bonhoeffer was pretty much forced into the resistance. He was on his way to the concentration camp anyways if he continued preaching, so joining the resistance in defense of the Jews was his only real choice. However, this raises all sorts of questions. What is ethical? Christ preaches against violence and tells us we should conquer evil through love and nonresistance like he did. So if we endorse war or tyrannicide, aren't we being inconsistent to Christ's teaching. But let us not forget the same God who commanded us in the Sermon on the Mount also told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites in the Old Testament. None of us would say genocide is ethical. Yet God commanded it in the OT. The question remains, how absolute are ethics? Is it ever morally permissible to kill? What do we do with the situational ethics that we seem to come across in the pages of scripture? Is the will of God the basis for morality, or does good and evil exist independently of God? How do we know the will of God? Too many questions that neither myself nor Bonhoeffer has any immediate answer to!

Why I'm doing this

Within the last week, upon completion of a short story, I had a friend suggest to me that I set up a blog. I considered it for a few days and decided I would give it a try. I figured this would be a good chance for me to express my opinions on relevant issues as well as to post some of my more creative writing for others to read. My title, "The Contrarian" I took from Christopher Hitchens book "Letters to a Young Contrarian." I chose that title primarily because I liked the sound of it (Not that I plan on being contentious or anything). I welcome comments and feedback on all my posts. I especially welcome everyone who reads this to challenge my ideas. I've told many people that one of my maxims was said by Bertrand Russell who said "Most people would rather die than think. In fact, they do!" as well as the Socratic saying "The unexamined life is not worth living." I truly believe that debate is essential to discovering the truth in all matters. It is with this in mind that I begin this blog.