God has been teaching me a lot about grace this year. I have written about this a couple of times. For instance, God has been teaching me and I have written about how grace means a lot more than just forgiveness of past sins, and that it means freedom from sin more than it means freedom from the consequences of sin. As God has been challenging me with this I run into more and more people that are struggling with false definitions of grace and freedom. Grace becomes a license to sin, and excuse to do whatever we want. I had a conversation with a student last night who was struggling with a roommate’s faith and actions and how to respond (this is like the fourth conversation I have had along these lines in the last three months) that reminded me of this whole discussion. Then, when I got home last night I read this in a book by Pete Grieg called The Vision and The Vow (buy it and read it):
As I look around the Church at this time, I see a real danger looming: I am concerned that the message of grace, which is currently being propounded so passionately from pulpits and paperbacks around the word, might merely be a “license to chill”—an all-embracing, one-size-fits-all, mindless rationale for accepting the greatest comfort and personal pleasure in any given situation. Such an aberration of grace labels those who break its code—those people who are seeking to be more disciplined and sacrificial in their faith—“religious,” “pious,” “driven,” “culturally irrelevant,” “caught up in good works,” “perfectionist,” or simply “legalistic.”
Of course, there is an ever-present danger of legalism and unhealthy pietism in the Church at large, and we all need to be told to relax at times, to be reminded and re-assured of God’s love and endless mercy. But in a culture forsworn to self-gratification, the danger far greater to us than legalism is surely the tendency toward the deification of pleasure in the name of grace.
Grace is calling us to “give up the game of minimum integrity.” Too often we are reduced to trivial debates about how far we can go sexually or how much we should give financially—all shades of gray in the ethics of obedience. And I suppose if we are mere adherents to a religious code, then such negotiations are fine and necessary. But if we are caught up in an infatuation of the holy, if this is a religion of living relationship and burning passion, then the impulse will not be to get the best deal, but rather, to give with joyful extravagance. When in doubt, we will not try to negotiate the minimum personal outlay, but rather will go the extra mile.
I hope this offers guidance to some of you, comforts others, and challenges some!
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Gospel of Judas?
Many of have heard the recent reports on the "newly discovered" Gospel of Judas. Here are some links that might be insightful. Dr. Witherington is a NT scholar from Asbury. He has been on ABC news, NPR, etc. He has been sought as an authority in the discussion about the ossuary of James. Anyway, would love to get your feedback!
These link to the national geographic stories
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_gospel.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html
A couple of responses from Dr. Witherington:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-et-al-part-one.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-part-two.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-npr-discussion.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/sad-truth-about-judas.html
These link to the national geographic stories
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_gospel.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html
A couple of responses from Dr. Witherington:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-et-al-part-one.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-part-two.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/gospel-of-judas-npr-discussion.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/sad-truth-about-judas.html
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Teleo
It’s the end of the semester! The final stretch. I was watching TV this past Saturday as I was resting from the mission trip and caught one of my favorite funny movies Office Space. Thinking about this last stretch of the semester reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from the movie. The main character engages in a conversation with Jennifer Anniston that goes like this:
Joanna: So, where do you work, Peter?
Peter Gibbons: Initech.
Joanna: In... yeah, what do you do there?
Peter Gibbons: I sit in a cubicle and I update bank software for the 2000 switch.
Joanna: What's that?
Peter Gibbons: Well see, they wrote all this bank software, and, uh, to save space, they used two digits instead of four. So, like, 98 instead of 1998? Uh, so I go through these thousands of lines of code and, uh... it doesn't really matter. I uh, I don't like my job, and, uh, I don't think I'm gonna go anymore.
Joanna: You're just not gonna go?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Won't you get fired?
Peter Gibbons: I don't know, but I really don't like it, and, uh, I'm not gonna go.
Joanna: So you're gonna quit?
Peter Gibbons: Nuh-uh. Not really. Uh... I'm just gonna stop going.
Joanna: When did you decide all that?
Peter Gibbons: About an hour ago.
Joanna: An hour ago... so you're gonna get another job?
Peter Gibbons: I don't think I'd like another job.
Joanna: Well, what are you going to do about money and bills and...
Peter Gibbons: You know, I've never really liked paying bills. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either.
Sounds tempting doesn’t it!! Now I don’t want to get too “churchy” here and don’t want to invalidate those end of the school year feelings, but when I begin feeling this way I remember the Greek word teleo. The word means “end”, “finish”. Ironically enough, this is not a word that I learned in seminary. I actually learned it from one of the Kanakuk counselors while I was a camper there. Matt Houston (still at Kanakuk every summer) had twenty red shirts with the word teleo in white block letter made before the summer so that he could wear them every day. The shirts were a reminder to him to not grow weary, to finish strong, and the finish was as important if not more important than the beginning. Most importantly, however, was the fact that Jesus finished strong to the point of death. So, when he didn’t feel like he had the strength to go on, that he was sacrificing too much he remembered that God gave Jesus the strength to finish strong, even enduring death.
In 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Paul writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
The author of Hebrews 12:1-3 states, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”
I know you are probably thinking to yourself, “OK aren’t those verses a little intense or overstated in light of finishing out a school year?” That may be half true, but how are we to apply those verses to our lives and to the “bigger, more important things” if we can’t live them in the day to day, semester to semester parts of our lives? Our lifetimes won’t reflect this way of living if our semesters, days, hours and even moments don't.
Be encouraged! Persevere! Be strong! Teleo!
Joanna: So, where do you work, Peter?
Peter Gibbons: Initech.
Joanna: In... yeah, what do you do there?
Peter Gibbons: I sit in a cubicle and I update bank software for the 2000 switch.
Joanna: What's that?
Peter Gibbons: Well see, they wrote all this bank software, and, uh, to save space, they used two digits instead of four. So, like, 98 instead of 1998? Uh, so I go through these thousands of lines of code and, uh... it doesn't really matter. I uh, I don't like my job, and, uh, I don't think I'm gonna go anymore.
Joanna: You're just not gonna go?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Won't you get fired?
