POC Blog

The random technotheolosophical blogging of Reid S. Monaghan

Athletes in Action Northeast Winter Retreat

This past weekend our whole fam was able to get away with some athletes from all over the Northeast. I was teaching a series of four messages about Jesus from the gospels and was also able to lead a Q&A discussion on some varied subjects theological and biblical. 

I wanted to link to a few of the seminars given during the weekend here on the POCBlog

  • Student Body - some reflection on a Christian theology of our physical bodies by David Buschman - AIA leader at Princeton University.
  • Sharing the Gospel - some reflections on evangelism by Jarrod Lynn, leader of AIA at Brown University. 

A few relavant links to some discussions that came up during my teaching and various discussions

Many thanks to all the staff, volunteers and students at the AIA Retreat. Athletes in Action is a spiritual home of sorts for Kasey and me.  It was great to have our kids - 9, 7 and 4 around the sort of environment I grew up in spiritually as a college student and one that Kasey and I served in full time from 1996-2004. 

Jesus...Fully God, Fully Human

Paul’s letter to the Colossians is a short letter with a singular focus.  He wants us to see that Jesus is enough for God’s people.  In the middle of Chapter 1 he goes to some length to explain to us who Jesus really is in all his glory.  In looking at what some have deemed the “Christ Hymn”1 of Colossians, we quite literally come to one of the mountaintop vistas in the entire Bible.  As Jesus is the central focus of the Bible (Luke 24:27) such clear and airy Christology2 found Colossians 1:15-20 is indeed one of the high points of the Bible.  This passage has been central to the church’s understanding of Jesus and has been part of a robust theological discussion over the years.

The Identity of Jesus in Early Church History

The identity of Jesus was of extreme importance to Christians in every era of history but was especially central to his earliest followers.  Jesus himself walked on the earth, lived his life with a community of people, preached, taught, was crucified and raised from death.  Jesus is truly a complex person. In the New Testament he is at once a very human, human being. At the same time he claimed to be God striding upon the soils of planet earth.  After his life, Jesus’s apostles and their associates wrote down his story, his teachings and eyewitness accounts3 of his death and resurrection in what we call the “Gospels” of the New Testament. There are four of these—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.4 In addition to these gospels there are various sections of the other New Testament writings which speak to the identity of Jesus. 

Early Controversies 

There was some debate among the early Christians as to whether Jesus was “more human” (ala Arianism—he was not fully God) or “more God.” (ala Docetism—a view that said he just appeared human). Some wanted to focus more on his humanity, others on his divinity and some wanted to keep the divine and human separated. There is good reason for this debate.  The Bible is vehemently and without equivocation monotheistic.  There is only one God (see Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5; Romans 3:30; Ephesians 4:4-6; James 2:19) and yet Jesus claims to be God and prays to God as his Father.  Something wonderful and different is up here! 

Historically, the truth of Jesus is found in the New Testament teaching.  Clarity on all this matters took some time, but a strong unity was forged in the early creeds and councils of the church.  The major controversy was between followers of Arias (who taught that Jesus was a created being and not eternal God) and those following the New Testament in holding God/Humanity of Jesus together in one person. This position’s leader was an Egyptian named Athanasius.  These two positions were debated at the Council of Nicea in AD 325.  This council was to resolve this debate about the nature of Jesus Christ and was not in any way a council that “gave the church the Bible” or any other of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code speculation.5

Theological Consensus

The council of Nicea resulted in a big thumbs down on Arias’ doctrines declaring them to be heresy.  The council also affirmed the biblical teaching with an early formation of the Nicene Creed.  This document was the statement around which Christians unified in relationship to the unique identity of the God of the Bible as a Triune being existing eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The following is just a snippet that may sound familiar to those who grew up in liturgical church traditions.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.  On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

The Nicene creed simply articulated the teaching of the Bible that Jesus was indeed God. More doctrinal precision was provided by the Chalcedonian definition in AD 451 which clarified the biblical teaching that Jesus was fully human and full God in one person.  He was not sort of human and really God or sort of God and kinda human.  The definition reads as follow.

Therefore, following the holy fathers [early church leaders/pastors], we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. 6

Though we might need a dictionary along with us to read the above, it is indeed an awesome statement.  The teachings of these creeds about Jesus are simply articulations of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and have played a unifying role in church history.7 In fact, all Christians from every tradition—Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical8 are in agreement on the truths of these creeds. Why? They come from the Bible which bears witness to this unique person. In fact, Jesus is revealed in the Scripture as the most unique person who ever lived. The following will be but a simple survey of some of the biblical teaching.

The Biblical Teaching

Jesus is not normal. Never was, never will be.  In fact, he is the most startling, unique, mysterious, glorious, compelling, magnetic, loving and true person who ever lived.  The Scriptures reveal to us both truths that Jesus was God and man.  The following will be a listing of some of the biblical teaching. 

He is man

In the Old Testament we are taught that the coming Messiah/Christ would be a human being (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6,7). Jesus fulfills this in every way. First, he was born into and grew up in a human family (Luke 1-2).  Second, he exhibits the full range of human emotions in the gospels. He was tired, hungry, thirsty and in his humanity he had limited knowledge (John 4:6-7 and 19:28, Mark 13:32).  Third, Philippians 2:6-8 clearly teaches that Jesus, though was in very nature God,  humbled himself and became human.  Fourth, He was tempted just as we are yet did not sin. (Matthew 4, Hebrews 4:15) Some erroneously teach that to be human means to be sinful.  Yet we see Jesus fully human without sin.  Finally, all the gospels record that Jesus bled and died on the cross.  It is simple for us to understand Jesus was an historical human being, yet some question whether this man was truly God incarnate.  The amount of biblical testimony to this second claim is actually massive in detail.  On we go to that happy trail.

He is God

Here we will provide a sketch of the testimony of Scripture as to the deity of Jesus along five major lines. For those who desire more I refer you to a couple of clear recent works that cover the issues in some detail.10

#1 He is clearly called God and divine names are attributed to Jesus

First, Jesus is called theos the Greek word for God in many places in the New Testament (John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20, 2 Peter 1:1). Second, he is called the Son of God in the gospels.  This is sometimes a misunderstood concept where many think this distinguishes Jesus from being God.  Philosopher Peter Kreeft makes the following observation that sheds light on how this title was understood.  Kreeft writes: Son of a dog, is a dog, son of an ape an ape, son of God, is God — Jews were Monotheistic, only one God—Son of God is the divine title of Jesus and everyone at his time understood this title to mean just that.Third, Jesus is called the Son of Man some 84 times in the gospels and is his most used title for himself. This title represents the perfection of humanity in the person of Jesus in contrast to the sinful nature of humanity in Adam.11 It is also a direct reference to the divine figure in Daniel 7 of the Old Testament.  Jesus used this to describe both his first and second coming. About his first coming he said, the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for people (Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28). As to his second coming, in direct reference to Daniel 7, he tells the high priest at his trial that the Son of Man will come again on the clouds of heaven.  At this he is accused of blasphemy because he had claimed to be God. See dialogue in Matthew 62-65. Finally, Jesus is called LORD, kurios, which is used for Yahweh in Greek translations of the Old Testament (Philippians 2:11, 1 Corinthians 2:8). 

# 2 Certain attributes of God are used to describe Jesus

There are certain characteristics about God that theologians calls his divine attributes. Some of these are directly predicated to Jesus as well.  Jesus is said to be unchanging (Hebrews 1:12, quoting Psalm 102:25-27, Hebrews 13:8) and all powerful (Philippians 3:20,21, Revelation 1:8) and eternal (Isaiah 9:6,7; Micah 5:2). 

