I saw this on youtube and thought you might like to see it.
First of all, John 3:16. Secondly, we're "adopted" as sons and daughters. The first-born of many is a qualitative statement as much as it is and quantitative. That means he isn't just another random human who opened the way and now serves no purpose but par excellence model (Schleiermacher).
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Supernatural Operation
The human brain is the most complex thing on this planet. Atheists and theists fight over what the brain is. Is the "soul" just the brain's "consciousness"? Mystery is often attributed to the supernatural. The less people know about science, the more they attribute to the gods. So, this concept is often then used to disprove religion. For instance, there is an argument that near-death experiences which tell of a mysterious "white light" are proof of the after-life. Some scientific evidence seems to show that these may be due to a lack of oxygen. This lack of oxygen causes the brain to reduce it's activity to it's innermost parts (which also happen to be the more primitive parts of the brain). So the "white light" is simply the result of the brain closing down to the simplest state in order to still run. Okay, so should we chalk this up to another win for atheists? There's just one problem with this. On the same program where I heard all these things I'm discussing, there was a man who told a story that fits with this situation. He said that he had an "out-of-body" experience while being operated on. He said that he hovered over his body while it was being operated on. Okay, so you're probably thinking that he's crazy. Well, he remembers some things about the surgery that would seem impossible to know unless somehow his consciousness was able to exit his body.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Watch The Offering Plate: A Response
The following is a comment I left on a blog on myspace. Two of the current top 10 blog posts on myspace are from atheists. Atheism has a strong following on the internet sort of like Ron Paul had. Neither carry over with much veracity. Atheism is pride taken to the extreme. It's for the elites with their post-graduate degrees and their high horses. It's for those who love themselves, their own works, and their own minds so blindly that they can't see how simple the message of Jesus is. How true he is. How good he is.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rob Bell Response
This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Problem of Evil
Ever since I learned about the problem of evil as a theology student it has plagued me. They call it the “heart of atheism.” Specifically, the death camps of WW2 have been used to “prove” or illustrate that there can be no God. Quickly, let me go over the problem of evil for those who aren’t familiar with it (technically). I write technically because you are familiar with it whether you know the technical term or not.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