Peter Gibbons: I don't know, but I really don't like it, and, uh, I'm not gonna go.
Joanna: So you're gonna quit?
Peter Gibbons: Nuh-uh. Not really. Uh... I'm just gonna stop going.
Joanna: When did you decide all that?
Peter Gibbons: About an hour ago.
Joanna: An hour ago... so you're gonna get another job?
Peter Gibbons: I don't think I'd like another job.
Joanna: Well, what are you going to do about money and bills and...
Peter Gibbons: You know, I've never really liked paying bills. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either.
Sounds tempting doesn’t it!! Now I don’t want to get too “churchy” here and don’t want to invalidate those end of the school year feelings, but when I begin feeling this way I remember the Greek word teleo. The word means “end”, “finish”. Ironically enough, this is not a word that I learned in seminary. I actually learned it from one of the Kanakuk counselors while I was a camper there. Matt Houston (still at Kanakuk every summer) had twenty red shirts with the word teleo in white block letter made before the summer so that he could wear them every day. The shirts were a reminder to him to not grow weary, to finish strong, and the finish was as important if not more important than the beginning. Most importantly, however, was the fact that Jesus finished strong to the point of death. So, when he didn’t feel like he had the strength to go on, that he was sacrificing too much he remembered that God gave Jesus the strength to finish strong, even enduring death.
In 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Paul writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
The author of Hebrews 12:1-3 states, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”
I know you are probably thinking to yourself, “OK aren’t those verses a little intense or overstated in light of finishing out a school year?” That may be half true, but how are we to apply those verses to our lives and to the “bigger, more important things” if we can’t live them in the day to day, semester to semester parts of our lives? Our lifetimes won’t reflect this way of living if our semesters, days, hours and even moments don't.
Be encouraged! Persevere! Be strong! Teleo!
Storms
Seeing the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in pictures and images on a page or a screen is one thing, seeing them in person is another, and seeing them through a spiritual lens is another thing altogether.
As I have stated in a previous post, God's grace shows up in ways that we often don't recognize. Too often we place I place my hope in things and people other than God. It is incredibly painful when those are taken away from us, and at the same time is the best thing that can happen for us. Does this make those experiences easy? No! But in hindsight if we are able to let go of those things and allow Jesus to be Lord in our lives again then we can take delight in those life-storms.
Caedmon's Call has a great song that was on their first independent release titled My Calm/Your Storm. If you don't own the CD, buy it! In the meantime, check out these lyrics.
A scary and dangerous prayer to pray if we want to remain in control of our lives and are willing to settle for the life that we would choose over the life that God has planned for us! But, if our desire is to live in the abundance of life that God promises, then it is a prayer that we will pray without reluctance and we will rejoice when God destroys the "comfortable", complacent life that we have created!
As I have stated in a previous post, God's grace shows up in ways that we often don't recognize. Too often we place I place my hope in things and people other than God. It is incredibly painful when those are taken away from us, and at the same time is the best thing that can happen for us. Does this make those experiences easy? No! But in hindsight if we are able to let go of those things and allow Jesus to be Lord in our lives again then we can take delight in those life-storms.
Caedmon's Call has a great song that was on their first independent release titled My Calm/Your Storm. If you don't own the CD, buy it! In the meantime, check out these lyrics.
A scary and dangerous prayer to pray if we want to remain in control of our lives and are willing to settle for the life that we would choose over the life that God has planned for us! But, if our desire is to live in the abundance of life that God promises, then it is a prayer that we will pray without reluctance and we will rejoice when God destroys the "comfortable", complacent life that we have created!
Seen and Unseen
About a month ago I wrote about the word compelled. That was born out of reading 2 Corinthians chapter 5. The idea of seen and unseen comes from chapter 4.
I am in the midst of a week following a mission trip to Mobile, Alabama. This usually means two things. First, I am in the process of returning from the trip in practical way. Spending time with my family, getting my feet back on the ground at the church, etc. On the other hand, I am working to be intentional about not returning as well. I left a dry spiritual life when I left for Mobile and I don't have any desire to return. Clearly, there will be other dry times in my life, but I don't need to go there intentionally or end up there passively!
I am in the midst of a week following a mission trip to Mobile, Alabama. This usually means two things. First, I am in the process of returning from the trip in practical way. Spending time with my family, getting my feet back on the ground at the church, etc. On the other hand, I am working to be intentional about not returning as well. I left a dry spiritual life when I left for Mobile and I don't have any desire to return. Clearly, there will be other dry times in my life, but I don't need to go there intentionally or end up there passively!
This past week was probably one of the richest weeks for me spiritually (at least in a long time). I will clarify that statement in a moment, but for now just let it stand. Rather than outline everything our team did last week (too many inside jokes anyway) let me share some of the things that I learned and I am learning as a result of my experience:
I said earlier that this was one of the richest weeks for me spiritually; I would like to qualify that statement. I am intellectually fully aware that God is present with us always and is always at work in, around and through us. So, was this week really more rich, or was I just more aware of what is unseen? On one of the first nights of our trip our team read 2 Corinthians 4:16-18. In this passage Paul states that he fixes his eyes not on what is seen (temporary) but on what is unseen (eternal). This set the perspective for the rest of the week for all of us. We were intentionally looking for ways that God was at work during the week in and through each of the team members and those we were serving. It was amazing to see the fingerprints of God's grace all around us. My hope and prayer is that we live the same way in our daily lives! Be actively aware of the unseen that is going on around you!
I was also reminded of how powerful it can be to simply be obedient to the call and life of Jesus! We live in a culture that thrives itself on experience. Consequently we show up to worship services, Bible studies, etc. In the hope of experiencing God (we even have curriculum with that title). The beauty of God is that he desires that we experience him in relationship. However, we often leave worship services (or experiences as some like to call them) and Bible studies disappointed. The experience that we are looking for seems to have alluded us. I don't think that should surprise us! We can "know" Christ in an intellectual way by reading his word, but we must live the word to "know" Christ in an experiential way. To know the experience of Christ is to follow him (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23).