# 3 Jesus does the works of God

Jesus is said to be the creator and providential sustainer of all  (Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:1-3). Furthermore, he is said to give eternal life and forgives sins that are against God (John 10:28, John 17:2, 1 John 2:25, Mark 2:5-12, Colossians 1:14, 3:13). Jesus’ miracles also confirm his power over nature, disease and death itself.

#4 He is worshipped as God by monotheistic people

The Scriptures are clear that the worship of anyone or anything is idolatry and the deepest of sins. Deuteronomy 6:13-15 teaches us that God’s people shall worship/fear only the Lord their God. Additionally, The Ten Commandments call us to worship only the God of the Bible and to reject idols and the worship of images (Exodus 20). Furthermore, the angels, various men and Jesus himself all understand that worship is exclusively for God (Angels in Revelation 19 and 22, Peter in Acts 10, Paul in Acts 14 and Jesus himself quotes Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during his own temptations in Matthew 4). So we find something amazing happening in the New Testament. Jesus is worshipped and he accepts worship without any hesitation at all (Matthew 2:11, John 9:35-39, Matthew 21:9-16, Luke 19.37-40 and Matthew 28:9,10, 17).  Even more amazing is that God the Father actually commands angels to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) and Jesus will be clearly worshipped in Heaven (Revelation 5). 

#5 He directly claimed to be God

His own testimony is that he is the pre-existing great I AM of Exodus 3 (John 8:58), he is one in essence with the Father (John 10:30), he existed with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) and he claims to be the divine Christ (Matthew 26:63,64). His enemies wanted him killed for blasphemy because he, a mere man, was clearly claiming to be God.  

The Unique Glory of Jesus

The wonder of Jesus Christ isn’t that he was a great moral teacher. He was.  The wonder of Jesus Christ is not that he was kind, loving and compassionate to the poor. He was. The glory is found in that God became poor and one of us. He desires to walk with us, teach us and lead us. The glory is that Jesus is worthy of worship because as the unique Son of God he gave his life for us. Some might make him too exalted and far away—less human. Some might seek to bring him down from heaven and make him just a slob like one of us.11 Dear friends, the path he gives us is much better.  He shares our humanity and lives with us by his Spirit as the divine, glorified and risen Savior. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords—he shall reign forever and we shall worship him.  He is worthy of all that we are.

Notes

1. See discussion in Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) See introductory section on Colossians 1:15.

2. Christology is the theological discipline dedicated to the study of the person (who he is) and work (what he has done) of Jesus the Christ.

3. See Richard Baukham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)

4. Matthew and John were among the twelve apostles.  Mark wrote down the apostle Peter’s account (see my introduction to Mark here http://www.powerofchange.org/storage/docs/nt_web_jw.pdf) and Luke was the traveling companion and missionary secretary of St. Paul.  Luke’s gospel, by its own prologue, was Luke’s job to pull together the Jesus story with some precision.

5. A simple, helpful book on all that schmack Darryl Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006).

6. Both the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition can readily be found online. Use the Bing or the Google and you’ll find these.  Or just go here—http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

7. For a thorough treatment on creeds and there use in the Christian tradition, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo-Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Good buy for the library.

8. For the continued Evangelical consensus on these issues see JI Packer and Thomas Oden, One Faith—The Evangelical Consensus (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004) 71-75.

9. Geisler and Hoffman, Why I am a Christian, Part 5, Chapter 13—Peter Kreeft Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001) 222-234. 

10. Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998) and Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2007)

11. Ben Witherington III, “The Christology of Jesus Revisited” in Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, To Everyone an Answer – The Case for the Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2004) 155

12. Lyrics by Eric Bazilian , One of Us, performed by Joan Osborne, 1995.

 

Staying in the arena

The following is a quote that perhaps many of you are familiar with. It is an excerpt from a speech given by the former president Theodore Roosevelt. It was given at the Sorbonne in Parish in 1910 during the years immediately after Roosevelt’s two terms as President (1901-1908). 

Though there is perhaps much to delight in and perhaps vehemently disagree with regarding Roosevelt and his views, his desire to be a doer and not merely a spectator or empty talker on the roads of life is commendable: 
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt, The Man in the Arena, 1910. Available online at http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
For those who further interest in Theodore, by all means begin here

Colossians series intro video

Subversion - Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians from Reid Monaghan on Vimeo.

Christ Jesus is Lord…

With such a simple phrase God was subverting the powers of the earth and raising up the kingdom of his chosen one. Throughout history humanity has ruled one another through kings and potentates, small sovereigns who made big claims to power, dominance and authority. Many more have been dominated and subjected by their fear of spirits, false religion and the basic forces of the world. Yet one king arrived humbly on the earth and went to the grave executed as a criminal. That same king arose triumphantly over death and then led a mission throughout the world by the power of the Spirit and the proclaiming of good news. This king was called kurios, Lord and Master, by subjects of the ancient empire that was Rome. To declare Jesus as kurios is hard enough for humanity that so often chooses self-exaltation; it was utterly subversive in a culture where only Caesar was due such title. Jesus subverted all powers and every empire and brought a new Kingdom of love and light under the rule and reign of God.

Join us in the new year for our study Subversion – Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians to see that the first and foremost ruler of all is the incarnate creator God himself. Jesus, the Lord…new teaching series beginning at Jacob’s Well on Sunday January 23rd

Introduction to Colossians

Subversion, Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians

I just finished up an introduction to Colossians for the peeps at Jacob’s Well.  We’ll be giving these out next Sunday but I thought some of you guys might enjoy here at the POCBlog. I would throw it up as a blog entry but it would be too long.  I would then break it up into a gigillion small blog entries but I have not the time to do that. So…I’ve put it in a PDF and linked it to the image above. 

Ecclesiastes in Song

Cake is going the distance and is sick of you…this is a great song illustrating the vanity of life under the Sun without God. Thanks to Ben V for passing this along.

All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it;the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:8-9

Christmas Letters for the Kids

Men,

I wanted to share something that I am doing at Christmas for my kids. Grandparents and relatives are kind and very generous with our kids at Christmas so Kase and I have never really given our kids presents. It was not some intentional thing we just never did with the first kid and so we just kept the practice of blessing them on their birthdays and not giving them any presents at Christmas. Anyway, this year I was praying about how I could give a piece of me to my kids as I dearly love each of them.

On Christmas Eve morning I got up early and spent some time writing each of them a personal Christmas letter. I read about this somewhere or heard about this practice from someone but I honestly cannot remember where. The letters included things I enjoyed doing with them during the past year, things I appreciate about their character, things about Christ and a little exhortation for areas I wanted to challenge them in.  I also put some custom graphics on the page that relate to nicknames/themes I have with them (a baby duck for Kayla, a piece of candy for my Sweetie Ky and a Knight for Sir Thomas).

I printed the letters and placed them in a large clasp envelope and personally addressed them to the kids. On Christmas Eve I placed them within the branches of our Christmas tree and they were giddy with excitement and wondering what they were. Kayla of course said, I bet they are letters from Daddy! Kylene said it could be artwork! One, I cannot recall which, said “It could be money!” I asked Kayla before bed if she would rather have money or a letter and she said “a letter of course” - I winked at her and we went to bed. 

It was such a delight to write them but it was even more of a delight to open them Christmas morning.  I had all of them climb into my lap and I read them one at a time to each child as the others listened. The moment was one of the sweetest I have had with the kids and I think they will remember this for a long time. At least until next year - as we agreed this is now a family tradition. 

I thought about posting a pdf of the letters here and then decided against it.  Those were for two little princesses and one little Knight and I think we’ll keep it that way :-)

How can you give yourself to your kids in the holiday season? Think it through and come up with an idea, maybe this one, that you can do together as you turn your hearts toward your children. 

