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.