I have been thinking and praying a lot about how to understand natural disasters in light of the past couple of years. I am not arrogant enough to think that I will ever fully understand it, but here is where I am right now. I think we have forgotten that the consequences of sin were not and are not felt just by the human race (Romans 8:18-20). So are natural disasters a form of judgment? I am not sure I am ready to say that, but I do think they are a consequence of sin. I don't mean to say that New Orleans was a sinful city so God sent a hurricane to destroy it. I think the hurricane was a consequence of sin in a general way (just like pains in childbirth, etc.). However, I also want to be clear that I think the consequences of sin are founded on God's grace. If we are able to sin (or if Adam and Eve were able to sin) without consequence, then we would all be sinning with no reason to stop. Because God wants to be in relationship with us freely and because sin separates us from that, God created the world in such a way that we would be aware of the destruction of sin. The consequences of sin (ultimately death) remind us that we need God, that we cannot sustain life on our own. Everywhere we looked we were reminded of the fact that we are not in control, that we need God. All the comforts that we build for ourselves are temporary! God alone is eternal! So often, we treat the comforts that we are able to build for ourselves as our rights, and we think that they are permanent (even though they are not). What a blessing, and how gracious that we can be reminded of that before it is too late!
In light of this perspective, it was fascinating to hear Ron and Jean (a couple whose house was four feet underwater) share about the new beginning they were experiencing (not just with a new physical home, but spiritually as well). Jean kept commenting about how dark her house had been, and how much brighter and open it was with the new paint (the metaphor was not lost on her). Again the importance of not just focusing on what we can see, but on what is unseen!
Katrina, FEMA
Wanted to share about a recent experience that I have had in Alabama, but needed to get this out of the way first!
First, I am amazed at the fact that hurricane Katrina was more organized than FEMA! (and at the same time, I think there is a theological lesson to be learned here).
Second, I am really annoyed at the way the media has portrayed this whole story (what's new)! So much coverage of how poorly FEMA has handled this, but no reports of the incredible impact that the church is having on recovery (again there is a theological lesson here)! Additionally, we have all found reason to be judgmental of those that are taking advantage of the help they are getting (free loaders). However, our team saw the immense need, the appreciation of the help, and the willingness to work alongside us. (Some argue about the liberal media (networks) vs. the conservative (Rush, et. al.). Let me tell you, they have all jacked up this story!) Wouldn't it be nice if our news looked more like Extreme Home Makeover?
Third, I am always amazed at how easy it is for us to sit back and criticize without getting involved! Sitting on the sidelines we think we have a full view of what is going on. In some ways I think we might, but we certainly don't have a full feel of what is going on! As I stated earlier I fell into this category, and fall into this category.
First, I am amazed at the fact that hurricane Katrina was more organized than FEMA! (and at the same time, I think there is a theological lesson to be learned here).
Second, I am really annoyed at the way the media has portrayed this whole story (what's new)! So much coverage of how poorly FEMA has handled this, but no reports of the incredible impact that the church is having on recovery (again there is a theological lesson here)! Additionally, we have all found reason to be judgmental of those that are taking advantage of the help they are getting (free loaders). However, our team saw the immense need, the appreciation of the help, and the willingness to work alongside us. (Some argue about the liberal media (networks) vs. the conservative (Rush, et. al.). Let me tell you, they have all jacked up this story!) Wouldn't it be nice if our news looked more like Extreme Home Makeover?
Third, I am always amazed at how easy it is for us to sit back and criticize without getting involved! Sitting on the sidelines we think we have a full view of what is going on. In some ways I think we might, but we certainly don't have a full feel of what is going on! As I stated earlier I fell into this category, and fall into this category.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Compelled
Many of you know that one of my favorite passages in the Bible is 2 Corinthians 5. I absolutely love that chapter! I hope someday I am given the opportunity to preach a series on that passage. The passage has been a “heart” passage for me. Different parts of Scripture speak to us in different ways! And while all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, I think that for each of us there are different passages that really “grab” us.
In 2 Cor. 5:14 Paul writes, “Christ’s love compels us”. I want that! I want to be able to say that Christ’s love is the source or the motivator behind everything I do!
The American Heritage Dictionary defines compel this way:
1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: “The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people”.
Some people may have a hard time with the word “force” in these definitions. I don’t think we need to get hung up on that word. Maybe a better word would be motivated or moved. Imagine allowing Christ’s love to rule our hearts or to be such a strong part of our lives that it was the driving motivation behind everything we did, every decision we made.
The problem is that there are so many other “compelling” voices that we allow to speak into our hearts and our lives. Fear, the opinions and judgments of others, past sins, our environment, and the list goes on and on. For whatever reason we give these voices more value than they deserve. If we were able to recognize the love of God, the love of Christ for what it really is, then all these other voices would shrivel and be silenced.
Clearly, I recognize that this is easier said than accepted! My point isn’t to condemn you or me for failing to recognize this, but encouraging us to do so! I don’t know what you are struggling with today, but I want to ask, “What is it that compels you in that struggle”? What compels you in your relationships, in your school work, in your social time, in your worries, in your joys?
My prayer is that each of us is able to recognize and accept the abundance of God’s love to such an extent that it would compel the way we view ourselves, the way we view others, the decisions we make and our actions!
In 2 Cor. 5:14 Paul writes, “Christ’s love compels us”. I want that! I want to be able to say that Christ’s love is the source or the motivator behind everything I do!
The American Heritage Dictionary defines compel this way:
1. To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission.
2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: An energy crisis compels fuel conservation
3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway: “The land, in a certain, very real way, compels the minds of the people”.
Some people may have a hard time with the word “force” in these definitions. I don’t think we need to get hung up on that word. Maybe a better word would be motivated or moved. Imagine allowing Christ’s love to rule our hearts or to be such a strong part of our lives that it was the driving motivation behind everything we did, every decision we made.