Nonsense from a nontheist?

I ran across this video today by the late Carl Sagan on a blog by an atheist technology enthusiast. First, I want to say that I mean no disrespect to the dead, but I’m really unsure how such thinking is thought to be profound by those who should know better. This post is in no way meant as disrespect for Sagan the man - though I don’t understand why anyone would sue a company as perfect as Apple Computer or say some of the silly things he says in this video. 

Take a look:

The first short section (up until 1:09) is the only serious reflection and I found here with the final seven minutes dedicated towards Sagan’s seeming enthrallment with Hinduism. I do not intend to interact with Hindu thought here, but I will say that Sagan uses this jaunt to the east in order to arrive subtly where he begins - God(s) do not exist and they are the creation of the minds of humanity. 

Throughout this piece, Sagan acknowledges the universal human desire to find an explanation for our existence and the existence of all things.  He then, sadly, seems to dismiss this quest for an answer with a bit of philosophical hand waving. 

After acknowledging inflationary big bang theory, he goes on to recognize the question as to what existed before the beginning of matter/space/time.  As many societies in culture have posited at this point some sort of supernatural explanation (God or gods created it) Sagan then puts on a courageous hat and begins to discuss this answer.  In summary form his reasoning is as follows.

  • The universe appears by observation to have begun in the past at an event we call the big bang and has been expanding since that time. 
  • What was before this? This is our question. What caused our world? 
  • Theists answer - God(s) created it
  • Sagan then questions - if you are “courageous” you will ask “Where then did God come from” 

Let me stop us here for a moment.  This is a great question.  For indeed if there is an infinite regress of causes then we actually explain nothing.  What caused the universe? god! What caused that god? Another god! Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  I quite heartily agree with him at this point.  

At this point Sagan makes a move that I find quite strange and not very brights. He asks “Why not save a step” and just assume that the universe, not God(s), was always there eternal and uncaused. In other words, something seems to need to be eternal and uncaused, so why multiply entities beyond need. We need no God, we have an eternal, uncaused universe.  In philosophy, the eternal and uncaused would be seen as a necessary entity, something that is not contingent. Something whose existence does not depend on anything else…it just IS. 

Now, my simple question is this: Did he not begin this quest with a desire to understand our universe and its origin?  Saving a step is a wise principle in philosophy that was put forth by the Christian skeptic William of Ockham. Also known as the principle of parsimony, or Ockham’s razor, this teaches us that we do not need to provide complex explanations when a simpler one will do. We need not posit something else to explain the origin of the universe if the universe itself IS the answer. The problem with Sagan’s thought here is that we can actually study this universe and conclude several things.  

  • If the universe had origin, i.e., it began to exist, then we must not assume it’s eternal existence. This is why we ask: What caused the universe?
  • What exists before (logically prior) space-time requires a different sort of answer. An explanation that actually IS eternal (not based in time - which began at the beginning)
  • If the universe is made up completely of contingent things, it is therefore must be a contingent thing and not a necessary one. And no, this is not a fallacy of composition as contingency is an expansive property.
  • If matter/space-time/energy did not always exist, we know that it is not necessary. There has to be something else that IS necessary that provides its explanation. 
  • If we can infer from science (even big bang theory, ie there was a t=0 of the big bang) and philosophy that the universe is indeed finite in time, then it is not only wise to posit other explanations, reason would compel us to do so. After-all, Sagan admits in this video that the entire human species has been, is and will continue to be obsessed with this question - not simply dismiss it.

My question back to the disciples of men like Carl Sagan is this. Why are you avoiding the question with which you begin? The answer to the explanation of all things cannot be a contingent thing in itself - it must be eternal, uncaused and necessary. If we are courageous we will ask this question and not “save that step” for that is indeed how this game was started in the first place.  

So to answer Dr. Sagan’s initial questions directly:

  • Why not save a step and assume the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Because it is not unanswerable - it is only unanswerable to those who do not like certain kinds of answers. Such closed mindedness is not good philosophy.
  • Why not save a step and conclude the universe always existed? Because we can study the universe and see that it has not always existed. 

For those who hold to many forms of theism, the answer is “God created the universe” and we stop at the eternal, uncaused, necessary being that by his own will created all things. We do not posit an infinite regress of gods or universes; we do save our steps. We also do not create all the unnecessary steps of positing an infinite number of universes (as many do today) or an infinite number of gods (as many have and will continue to do). To do so would simply create some bushes to hide in from our most fundamental questions.  What we will do, however, is give metaphysical and theological answers to describe the nature of the one who creates nature.  A natural explanation is not and could not be coming at this point. Why? God is not creation. God is of a different category than the universe that we can indeed study with empirical science. God is other. God is God. 

For those who do not like such answers, for whatever tendentious reasons, I give you back to the philosophical sophisms given by Sagan. Bon appetit!

Visual Reflections on Ecclesiastes...

This fall at Jacob’s Well we have been tracking through the ancient wisdom literature known as the book of Ecclesiastes (from Greek through to Latin, which means Teacher of an Assembly or “Preacher”). It has been a great ride for our community.  Link to the series audio is online here

Here are a few visual reflections from our wrap up.  The first illustrates the inclusio of Ecclesiastes while the second is a wordle of the ESV text of Ecclesiastes created with Wordle.net.

The Great Inclusio of Ecclesiastes

 


Wordle of the Preacher’s Words

Using web stuff

In light of the below Christmas Eve rant, I thought it would be good to share how we use various social media and web stuff.  If you are on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, various bloggin stuff, I would love to hear how you use each.  Here is the way I use em.

The Facebook

I use Facebook very sparingly and for a relatively small range of functionality.  I post photos and videos I want friends and family to see - my smartphone does this in an integrated fashion making the process easy. I also interact with friends just sharing small likes and comments along the way.  I update my Facebook status from my Twitter feed but don’t do that on the FB site.  I do not do any games, applications which I have to join, etc. etc. If you ask me to take quizzes, surveys, play Zynga games I will simply delete those requests without any thought. I spend a very small time online with Facebook but utilize the site daily. 

The Twitter

I am ambivalent about Twitter. I used to read RSS feeds in a feed reader but I find myself rarely doing so these days do to browsing my Twitter feed.  I use Twitter to read news from various sources, read links from interesting people and to interact with friends in a fully public way. As mentioned above I update my Facebook status from Twitter so I do tweet basic life stuff from time to time. I also use it to announce stuff, post links to resources and throw up pics through my webOS twitter app.  I follow only a few people I do not know personally. If I do not know them I usually follow if they have some expertise in some field in which I am interested.  I sometimes want to converse with people on Twitter and interact with stuff people tweet. I find Twitter terrible for such interaction and better for just blasting stuff out to the masses. I spend too much time each day reading my Twitter feed.  I’m not proud of it and it has messed with my reading habits.

The Blog

I use my blog to write things that are longer than 140 characters and things which are more essay oriented.  If I want to share links I now tweet them.  Unfortunately I used to write more about things I read online before Twitter.  My blog has been up since 2004 and I try to use it as a place to publish written pieces on various subjects of interest…most common would be theology, philosophy, technology and stuff I am reading. Over the years I have used the following blogging platforms: Blogger, MovableType and now Squarespace.  I luuuv Squarespace. I’ll share personal stuff there from time to time but I have done that less of late. I constantly break the “rules of blogging” mainly in that I write long posts that nobody will read. I have never had a blog in order to “have a big awesome blog” but rather a place for thinking, publishing and posting writing I do for real people I know. 