The problem is that there are so many other “compelling” voices that we allow to speak into our hearts and our lives. Fear, the opinions and judgments of others, past sins, our environment, and the list goes on and on. For whatever reason we give these voices more value than they deserve. If we were able to recognize the love of God, the love of Christ for what it really is, then all these other voices would shrivel and be silenced.
Clearly, I recognize that this is easier said than accepted! My point isn’t to condemn you or me for failing to recognize this, but encouraging us to do so! I don’t know what you are struggling with today, but I want to ask, “What is it that compels you in that struggle”? What compels you in your relationships, in your school work, in your social time, in your worries, in your joys?
My prayer is that each of us is able to recognize and accept the abundance of God’s love to such an extent that it would compel the way we view ourselves, the way we view others, the decisions we make and our actions!
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
American Idol and The State of The Union
Watching the Fox channel last night was like listening to an ipod on shuffle and going from a Hillary Duff song to a Bob Dylan song. There is probably no good way to transition from American Idol (especially the audition episodes) to the State of The Union Address. As different as the two programs might be, I was surprised to recognize some similarities. Here are a few (I would love to hear your additions):
- The audience for both is probably depressingly the same size, or Idol's is larger.
- Everyone is excited before the Idol auditions, but after the auditions about half leave in tears or angry. In the same way everyone seems happy and cheerful before the State of the Union, but afterwards you find half the people are happy or at least content and the other half is ticked off.
- Regardless of your political views you have to admit that Bush is about as uncomfortable giving a speech as most of the people performing auditions for Idol. (though Bush has gotten much better!)
- Just like I don't to watch the Idol auditions for the singing but for the response of the judges, I am more interested in hearing what the pundits say after the speech than the speech itself (I don't necessarily respect the pundits, they are just more interesting).
- Just like the auditions for Idol are usually filled with musical fluff (how many can try out with a Celine Dion song, etc), the State of The Union is generally filled with political fluff.
- Just like the facial reactions and expressions of Simon, Randy and Paula are more interesting than the auditions themselves, so is the response of congress (who could miss Hillary Clinton's smug smile and head shake) more interesting than the address itself.
- The goofy opening title for American Idol is a little more overstated than the opening titles for the news shows, but only a little.
- The only thing that I wish was a little more similar is that I wish the guy that says "Ladies and Gentlemen, The President of The United States" was as fake cool as Ryan Seacrest.
- Oh, and maybe instead of Bush saying "And may God Bless America" (tradition I know) he could say "Bushy Out"! (its more politically correct anyway)
Thursday, January 26, 2006
I'm Not Perfect, but God's Grace Is
I have had a conversation with a couple of different people over the last several weeks that have lead me to read the following excerpt from Eugene Peterson’s book God’s Message For Each Day in a unique way. Peterson writes,
“Michelangelo sculpted in marble what many Jews and Christians have carved in their imaginations—a flawless David, the spirited human body in perfection. But the Biblical text does not give us a flawless David. Putting people on pedestals is a way of not having to deal with who they really are (and who the God working in them really is). The Biblical narrator insists on telling us everything bad about David . . . The narrator refuses to idealize or glamorize him to show that God’s sovereignty works through just such a mixed bag of human failure and sin.”
Obviously, Peterson intends for us to consider times that we place others on a pedestal and are need to repent of that. However, I also think there is great application to the way that we perceive ourselves and the way we allow others to perceive us! If we allow ourselves to think that we have everything under control or to allow others to perceive us in the same way is to discount the fact that we rely on God for everything! Remember that God never calls us to be God! In fact, generally speaking, this was the desire of Adam and Eve that lead to the fall. Peterson writes, "God’s sovereignty works through a mixed bag of human failure and sin". Paul put it this way “But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.” God’s strength is shown in our weakness! We must quit pretending we have it all together. We must treat ourselves and others with grace and understanding. God does!
“Michelangelo sculpted in marble what many Jews and Christians have carved in their imaginations—a flawless David, the spirited human body in perfection. But the Biblical text does not give us a flawless David. Putting people on pedestals is a way of not having to deal with who they really are (and who the God working in them really is). The Biblical narrator insists on telling us everything bad about David . . . The narrator refuses to idealize or glamorize him to show that God’s sovereignty works through just such a mixed bag of human failure and sin.”
Obviously, Peterson intends for us to consider times that we place others on a pedestal and are need to repent of that. However, I also think there is great application to the way that we perceive ourselves and the way we allow others to perceive us! If we allow ourselves to think that we have everything under control or to allow others to perceive us in the same way is to discount the fact that we rely on God for everything! Remember that God never calls us to be God! In fact, generally speaking, this was the desire of Adam and Eve that lead to the fall. Peterson writes, "God’s sovereignty works through a mixed bag of human failure and sin". Paul put it this way “But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.” God’s strength is shown in our weakness! We must quit pretending we have it all together. We must treat ourselves and others with grace and understanding. God does!
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Piper and Passion
Here is an email that I recieved from a college student about John Piper's words at Passion 06 and his cancer announcement and my response to some of his questions.
The Student's Email:
If you've not read his announcement letter to his congregation I have included a link here. In fact, you might want to read that now as the rest of the e-mail won't make much sense without the context of the letter.The letter is consistent with the theological tenets of Calvinism (we could have both assumed that before reading the letter). However, as I finished the letter I began thinking about one idea in particular regarding the following sentence: "God has designed this trial for my good and for your good" (emphasis mine). I don't know for sure which point of the five a statement like this can be justified by, but right now that is not important to corresponding questions I will pose. My question is essentially this: doesn't John Piper have a more "total" or "complete" faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering? This is opposite of the view that I would espouse: God didn't design this trial but rather allowed this trial to happen for the purposes of His glory. Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting. I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan? At this point I am pretty confused. The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident. I do not feel like I could say a sentence with the same gravitas under the banner of Arminianism.That was a terribly long paragraph, and it was probably very opaque, but I hope it communicated what I am feeling. I honestly disagree with many of the tenets of Calvinism but if Calvinism allows Dr. Piper to say that God authors the good and bad in our lives then it deserves a second look in my opinion. I suppose what this comes down to is this: is what Dr. Piper is saying biblical? Can we really use the words ordained and allowed interchangabely when speaking about God's sovereignty with respect to sin?
Here is my response:
I am going to work through some of your statements one by one and hopefully that will help organize thought. But I want to start by including some quotes from an article written by some of my seminary professors that will help give some background. The whole article can be found here.
Consider the words of Baptist leader Albert Mohler: "The God of the Bible is the holy ruling, limitless, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes his purposes and who redeems his people. Arminianism-the theological system opposed to Calvinism-necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, his power, and his government over all things."
Mohler is surely right in underscoring the very different views of God in these opposing theological systems, but we believe he is mistaken in thinking that the primary difference pertains to how we understand the power of God. We believe the heart of the matter is how we understand the character of God. The issue is not how powerful God is, but what it means to say that he is perfectly loving and good. This difference does indeed affect our understanding of God's "government over all things," but it is not most fundamentally a matter of how much power we think God has.
We are in full agreement with Calvinists and other orthodox Christians that God is supremely powerful. God's power has been displayed in unmistakable and breathtaking splendor in creation (Job 38-41; Ps 8:3-4; 19:1-6). The vast size and complexity of our universe, with its countless galaxies, are all the proof we need that God has supreme power and knowledge. Moreover, God has demonstrated his power on the stage of human history by his acts of special revelation, culminating in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Ex 15:1-18; Josh 23:1-3; Jer 1:9-10; Rom 1:4; 6:4; Eph 1:20).
Furthermore, we agree that God could have created a world in which he precisely controlled and determined all things, including the choices of human beings. But we believe such a world would make true human love impossible. True human love requires libertarian freedom.
If we think of the issue only in terms of power, the question is naturally framed in terms of what God could do; but if we think of it in terms of God's character, the focus shifts to what he would do. And it is clear to us that if God determined all things, including our choices, he would not determine the sort of evil and atrocities that we have witnessed in history. Nor would many, perhaps even most, of the human race ultimately be separated from the love of God and lost forever. Indeed, if God determined everything, none would be lost (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). Again, if it is a matter of sheer power, it is plausible that God could create a world in which many would be lost. But the God of holy love not only would not, but could not.
In a fascinating historical study, British theologian Colin Gunton identifies key points at which he believes some central Christian doctrines got off track. One particularly interesting development is that in Western theology since Augustine, "the theme of love becomes subordinate to that of will." Gunton sees this manifested in the way the doctrine of double predestination is understood in some traditions. Part of the fundamental problem, Gunton believes, is a deficient understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity above all shows that God necessarily exists in an eternal relationship of perfect love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God's will must always be understood as an expression of his essential nature of perfect love (Mk 1:11; Jn 3:34-35; 5:19-20; 17:20-26). Because he has such a nature, he genuinely loves all persons and genuinely invites them to share his love (Jn 3:16; 14:19-21, 23; l Jn 2:2; 4:7-12).
Writing in The Reformed Journal, Calvinist John Piper recognizes the possibility that God may not choose his sons for salvation, but he insists that he would adore God even in that case. We acknowledged that we have a certain admiration for Piper, although we profoundly disagree with his understanding of the character of God. This, we suggest, serves as a good test case for those who still may be trying to make up their mind on Calvinism. Does Piper's attitude reflect piety at its best, or is it deeply at odds with God's character revealed in Scripture? Interestingly, the title of the article in which Piper insists on adoring a God who might consign his sons to hell is "How Does a Sovereign God Love?" We believe Piper has the question backward and that his article reflects the unfortunate subordination of love to will that Gunton identifies. Given the full revelation of God in Scripture, the question we should be asking is, how would a God of perfect love express his sovereignty?
When love is subordinated to will, then the fatherhood of God, which is emphasized in the Trinity (Mk 1:11; Jn 1:18; 5:19-20; 17:20-26; 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20-28), takes a back seat to the image of God as King or Ruler. God's essential relational nature as a being who exists in three persons becomes secondary to the notion that God is a sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted.
Does God love all of us and desire our well-being? We believe that Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative without equivocation and inconsistency. The breathtaking vision of God's trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. While Scripture teaches that not all will come, the Calvinist account of why this is so ultimately goes back to God's choice not to save those persons rather than their refusal to accept the invitation. Indeed, Calvinists hold that God's sovereign choice not to save some sinners enhances his glory.
God is truly and fully glorified when his nature is brought to clearest light and he is properly worshiped and adored. It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament when the temple was dedicated, the Levites praised God by singing of his goodness and everlasting love and mercy. As they did, the temple was filled with the glory of God (2 Chron 5:11-14; 7:1-4). This glory was shown most fully when the Son of God took on a temple of flesh and lived among us (Jn 1:14-18; 14:8-11; Phil 2:5-11; 1 Jn 4:l-12).
Ok, so there is a start! I am going to take your questions one by one and try to respond to them!
1. “Doesn’t John Piper have a more “total” or “complete” faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering”?
a. I don’t want to get into a faith contest with Dr. Piper (or anyone else for that matter). I really don’t believe this is a faith in God issue. Now, you might be able to argue that this is a faith in God’s sovereignty, power, goodness or love issue. At that point we have gotten more specific than just faith in God.
b. I do think that you could argue that Piper’s perspective makes faith easier or more simple, but that doesn’t make it true. And I wouldn’t agree that this perspective is easier anyway! It might be easier to understand God’s sovereignty this way, but it makes understanding God as having a character of love VERY difficult! Additionally, I don’t think you have to give up a faith in God’s ultimate and absolute power to accept the Armenian view of God (hopefully this is clear as I continue answering questions).
2. “The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident.”
a. I could argue a lot of things with arguments that sound confident, but that doesn’t make them truth, so be careful when allowing that to shape your critical thinking. And I don’t mean this to just apply to Piper’s language here, but to anything that you hear. In fact, it is important to keep this in mind as you read what I am writing! Neither one of us is God (obviously) and if we sound too confident that might be a good time to read and listen even more critically!!!