Geolocation

I currently don’t play Foursquare (I did in elementary school at recess though), I don’t Gowalla and I don’t check in with Facebook Places. I know it is cool to tell the world where you roll and become the mayor of BW3s. I just have not been interested in that schmack until now. Never saying never though. 

So, how do you use online stuff? Still on MySpace? Orkut anyone? 

The Unbearable Shortness of Writing

This morning I have finally been provoked enough to write something that has been chaffing me for some time.  In the LA Times, Neal Gabler recently published an opinion piece entitled The Zuckerberg Revolution - Social media have increased the volume of our communications yet diminished the substance of them in which he discusses the effect on public discourse of our desire for communication today to be “seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short.” In other words, the desire that communication be a short stream of nothingness floating by us in a feed of tweets, news and nonsense. OK, that is perhaps my bias showing already.

I will say up front that I am on Twitter, Facebook and obviously I am writing this on my own personal blog. I am in no way a Luddite nor do I disdain new forms of communication. I do however, share Gabler’s concerns that if these sorts of communications become the de facto standard for life in our culture we will loose our ability for complex thought, shaping of ideas, forming arguments and will continue on our way towards a sort of imbecility.  Gabler’s argument centers around the difference between a culture of books/print/reading and that of passive consumption of textual electronic communication. I will leave it to you to read his entire essay - surrounded by banner and Google ads of course - but before I move on from him I want to share a few of his more significant quotes - too long for Tweeting of course. 

The seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short communication is not one that is likely to convey, let alone work out, ideas, great or not. Facebook, Twitter, Habbo, MyLife and just about every other social networking site pare everything down to noun and verb and not much more. The sites, and the information on them, billboard our personal blathering, the effluvium of our lives, and they wind up not expanding the world but shrinking it to our own dimensions. You could call this a metaphor for modern life, increasingly narcissistic and trivial, except that the sites and the posts are modern life for hundreds of millions of people.

Gutenberg’s Revolution transformed the world by broadening it, by proliferating ideas. Zuckerberg’s Revolution also may change consciousness, only this time by razing what Gutenberg had helped erect. The more we text and Twitter and “friend,” abiding by the haiku-like demands of social networking, the less likely we are to have the habit of mind or the means of expressing ourselves in interesting and complex ways.

He [Zuck] has facilitated a typography in which complexity is all but impossible and meaninglessness reigns supreme. To the extent that ideas matter, we are no longer amusing ourselves to death. We are texting ourselves to death. Ideas, of course, will survive, but more and more they will live at the margins of culture; more and more they will be a private reserve rather than a general fund. Meanwhile, everything at the cultural center militates against the sort of serious engagement that McLuhan described and that Postman celebrated.

Postman [referring to Neal Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death] was more apocalyptic. He believed that a reading society was also a thinking society. No real reading, no real thought. Still, he couldn’t have foreseen that a reading society in which print that was overwhelmingly seamless, informal, personal, short et al would be a society in which that kind of reading would force thought out — a society in which tens of millions of people feel compelled to tell tens of millions of other people that they are eating a sandwich or going to a movie or watching a TV show. So Zuckerberg’s Revolution has a corollary that one might call Zuckerberg’s Law: Empty communications drive out significant ones.

Gutenberg’s Revolution left us with a world that was intellectually rich. Zuckerberg’s portends one that is all thumbs and no brains.

Neal Gabler, The Zuckerberg Revolution, accessed 12.24.2010

For some time I have been scratching my head as to why we find it a good thing to “write short, simple things” on our blogs so that “people will read them.”  It is like we simply accepted that the kids don’t read good any more and we will play along.  Even Derek Zoolander made a stand for the kids where we seem to find no will to be counter cultural in our writing, reading and learning. 

Just yesterday I was reading a site about how to make your blog awesome, build traffic etc. One of the answers was - keep entries real short and simple containing no complex ideas and thought. I will not tell you the french words I uttered when reading that schmack.  Of course this was counsel for those who want high traffic, high readership and high dollars out of their blogs. Obviously, I do not. 

One of my passions is to serve the Christian communitity by challenging us to think a bit more. No, I am not some super intellectual guy. I did not get anywhere near a perfect score on my SAT and I am no genius of any sort at all. I do care that we think, engage God, life and mission with some serious reflection about our questions and deep truths. Some of the most popular Christian blogs have taken up the “short entries” banner these days. You can read most of the entries in less than a minute and not  have to scratch your head one time, or think through anything. I am guessing this is an intentional style to communicate in today’s culture.  But what if today’s culture is heading in a direction that is stupid? Do we just go with it? 

I know I will likely hear from some of you that we must accommodate and contextualize in order to connect and communicate today.  Of course I will agree.  But for God’s sake we must also call ourselves and one another into the deep end of life and thought even though our culture might think there is only a three foot section of the pool. Keep your floaties on kids!

Some might find communication in 165 and 140 characters sufficient and perhaps it is for SOME things. Perhaps we think 22 words is enough to say something and it certainly is enough for something. But are we to be damned to only such things? No, we must not.  

Some ways forward. I’ll keep them short and in bullet form so that we all can read them good. 

  • Be a hold out on the reading of books - even long books

  • Write stuff that is not simple and short - ever so often attempt to say something

  • Live that way with people - your family, community, church, etc.

  • Think deeply about important things - life and death, God, truth, ethical lives and meaning - stuff the Bible is about.

  • Think through your questions and put together your thoughts on them.

So tweet, friend and text in your life but menace your digital flickering with time for thinking, reading and learning.  Hold on to truths that cannot be said so quickly and should not lost.  We are a culture intent on living through reality TV and tweeting about the fact that we watched it. Each and every generation has cultural forms that lead us to what Ecclesiastes call a chasing after the wind; we certainly have our own. Shall we choose to live only through short and simple nothingness? No, we shall not.  Too much remains at stake under the Sun.

That is all - Merry Christmas friends! I will tweet that to all in a bit. 

A few weeks with Colonel Roosevelt

 

Over the last few weeks I have been joyfully wandering through Edmund Morris’ new book “Colonel Roosevelt” which covers the final period of the life of one of America’s most interesting and influential presidents. The book is the third in a trilogy of works by Morris which have been published over the last few decades. The first work was the Pulitzer prize winning “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt” and the second, covering his almost eight years as president, was aptly entitled “Theodore Rex

Colonel Roosevelt begins with the African Safari Roosevelt took after stepping away from the presidency in immense popularity concluding his second term in 1908.  The book covers the later years of a career that saw Roosevelt as nature enthusiast, adventurer, international statesmen, author, public intellectual, politician, 3rd party presidential candidate, advocate for WWI preparedness, father/family man and finally a dying icon on the American scene.  

Beginning this book I felt I knew very little about Theodore Roosevelt beyond some very small details picked up along the way in the educational process. After reading this work I very much look forward to reading Morris’ first two installments on the life of this man.  Certainly Roosevelt was a man of his times; some of his time was in need of transformation. At the same time I felt that much of what this man exemplified has been lost in our day.  An advocate for progressive reform in politics, but also not afraid to fight for honor and truth.  A man who despised passive, emasculated manhood, yet was a loving husband and father. A man who would chase down lions in the wilderness and get down on the floor to play with the kids.  As a Harvard graduate who was fluent in multiple languages, he was a scholar and perhaps one of the best and widest read presidents we have had. At the same time he was also man who would have loved MMA (he had a love for boxing and apparently had lessons in jiu-jitsu and a brown belt in judo - or as he wrote to his sons…he liked “manly sports”)

To put it plainly, Theodore Roosevelt was a dude.  A person who would have exemplified the quality that Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield recently called Manliness.  Yes, he thought a bit much of himself. Yes, he was never lacking words and always spoke his mind somewhat loudly. Yes, he thought war could be virtuous and called pacifists “aunties” and “sublimated sweetbreads.” Perfect man, no way. One of the more interesting people I have ever encountered? Indeed.