3. “Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting.”
a. I would be hesitant to base your pursuit of truth on whether or not something agrees with everything you have been told in the past. Now, hear me clearly on this, your past experience, lessons etc. should play a large role in your discernment process! But truth, not the past should be your ultimate pursuit. In the same way, I think it is even more dangerous to base your pursuit of truth on that which sounds appealing (or reassuring)!!! This is why the church struggles so much with liberal theology!
b. Let me assure you, the Bible makes it clear that there is nothing that is beyond the realm of God!!! I understand your comments about the former statement being more reassuring than the latter on the surface. Here is the problem. I believe that God wants what is best for us! I don’t think that in the beginning sin was necessary in order for God to glorify himself and receive glory. In fact, in the beginning “it was good”. I don’t think sin or evil was ever God’s desire (there is nowhere in the Bible that even hints at God being the author of evil! The Job scripture is a stretch at best, see below. The logic that Piper used to get there required a couple of assumptions based on a Scripture from Revelation, which is written in apocalyptic language which tends towards a poetic style. Reading this type of literature literally instead of poetically and figuratively is what got the Jewish leaders in trouble, and I believe is the primary reason that they didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah). On the other hand, I think the consequences of sin were part of God’s created order. At the point that we (Adam and Eve) decided that we didn’t need God or that we could be god’s on our own the consequences of sin became a form of grace!!! The pain that we feel apart from God reminds us of our utter dependence on him. Notice that this is very different than God causing pain. It is not caused by God, but is a consequence of our sin (which God uses to reveal our dependence on him). If Adam and Eve had not sinned there would be no need for this reminder because it would not have been called into question.
c. In light of all of this, I find the fact that God can use that which was meant for evil (by Satan and by Adam and Eve, whether they recognized it or not) for good reveals his supremacy and grace just as fully and clearly, if not more so, than to say that God ordains evil or suffering. So does God use our suffering for his glory and grace and goodness? YES!! Does God originate that evil suffering, etc? NO!! (I don’t think his character allows that).
d. I think it is important to clarify my theology of the fall. I think too often we assume the fall was simply about humans. However, the Bible makes clear that the fall “infected” or affected all creation! Paul writes in Romans 8:18-25: “18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. In light of this scripture I would argue that hurricanes, tsunami’s, sickness, death, etc. are not ultimately God’s will but a God instituted (or ordained if you will) consequence of the fall that serve as reminders of our dependence on God.
e. This is from The Word Biblical Commentary Romans Volume:
i. “God subjected all things to Adam [in Genesis], and that included subjecting creation to fallen Adam, to share in his falleness . . . [this also] has the furthering effect of emphasizing that creation’s present condition is not the result of chance or fate but deliberately so ordered by God—precisely because it is not an end of God’s dealings but a stage in his purpose, the means by which the self-destructiveness of sin can be drawn out and destroyed, and creation restored to it’s proper function as the environment for God’s restored children [new heaven and new earth].”
ii. “The same character of creation-bound existence which causes some to despair, seen from another angle becomes ground for hope . Looked at in terms of man’s vaunted independence from God the future for the world is bleak. But seen in terms of the creator’s purpose, the present state of affairs is not all there is to look forward to; the goal of the created order will be determined by God, not by the puny mind of man. As the suffering of believers becomes a ground of hope because it is experienced as the formation of character and renewal of the inner man, so the out-of-jointedness of creation itself is testimony that it was not always intended to be thus. From the beginning the primal-time subjection to futility had the final-time fulfillment of God’s original purpose for man and his habitation in view. Even in it’s futility creation is still God’s.
4. “I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan?”
a. First of all the way God works is not dependent on how I wish he would work!
b. In light of that, I will answer your question and say that I absolutely would not rather have God authoring evil than Satan!!!!! While I wish that Satan had NO authority, I have to recognize that the authority that he has is authority that he has gained as a result of our sin. We clearly have an enemy that has the authority to tempt. I can’t imagine reading the Bible and arguing that Satan is not at work in the world (you can’t get through chapter 3 of Genesis with that perspective). If God is authoring evil, then you can’t argue that God’s character is love (this is what the article above argue). At the same time, to say that God allows evil (evil must be allowed as a possibility if Adam and Eve are to have free will) does not mean that he is not sovereign. It is a matter of God’s choice (in his sovereignty). God can be all love and all good and allow pain/suffering/etc, but I think it is much harder to argue that God can be all love and all good and create pain/suffering/et. (Again, truth is not contingent on how easy or hard it is to argue something, so that works both ways).
I want to be clear that while I disagree with Piper’s statement I must confess that I don’t have it all figured out!! It would be arrogant to suppose that I could. I have learned that theology is almost never simple (God is far too big for that). Additionaly, I have great respect for Dr. Piper and have appreciated and will continue to appreciate his challenging words! I will pray for him as he goes through this difficult time, and I believe that to be the bottom line here! John is a brother in Christ and I pray for complete healing.
Let me know your feedback, if you have questions, and if there are holes in my argument (and I am sure there are) or if I have contradicted myself in anyway!
The Student's Email:
If you've not read his announcement letter to his congregation I have included a link here. In fact, you might want to read that now as the rest of the e-mail won't make much sense without the context of the letter.The letter is consistent with the theological tenets of Calvinism (we could have both assumed that before reading the letter). However, as I finished the letter I began thinking about one idea in particular regarding the following sentence: "God has designed this trial for my good and for your good" (emphasis mine). I don't know for sure which point of the five a statement like this can be justified by, but right now that is not important to corresponding questions I will pose. My question is essentially this: doesn't John Piper have a more "total" or "complete" faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering? This is opposite of the view that I would espouse: God didn't design this trial but rather allowed this trial to happen for the purposes of His glory. Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting. I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan? At this point I am pretty confused. The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident. I do not feel like I could say a sentence with the same gravitas under the banner of Arminianism.That was a terribly long paragraph, and it was probably very opaque, but I hope it communicated what I am feeling. I honestly disagree with many of the tenets of Calvinism but if Calvinism allows Dr. Piper to say that God authors the good and bad in our lives then it deserves a second look in my opinion. I suppose what this comes down to is this: is what Dr. Piper is saying biblical? Can we really use the words ordained and allowed interchangabely when speaking about God's sovereignty with respect to sin?
Here is my response:
I am going to work through some of your statements one by one and hopefully that will help organize thought. But I want to start by including some quotes from an article written by some of my seminary professors that will help give some background. The whole article can be found here.
Consider the words of Baptist leader Albert Mohler: "The God of the Bible is the holy ruling, limitless, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes his purposes and who redeems his people. Arminianism-the theological system opposed to Calvinism-necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, his power, and his government over all things."
Mohler is surely right in underscoring the very different views of God in these opposing theological systems, but we believe he is mistaken in thinking that the primary difference pertains to how we understand the power of God. We believe the heart of the matter is how we understand the character of God. The issue is not how powerful God is, but what it means to say that he is perfectly loving and good. This difference does indeed affect our understanding of God's "government over all things," but it is not most fundamentally a matter of how much power we think God has.
We are in full agreement with Calvinists and other orthodox Christians that God is supremely powerful. God's power has been displayed in unmistakable and breathtaking splendor in creation (Job 38-41; Ps 8:3-4; 19:1-6). The vast size and complexity of our universe, with its countless galaxies, are all the proof we need that God has supreme power and knowledge. Moreover, God has demonstrated his power on the stage of human history by his acts of special revelation, culminating in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Ex 15:1-18; Josh 23:1-3; Jer 1:9-10; Rom 1:4; 6:4; Eph 1:20).
Furthermore, we agree that God could have created a world in which he precisely controlled and determined all things, including the choices of human beings. But we believe such a world would make true human love impossible. True human love requires libertarian freedom.
If we think of the issue only in terms of power, the question is naturally framed in terms of what God could do; but if we think of it in terms of God's character, the focus shifts to what he would do. And it is clear to us that if God determined all things, including our choices, he would not determine the sort of evil and atrocities that we have witnessed in history. Nor would many, perhaps even most, of the human race ultimately be separated from the love of God and lost forever. Indeed, if God determined everything, none would be lost (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). Again, if it is a matter of sheer power, it is plausible that God could create a world in which many would be lost. But the God of holy love not only would not, but could not.
In a fascinating historical study, British theologian Colin Gunton identifies key points at which he believes some central Christian doctrines got off track. One particularly interesting development is that in Western theology since Augustine, "the theme of love becomes subordinate to that of will." Gunton sees this manifested in the way the doctrine of double predestination is understood in some traditions. Part of the fundamental problem, Gunton believes, is a deficient understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity above all shows that God necessarily exists in an eternal relationship of perfect love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God's will must always be understood as an expression of his essential nature of perfect love (Mk 1:11; Jn 3:34-35; 5:19-20; 17:20-26). Because he has such a nature, he genuinely loves all persons and genuinely invites them to share his love (Jn 3:16; 14:19-21, 23; l Jn 2:2; 4:7-12).
Writing in The Reformed Journal, Calvinist John Piper recognizes the possibility that God may not choose his sons for salvation, but he insists that he would adore God even in that case. We acknowledged that we have a certain admiration for Piper, although we profoundly disagree with his understanding of the character of God. This, we suggest, serves as a good test case for those who still may be trying to make up their mind on Calvinism. Does Piper's attitude reflect piety at its best, or is it deeply at odds with God's character revealed in Scripture? Interestingly, the title of the article in which Piper insists on adoring a God who might consign his sons to hell is "How Does a Sovereign God Love?" We believe Piper has the question backward and that his article reflects the unfortunate subordination of love to will that Gunton identifies. Given the full revelation of God in Scripture, the question we should be asking is, how would a God of perfect love express his sovereignty?
When love is subordinated to will, then the fatherhood of God, which is emphasized in the Trinity (Mk 1:11; Jn 1:18; 5:19-20; 17:20-26; 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20-28), takes a back seat to the image of God as King or Ruler. God's essential relational nature as a being who exists in three persons becomes secondary to the notion that God is a sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted.
Does God love all of us and desire our well-being? We believe that Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative without equivocation and inconsistency. The breathtaking vision of God's trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. While Scripture teaches that not all will come, the Calvinist account of why this is so ultimately goes back to God's choice not to save those persons rather than their refusal to accept the invitation. Indeed, Calvinists hold that God's sovereign choice not to save some sinners enhances his glory.
God is truly and fully glorified when his nature is brought to clearest light and he is properly worshiped and adored. It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament when the temple was dedicated, the Levites praised God by singing of his goodness and everlasting love and mercy. As they did, the temple was filled with the glory of God (2 Chron 5:11-14; 7:1-4). This glory was shown most fully when the Son of God took on a temple of flesh and lived among us (Jn 1:14-18; 14:8-11; Phil 2:5-11; 1 Jn 4:l-12).
Ok, so there is a start! I am going to take your questions one by one and try to respond to them!
1. “Doesn’t John Piper have a more “total” or “complete” faith in God if he can say that God is in fact designing these trials he is encountering”?
a. I don’t want to get into a faith contest with Dr. Piper (or anyone else for that matter). I really don’t believe this is a faith in God issue. Now, you might be able to argue that this is a faith in God’s sovereignty, power, goodness or love issue. At that point we have gotten more specific than just faith in God.
b. I do think that you could argue that Piper’s perspective makes faith easier or more simple, but that doesn’t make it true. And I wouldn’t agree that this perspective is easier anyway! It might be easier to understand God’s sovereignty this way, but it makes understanding God as having a character of love VERY difficult! Additionally, I don’t think you have to give up a faith in God’s ultimate and absolute power to accept the Armenian view of God (hopefully this is clear as I continue answering questions).