I found myself with real tears in the eyes as the story of his death was told in this book. I felt a sense of loss that such a figure would be consumed by that great enemy of the grave. I then remembered the words of Ecclesiastes which say “No man has power to retain the spirit, or power over the day of death.” The great ones all come and go the same way and some inspire others along the way.

Teddy Roosevelt is now a new friend - an enigmatic one.  One who was at home in a bar fight and in the courts of European royalty. In short, Roosevelt was not simply a man, he was a dude…one who believed in virtue, adventure, nobility and masculine strength aimed at proper ends.  As such, I am all the better for having read this book and anticipate the journey into the earlier books of the trilogy.

Note: For those with commutes or enjoy audio books, Colonel Roosevelt as read by Mark Deakins was a delightful listen with the readers “Roosevelt” voice for each of his quotations a stunning joy which brought me many laugh out loud moments. 

Surprised by History

 

This summer I have been a bit into some reading of history. For some time I have loved the history of ideas and how these flow from people in various political, social and economic contexts.  Good history is also something done by good story tellers - I have been blessed by both of late.  

Here are a few titles which have occupied my mind a bit over the last several months. I also have become somewhat addicted to the audio book reading of John Lee - very intoxicating.

Colossus: Hoover Dam and the Making of the American Century by Michael Hiltzik - this book was a fascinating look at the history of southwestern United States, water rights, the entrepreneurs and engineers who put blood, sweat, tears and political wrangling into the project to bring electrical power and water to the arid dessert.  Very good read that covers a broad history and range of subject.  Book and Audiobook

Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World by Roger Crowley - A wonderful read that focuses on the 16th century battles between the great Mediterranean sea powers of the Spanish and Ottomon Empires. The story of the Battle of Malta was unfamiliar to me and I am thankful that this deficit has now been remedied.  Book and Audiobook

Worlds At War: The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West by Anthony Pagden - Though a bit tainted by the author’s massive secular bias, this book nonetheless succeeds at covering a massive swath of history. It truly does traverse the entire 2500 years.  I really felt like the author had a naive and ignorant view of religion and the conclusion of the book was just weak and demonstrative of the lack of any real vision secularism offers today. It was worth the time to read; I particularly enjoyed the early histories involving Alexander the Great and the Persian empires. This book is also very long. Book and Audiobook

Lee: A Life of Virtue (The Generals) by John Perry - A short treatment of the life of Robert E. Lee with emphasis on his character and virtue as a leader.  This was my first book on Lee and I found it interesting and compelling enough for me to add two very long movies to our Netflix Queue :-) Book and Audiobook

The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade bySusan Wise Bauer - I enjoyed this much more than Pagden’s work as it did not carry the anti-religious baggage along the journey.  Bauer covers not only the typical western far but also the histories of Islamic empires and those ruling the lands of China, India and Japan.  Though the western histories are a bit more robust the breadth of the treatment of the time period was much appreciated.  Bauer is an English prof at the college of William and Mary and appears to be married to a minister. This showed in both her writing and lack of derogatory tone towards religious views. Also very long. Book and Audiobook

OK, that’s all for now - I’m off in search for my next read in history - love medieval and late medieval periods so I may land there.  

Any suggestions?

 

The Lonely Blog

Over the last month or so the POCBlog has lay fallow.  It is not that I have not been writing, thinking, teaching and working on many things.  I actually have.  It is just that I have been writing for direct ministry and speaking quite a bit locally. 

I do plan to resume some writing here at the POCBlog in the near future and hopeful God will give me the time and grace to do so.  Until then…

Determinisms

Is the future an open ended book or is history in some way predetermined? Is there such a thing as destiny? Such questions have been on the minds of women and men since the beginning of recorded history. One thing is certain: we seem to want life to have some meaning, purpose and direction to it.  In this essay, I want us to think a little about the idea of determinism.  To do so I will first define the word and then look closely at a specific species of it.  I will then discuss the problems with the future being under determined and certain views of free will.  In closing, I will look at various theological views associated with God’s sovereignty and knowledge of the future and how this affects our own choices in space and time.  So, am I determined to write this today or shall I put down the pen? Well, either way, I trudge forward.

Determinism—Its Only Natural

Philosophically, determinism can be defined as follows: Determinism is the view that holds that events in the future are determined ahead of time by an intelligence, other events in the past and/or the current state of affairs. It might but a surprise to some, but the materialistic worldview of atheism is highly deterministic. In fact, the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has just such a definition for determinism: 

“[Causal Determinism is defined as] The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.1

Unlike my definition, here we have no room for an intelligence guiding life and history. In this view, determinism means that the universe and all that transpires in it is predetermined by the causal chain of the interaction of matter based upon the laws of nature.

In the spring of 2002 I was in campus ministry taking a course in medieval philosophy which surveyed thinkers and their works from a period of time spanning from Augustine to just prior to Descartes.  The professor asked a rather simple question of the class: “Who does not believe in free will?” Several students, who were philosophy majors of an atheistic orientation, raisee their hands.  Why? They believe in determinism because they hold that everything is just matter/energy and therefore the result  of natural forces. In this view, there are simply no supernatural entities such as human souls, God, angels or demons who make real choices. The universe starts going at some time in the distant past and then based upon some initial conditions all things simply unfold over time.  In my mind, this harsh determinism, is true if a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy is true. In this view of the world, the universe is a closed system of cause and effect without any outside influence. This, of course, includes all your choices based upon the droning forward of the chemical processes of your brain. I find this one of the horrible weaknesses of such philosophy. It simply does not account for our experience as human beings.

As such, it has always amazed me that atheists write books trying to get people to “change their minds” about their beliefs when in fact they believe our brains are already predetermined and any free choice is an illusion. Your beliefs are simply the results of matter interacting; it is physics all the way down. In fact, in this view, there really isn’t any “you” that could change “your mind.” Christian thinker GK Chesterton saw this clearly when he wrote of this kind of determinism.  In his typical wit, he reflects as follows:

The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it. But he can put him in boiling oil; for boiling oil is an environment.2

This sort of categorization of the naturalistic worldview (a view which is anti-theistic) is not at all uncharitable.  For example, the “Center for Naturalism” quite openly affirms this view of life under the sun. Forgive the longish quotation but I want you to see this thinking in its own terms.

Naturalism as a guiding philosophy can help create a better world by illuminating more precisely the conditions under which individuals and societies flourish, and by providing a tangible, real basis for connection and community. It holds that doctrines and policies which assume the existence of a freely willing agent, and which therefore ignore the actual causes of behavior, are unfounded and counter-productive. To the extent to which we suppose persons act out of their uncaused free will, to that extent will we be blind to those factors which produce criminality and other social pathologies, or, on the positive side, the factors which make for well-adjusted, productive individuals and societies. By holding that human behavior arises entirely within a causal context, naturalism also affects fundamental attitudes about ourselves and others. Naturalism undercuts retributive, punitive, and fawning attitudes based on the belief that human agents are first causes, as well other responses amplified by the supposition of free will, such as excessive pride, shame, and guilt. Since individuals are not, on a naturalistic understanding, the ultimate originators of their faults and virtues, they are not deserving, in the traditional metaphysical sense, of praise and blame. Although we will continue to feel gratitude and regret for the good and bad consequences of actions, understanding the full causal picture behind behavior shifts the focus of our emotional, reactive responses from the individual to the wider context. This change in attitudes lends support for social policies based on a fully causal view of human behavior. 3

If this seems to you a bit unnerving it ought to. Think for a moment about what is being said here. Apparently a certain group of people thinks they can and should set “social policies” to control the “environments” of other people. Why? To control the behavior of others who cannot make real choices but only respond to environments. Wow.  Yet before we throw to the wind every form of determinism let’s look at the other extreme.

On the other end of the spectrum is the view that nothing in the future is determined and nothing is supposed to happen based upon current reality. This is problematic as well as certain things today surely seem influenced and even caused by events which happened before.  Our choices are never purely “out of the blue” as they are always shaped by many things.  Our upbringing, prior choices, the choices of others, education, things that happened to us, and most importantly our character influence how we act today and in some sense shape tomorrow. Furthermore, if God is God and knows the future, is it not in some way “going to happen”?  It seems that we can also take a view of “free will” that is indeed “too free” as there is some reason for actions taken in the world even when you consider individual intelligences acting. Is there a middle ground?  The Christian view has always held that there indeed is another way.

Throughout history orthodox Christians who follow the teachings of the Bible have agreed on a few principle things here. First, God indeed knows the future and there are some things that WILL happen because God wants them to. (Isaiah 46:8-11, Ephesians 1:11) Second, human beings are responsible to God for their choices and their decisions do matter in shaping our future (Deuteronomy 30;19,20 ) Where there has been divergence it has been related to how much one of these principles holds sway over the other in our theology. One focuses heavily on God’s sovereignty and meticulous providence while the other focuses heavily on our choices and responsibility.  The first view can be viewed as a sort of theological determinism4 and the latter a theological libertinism. What we must not do is think that God is not involved in all the transpires during life under the sun. Nor should we think, as in materialistic determinism, that we have no choices that are real.  What I want to put forth is a view that highly esteems God’s rule and purposes in all of life while at the same time calling us to live wisely in dependence upon our sovereign God. 

God is God and We are Human

Several passages of Scripture teach that God is in control of quite literally everything. Here is a survey of a few ways in which Scripture teaches us that God is in control.

Furthermore, Ecclesiastes 3 teaches us that there is a time and purpose for every season under heaven both good and bad.  This is never meant to lead us to some sort of fatalism that we have no choices in life and we are just puppets on a string.  What we must acknowledge is that we do not control destiny. God does.  What we must see is that we are human and finite and God is infinite and knows all things.  When we see this, knowing God is in control helps us respond to his actions in history with trust and hope.  If you forgive me, I want to spend the rest of my space here with you working to persuade you that God’s sovereignty is a great thing for us to know and then willfully live in light of.

God’s Sovereignty in Bad Times

The questions pour out when thinking of the complex realities of good and evil in our world. Philosophers have discussed these issues for ages. Believers and unbelievers see the very same circumstances often in very different lights. One man suffers immensely and meets God right there, while another curses God for the pain that he experiences and sees all around him.  The Scriptures record many reasons God has for allowing suffering in our world. For our purposes here I will just refer you to my recent essay about suffering for reflection upon this.5

God’s Sovereignty in Good Times

God’s nature and character are directly reflected in all that is true, good and beautiful in our world. We call such kind providences “blessings” as we see God’s kindness and favor in so much of life.  The creation itself speaks to us (Psalm 19) and we see in our own design the goodness of God’s laws and purposes.6

God is God in All Things

If you are like me, you tend to see quickly the hand of God in the good times yet struggle to see his hand in the terrible sufferings of life. Ecclesiastes 3 teaches us that God has a purpose for every time and season under heaven and the he quite literally makes “all things beautiful in its time.”  It is never that all things are good, but the overarching plan of God for all of history is breathtakingly so. The thing that frustrates us as human beings is that we have but a finite view of things.  We cannot see all that will be tomorrow let alone see across the horizons of eternity like our God. Without a godlike view of the world we must trust the one who is indeed working all things together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purposes (See Romans 8:26-37).

Conclusion

In closing, we are not the victims of blind time+matter+chance as in the view of atheism.  Yet neither are we the ultimate captains of our ships as some would want us to believe. The truth is much deeper.  God is captain of his world and is working all things towards his purposes. He is weaving his story through history and we only see but a small part that we play. We follow him in the fog and trust his good hand in times of pain and trial. Similarly we rejoice with God in times of immense happiness and blessing. In the end, we might sleep better at night knowing life is on his shoulders. We are free to weep deeply in our pain knowing God cares and will some day wipe away the tears.  We can rejoice triumphantly in hope that even death is not the end and an eternal glory is coming. There is nothing more frustrating and impossible that to pretend to know all things.  There is nothing more vexing than to claim to see every reason behind each ray of sunlight and the many shadows of this age.  There is nothing more comforting than to know and trust the one who does.  He is our Father, he is our Lord, he is our King…and he is with us each step of the way.

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.  1 Peter 5:6, 7 ESV

Walking together,

Reid S. Monaghan

Notes

1. Causal Determinism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ accessed September 30th, 2010. Emphasis in original.

2. GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: NY, Image books, 1959) 20. Originally published: New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908. Emphasis Added.

3. Center for Naturalism Internet Site, http://www.naturalism.org/center_for_naturalism.htm accessed September 30, 2010. Emphasis Added.

4. By Theological determinism I simply mean that history is  in some mysterious way “determined by God” - It is a determinism that has God choosing and acting and humans responding and acting as well.  It is not the closed system universe of naturalistic/materialistic determinism as it has intelligent agents involved and not simply blind matter. It is also not “fatalism” as God is working out his good plan and we take part in the working it out.

5. Reid S. Monaghan, Thoughts on Suffering, http://www.powerofchange.org/blog/2010/7/24/thoughts-on-suffering.html.

6. See J. Budzizewski’s What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide, for a treatment of  God’s designs in us and our world.

What Sacred Games?

In the late 19th century western philosophy was starting to get honest about its godless trajectory.  Thinkers had placed the knives of reason upon thinking itself and began to come to some stark honesty about what they really believed about God, truth and morality. The pariah Friedrich Nietzsche, whose work only became popular after his death, was perhaps one of the most honest.  Many of the conclusions were that God was dead1, truth was perspectival rather than universal and morality was a fake, a ploy to keep people in chains when they were made for greatness. Nietzsche wrote many works addressing these realities many times using metaphors to describe his views.  For example, in his treatment of morality, he chose the title beyond good and evil.  In his treatment of what he thought human beings could become he chose the language of “superman” or “overman” to describe a higher human race which history and evolution would produce. To this sort of thinking GK Chesterton responded pointedly in the early 20th century in his classic work “Orthodoxy”

This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, “beyond good and evil,” because he had not the courage to say, “more good than good and evil,” or, “more evil than good and evil.” Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, “the purer man,” or “the happier man,” or “the sadder man,” for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says “the upper man,” or “over man,” a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being “higher,” do not know either. 2

Though Nietzsche was certainly a man hiding his ideas in metaphors when he suggested to us a world “post-God” and what such a world would become I find him quite clear.  In writing about the implications of his views, Nietzsche wrote the now classic parable The Madman.3 In this short work he artfully portrays what the world after the death of God would have to be like. In this essay I want to highlight a portion of The Madman and then, in a way of sorts, look at how we have indeed attempted to answer Nietzsche’s questions.  I will then ask whether the Preacher of Ecclesiastes is a better guide for staring into the empty void of life under the sun. I will close by simply arguing that the death of God has indeed been quite the exaggeration.