2. “The sentence by Dr. Piper I quoted earlier in the e-mail sounds so reassuring -- it sounds confident.”
a. I could argue a lot of things with arguments that sound confident, but that doesn’t make them truth, so be careful when allowing that to shape your critical thinking. And I don’t mean this to just apply to Piper’s language here, but to anything that you hear. In fact, it is important to keep this in mind as you read what I am writing! Neither one of us is God (obviously) and if we sound too confident that might be a good time to read and listen even more critically!!!
3. “Everything about Dr. Piper's statement is contradictory to what I have learned but it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pray and say the following words: "God, I know you are sovereign and I have utter faith that you have designed this trial for me in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." It sounds a lot more reassuring than the following: "God I know you are sovereign and I understand you have allowed this trial to happen in order to more fully reveal the glory of your grace." In the former I feel there is substantially more recognition of the supremeness of God, whereas in the latter I feel like some other being has caused this affliction. In fact, it feels beyond the realm of God which is discomforting.”
a. I would be hesitant to base your pursuit of truth on whether or not something agrees with everything you have been told in the past. Now, hear me clearly on this, your past experience, lessons etc. should play a large role in your discernment process! But truth, not the past should be your ultimate pursuit. In the same way, I think it is even more dangerous to base your pursuit of truth on that which sounds appealing (or reassuring)!!! This is why the church struggles so much with liberal theology!
b. Let me assure you, the Bible makes it clear that there is nothing that is beyond the realm of God!!! I understand your comments about the former statement being more reassuring than the latter on the surface. Here is the problem. I believe that God wants what is best for us! I don’t think that in the beginning sin was necessary in order for God to glorify himself and receive glory. In fact, in the beginning “it was good”. I don’t think sin or evil was ever God’s desire (there is nowhere in the Bible that even hints at God being the author of evil! The Job scripture is a stretch at best, see below. The logic that Piper used to get there required a couple of assumptions based on a Scripture from Revelation, which is written in apocalyptic language which tends towards a poetic style. Reading this type of literature literally instead of poetically and figuratively is what got the Jewish leaders in trouble, and I believe is the primary reason that they didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah). On the other hand, I think the consequences of sin were part of God’s created order. At the point that we (Adam and Eve) decided that we didn’t need God or that we could be god’s on our own the consequences of sin became a form of grace!!! The pain that we feel apart from God reminds us of our utter dependence on him. Notice that this is very different than God causing pain. It is not caused by God, but is a consequence of our sin (which God uses to reveal our dependence on him). If Adam and Eve had not sinned there would be no need for this reminder because it would not have been called into question.
c. In light of all of this, I find the fact that God can use that which was meant for evil (by Satan and by Adam and Eve, whether they recognized it or not) for good reveals his supremacy and grace just as fully and clearly, if not more so, than to say that God ordains evil or suffering. So does God use our suffering for his glory and grace and goodness? YES!! Does God originate that evil suffering, etc? NO!! (I don’t think his character allows that).
d. I think it is important to clarify my theology of the fall. I think too often we assume the fall was simply about humans. However, the Bible makes clear that the fall “infected” or affected all creation! Paul writes in Romans 8:18-25: “18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. In light of this scripture I would argue that hurricanes, tsunami’s, sickness, death, etc. are not ultimately God’s will but a God instituted (or ordained if you will) consequence of the fall that serve as reminders of our dependence on God.
e. This is from The Word Biblical Commentary Romans Volume:
i. “God subjected all things to Adam [in Genesis], and that included subjecting creation to fallen Adam, to share in his falleness . . . [this also] has the furthering effect of emphasizing that creation’s present condition is not the result of chance or fate but deliberately so ordered by God—precisely because it is not an end of God’s dealings but a stage in his purpose, the means by which the self-destructiveness of sin can be drawn out and destroyed, and creation restored to it’s proper function as the environment for God’s restored children [new heaven and new earth].”
ii. “The same character of creation-bound existence which causes some to despair, seen from another angle becomes ground for hope . Looked at in terms of man’s vaunted independence from God the future for the world is bleak. But seen in terms of the creator’s purpose, the present state of affairs is not all there is to look forward to; the goal of the created order will be determined by God, not by the puny mind of man. As the suffering of believers becomes a ground of hope because it is experienced as the formation of character and renewal of the inner man, so the out-of-jointedness of creation itself is testimony that it was not always intended to be thus. From the beginning the primal-time subjection to futility had the final-time fulfillment of God’s original purpose for man and his habitation in view. Even in it’s futility creation is still God’s.
4. “I understand that it seems odd to say that God is the author of evil as well as good but how about this question. Would you rather have God authoring evil than Satan?”
a. First of all the way God works is not dependent on how I wish he would work!
b. In light of that, I will answer your question and say that I absolutely would not rather have God authoring evil than Satan!!!!! While I wish that Satan had NO authority, I have to recognize that the authority that he has is authority that he has gained as a result of our sin. We clearly have an enemy that has the authority to tempt. I can’t imagine reading the Bible and arguing that Satan is not at work in the world (you can’t get through chapter 3 of Genesis with that perspective). If God is authoring evil, then you can’t argue that God’s character is love (this is what the article above argue). At the same time, to say that God allows evil (evil must be allowed as a possibility if Adam and Eve are to have free will) does not mean that he is not sovereign. It is a matter of God’s choice (in his sovereignty). God can be all love and all good and allow pain/suffering/etc, but I think it is much harder to argue that God can be all love and all good and create pain/suffering/et. (Again, truth is not contingent on how easy or hard it is to argue something, so that works both ways).
I want to be clear that while I disagree with Piper’s statement I must confess that I don’t have it all figured out!! It would be arrogant to suppose that I could. I have learned that theology is almost never simple (God is far too big for that). Additionaly, I have great respect for Dr. Piper and have appreciated and will continue to appreciate his challenging words! I will pray for him as he goes through this difficult time, and I believe that to be the bottom line here! John is a brother in Christ and I pray for complete healing.
Let me know your feedback, if you have questions, and if there are holes in my argument (and I am sure there are) or if I have contradicted myself in anyway!