It is hard to quote just a portion of The Madman, but even quoting the entirety of  even the short parable would consume too much space here for our purposes. I suggest that you take a quick trip online to read the whole thing and I will highlight a few sections here.  After a madman frantically asks the question “where is God” he is chided by some modern atheists and he replies to them in vigorous prose.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

I have highlighted just a few portions of this passage for us. In the first we realize that when we loose sight of God, we realize that there simply is no higher purpose, no meaning and life is cold, dark and void.  As we stare into that void we realize that we no longer have any center to life, nothing to base our journeys on, no truth, no moral accountability and all is up for grabs.

Nietzsche realizes that humans need such things. He therefore predicts that various festivals of atonement (trying to justify ourselves and our guilty consciences) and sacred games (dalliances to fool ourselves into believing life is meaningful) will be created by to help people deal with the infinite nothingness of life with no higher purpose. Of course, Nietzsche’s own solution, was to will to power and become a great person towering over and dominating others who were stuck in the herds of humanity groveling in morality and superstitions. That, however, is for another essay.  Here I want us to look at the sacred games and efforts towards atonement that we have indeed undertaken since the unhinging of the earth from its sun, people from their creator.

Our Sacred Games

In light of the loss of ultimate meaning, some atheistic thinkers have taken up the more modest task of creating “local meaning” for ourselves.4 If we can but tell ourselves that life matters in the day to day, we can escape the reality that all those days taken together are ultimately meaningless, empty and void. If we can only tell the truth to keep quiet we can live our short miserable life in an blissful ignorance. Or at least we can tell ourselves we are good enough, smart enough and people like us. By creating these “sacred games” we can escape the truth of life’s meaninglessness and smile along a way filled with a myriad of distractions. Before we look at these games, let me affirm all of them.  They are good things to pursue, but they are horrible God-substitutes.  In fact, if there is no God, all of these pursuits will drown in their own meaninglessness. OK, to quote WOPR from War Games: Shall we play a game? Of course you would, these are the games we play to avoid facing our maker or facing the void of a world without God. 

The Distraction Game

Some might say the questions of truth, meaning of life, existence and the question of God are very important. More than often I hear them summarily dismissed. These questions are not important!?! Really? I have more important things to do in life.  Life is hard, we have to work and get by, I don’t have time for all this philosophizing. We seem to make time for reality shows, tweeting, face-booking and recounting how awesome TV show characters are.  So we stay distracted, living our lives by what is on TV tonight. Is there anything more? Don’t ask, don’t tell.  Some time ago, philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal marveled at our unwillingness to wrestle with the deeper questions of life.  His reflections were before internet, TV, smart phones and the wonderful distractions of the modern era. His words are as relevant as ever:

I see the terrifying immensity of the universe which surrounds me, and find myself limited to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am set down here rather than elsewhere, nor why the brief period appointed for my life is assigned to me at this moment rather than another in all the eternity that has gone before and will come after me.  On all sides I behold nothing but infinity, in which I am a mere atom, a mere passing shadow that returns no more.  All I know is that I must soon die, but what I understand least of all is this very death which I cannot escape….As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go.  I only know that on leaving this world I fall forever into nothingness or into the hands of a wrathful God. Without knowing to which of these two states I shall be everlastingly consigned.  Such is my condition, full of weakness and uncertainty.  From all this I conclude that I ought to spend every day of my life without seeking to know my fate.   I might perhaps be able to find a solution to my doubts; but I cannot be bothered to do so, I will not take one step towards its discovery. 5

The Knowledge Game

Knowledge and education are sacred in our culture.  It is said that education is somewhat like a magic bullet that cures all.  If we throw money at education then all will be well in the world.  I am heartily for education, but learning must have truth at its foundation.  Learning does not make life meaningful unless our knowledge serves some purpose and is guided by a moral compass. It cannot be an end in itself.  When knowledge has no moral guidance or high good in mind, we can become arrogant. As the ancient apostle wrote “knowledge puffs up” in pride.  The outcome can be a world where we think the educated are superior to the uneducated. Elitism anyone? Furthermore, being educated is preferable than a life without learning, but great evils can and have been done by the most brilliant people. 

The Pleasure Game

Another great game we play to fill our lives with meaning is the pleasure game. We can get high, we can get naked, we can go through multiple relationships one after another.  We play the game of love to get what we want and we purchase various pleasures on the internet or on the corners of city streets. We even have something called “sexual addiction” today.  Married people do this all the time and it is not called an addiction.  What changed? We unchained pleasure from its purpose and removed it from its proper context.  Why? If God is dead we can do whatever, whenever and whoever we want. Sadly, numerous children today grow up without two parents and broken bodies, disease and death line the avenues of this sacred game.

The Power Game

We like to control things so we seek out little kingdoms for our own sovereignty.  If we can control some area of life, we’ll forget that ultimately we are going towards a certain death, the day of which I have zero control over. So we try to control our boyfriends or girlfriends, our families and friends and others seek to rule in business and politics.  If life is short and death is waiting for me at least I can try to be in charge along the way.  Everyone will love me for it! Or not…but at least I’ll get mine.

Festivals of Atonement

So we have our games to prop up life, but what are we to do when we still feel guilty and we have the haunting fear that something may be wrong “with us” or even scarier “with me.”  Well, we have our festivals to atone for our many sins indeed.

Festival of Blame

We know something is wrong with us so it must be somebody’s fault.  We love the festival of blame in our culture.  It is always “their” fault that we can’t fix the mess of our lives. It is the other team’s fault. We blame the other political party, we blame other nations, we blame our culture, we blame economic systems and we absolutely love to blame our parents. After all, my teachers have told me that I am great and special my whole life, so all that is wrong must have come from elsewhere. Life is too short to feel guilty, admit sin and seek forgiveness.  Shifting blame can atone without me coming apart.

Festival of Me

Once we shift blame away, we can focus on what is truly the wonder of our universe…ME! Yes, when faced with our sins, just tell yourself you are AWESOME! Live life for your plans, your purposes, your pleasures, your successes, your happiness and all will go well. After all, if you don’t look after yourself, who will?

So what happens when our sacred games and festivals still leave us feeling empty, alone and stuck in shame? We are told to play them harder or try another game.  Such is the only recourse with a life without God under the sun.  Yet perhaps the death of God was not so rightly ascertained.  Perhaps there is a living voice speaking to us from eternity. Staring into this void, the preacher of Ecclesiastes was just as honest as Nietzsche but found another game.  It was a game of  truth and a struggle before God and not a denial of him. Solomon would tell us that knowledge, pleasure and the right use of authority have great purpose under the sun if used and aligned with the purposes and commands of God. 

Long ago another voice, one greater than Solomon7 spoke to us about looking into the world which is so prone to fear, anxiety and diversions.  While we run around seeking knowledge, pleasure, power and distraction, worrying about clothes and food and other needs his voice thunders clear: Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.8

The madman need not incessantly look for God when his sanity arrives when he is found by his creator.  May we all be found by and rest in Him.

Notes

1. The phrase God is dead did not intimate that God was alive and now dead.  Nietzsche was communicating that the idea of God which had been the foundation of western culture for centuries had been disassembled by the thinker and philosopher of his day. 

2. GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter VII THE ETERNAL REVOLUTION, available for free online at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html

3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para.125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.

4. See the interesting dialogue between a Christian professor and atheistic punk rocker turned scientist in Preston Jones, Greg Gaffin, Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity (Downers Grove: Intervarity Press, 2006).  Gaffin acknowledges life to ultimately have no higher meaning but we create our own meaning through various means.  In my opinion Gaffin treats evolution/naturalism as a sort of religion which I find both interesting and revealing.

5. War Games, United Artists, 1983.

6. Blaise Pascal, Pensées

7. See Matthew 12:42

8. Matthew 6:33,34

Judge Not the Judgment of God

There is a bit of a meme1 that goes around regarding the God of the Bible.  Some would articulate it in various ways but it goes something like this: “The God of the Old Testament is wrathful and bringing judgment, while in the New Testament God is loving, meek and mild in Jesus.”  In this view, it is almost as if the Old Testament has a different God.  Here it seems God is only angry and having a bad hair day. He forgot to take his meds or woke up on the wrong side of heaven.  In the New Testament God has gone to therapy, grown up and worked out his anger issues. There are a couple of massive problems with this view. 

First, it is simply not accurate and displays an ignorance of the teaching of Old and New Testaments.  In the Old Testament, God reveals himself as “gracious and merciful abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18, Psalm 86:15, Psalm 103:8, Psalm 145:8, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2, partially in Nahum 1:3). This identification is in the narrative portions in the Bible and is repeated in the poetic and in the prophets. The vision of the Old Testament is unified in this.  Furthermore, in the New Testament Jesus has white hot words for those who deny the gospel and lead people astray in self-righteous legalism.  Somehow, people forget that it was sweet Jesus that taught us most clearly and most often about the impending disaster of Hell.  Second, this meme misses the theological story of the Bible in that the whole Bible presents God as good and loving, human beings as sinners and rebels and God as our holy, severe and completely just creator and judge.  God’s kindness is manifest to us precisely because we know our guilt before Him as a holy God.  In other words, we understand the grace of God only as we realize the just and good judgment of God upon sin and sinners.

Our culture today is hyper sensitive about many things. We have very thin skin and are offended at the smallest of things.  The thought of anyone judging anyone sort of freaks us out.  Many people may not actually know much of the Bible today but many can quote a segment of Jesus’ words; usually in King James’ English: “Judge not lest ye be judged. ” (Matthew 7:1) What Jesus was saying in this teaching is that humans are quick to judge others even when they have not done any self examination.  His point was not that there should be no judgment but rather people judge hypocritically.  Let me go on record that self-righteous, hypocritical judgment is offensive and all too often the native language of some religious people.  Jesus compared it to people having a huge log sticking in their eyeball while going around picking out little dust specks off of other people’s corneas.  He found this ridiculous but people, religious and unreligious, do this all the time.  Yet Jesus never intimated that God would not be the judge of people; in fact, he clearly made judgments and taught us that we all will ultimately be accountable to God.  Jesus teaches us the difference between certain human judgments and divine judgment is that the latter will be completely and fully based on truth (See John 8).

In this essay I want to do something a bit daring.  I want to defend the judgment of God as a reasonable and very good thing.  I will do so by first defining what we mean by using the term judgment in a theological sense. Second, I will argue why judgment is not only right but also makes sense when we stop to think about it. Third, I will make the case for why we must know and understand God’s right judgment of us.  If we come to understand God’s judgment we will be in both a fearful and wonderful position before the almighty. We will know that we must be forgiven and rescued from God’s coming wrath and we will see the beauty of the cross of Jesus Christ as the place where judgment and mercy meet and grace wins.

What we mean by the term Judgment

Though the act of making judgments can be applied to various things we are using the term in a theological sense as related to God and human beings.  The Pocket Dictionary for Theological Terms has a comprehensive, yet concise definition which I find helpful.

In a broad sense, [judgment is] God’s evaluation as to the rightness or wrongness of an act of a creature, whether human or angelic, using the standard of God’s own righteous and holy character.  In a more specific sense, judgment refers to the future event when God through Jesus Christ will judge all people, whether righteous or wicked, for their works done while on earth. The NT indicates that all people, whether Christian or not, will be judged according to their deeds; however, Christians [those who place their trust in the persona and work of Jesus alone] will be accepted in light of the work of Christ on their behalf.2

Taking the word “act” above to mean mental as well as bodily acts we can say what we mean by judgment is God’s evaluation of our thoughts and actions either approving of or condemning the same.  With this in mind, is it harsh of God to “judge us” or is it the reasonable and right thing to do? Any judgments? OK, moving along.

Why Judgment is Reasonable

In both the reading of the Bible and simple every day observation of our lives there are many reasons why the judgment of God makes sense. Before we begin let me make a plea to the reader who may not want to imagine that God is not real. I ask only this of you at this time—I want you to think about what the world is like in your experience and I want you to suspend your disbelief and think about reality as if God were at its center. I know you may find this hard to do, but humor me and you might have your mind opened to some new insights. Ok, why does God judging us make sense?

God is Holy

The creator of all things made all things for his purposes.  He created human beings male and female in his image and likeness and made them unique (See Genesis 1-2).  Any understanding of God’s justice must begin by bifurcating Creator and creature.  We must understand that God is completely different from us in that his character is utterly holy and righteous.  Human beings are flawed and as such they can err, be unjust to others, have skewed opinions and are capable of downright malicious guile towards others.  God is not like this, he is holy (Leviticus 19:1,2; Psalm 99) and set apart from sin and altogether righteous by nature.  God’s judgment is pure, based on truth, based upon righteousness in a way that human judgment is not.  So when God exercises justice, it IS JUSTICE.  

Many of us have seen that human justice is incomplete and flawed.  We have seen people oppressed unjustly and we all could acknowledge that the guilty sometimes go free (particularly if they are rich) and the innocent are sometimes condemned (particularly if they are poor). The particular case of OJ Simpson comes to mind.  If OJ was falsely accused, then God knows this and will vindicate him in the end.  If OJ did it, then he did not get away with it; one day he will stand before a holy God.  In our experience, when we see injustice we either cry out longing for wrong to be made right or we rejoice in it showing our own guilt before God.  In fact, in the Old Testament Psalms, judgment is desired because the Psalmist realized that God would be the only one who could truly set things right! The truth that God is holy and righteous makes the judgment of God actually something for rejoicing!3  

Something deep in  our own hearts tells us that something is wrong in the world and many of us are angered by injustice we see in us and around us.  It is not hard to imagine God caring about sin and injustice infinitely more than we do. Furthermore, because God’s own nature is holy and righteous all together he abhors wrong doing.  This brings us to the other side of the coin of judgment as it becomes personal.  I rejoice in the truth that God will bring a just judgment to all human affairs in the end, but I pause and tremble as well because of my own sin and pride.  So while God’s holiness and righteousness make judgment a good thing, our sin and our guilt make is clear that God judging us a most sobering thing.

Human Beings are Guilty

First, both Scripture and experience tell us that there are no human beings who are not guilty of thinking, believing and doing things that are wrong.  All of this flows forth from an autonomous rebellion against our creator and his commands. I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they are a perfect person.  Even those I have known who question the category of “perfect” readily admit that they do not live up to even their own standards all the time at every minute throughout their lives.  If we are guilty it makes sense that God would know and rightly see our lives and actions.  Scripture teaches us that all have sinned and fall short of God’s intentions for us, that we all like sheep have gone astray and that we all stumble in various ways (Romans 3, Isaiah 53, James 3). It seems to me if we are in some way guilty then God is in the best position to judge.  God’s holiness and our sinfulness result in him rightly bringing us into judgment.

In Judging Us God Treats us as Human

One of the ideas that our modern world tends towards is an overly environmental and therapeutic view of everything.  In this view people are not seen as responsible, wrong and evil any longer.  Rather we see people as misunderstood, undereducated, victims of circumstance or simply mentally ill.  People need to be cured not judged for their actions.  Now I am not saying that circumstance, environment and illness do not matter. They do.  What I am saying is that our modern view blinds us at times that we are just bad. Someone can be well educated, wealthy and believe jacked up stuff. Someone can be privileged and completely sane and drive an airplane into the side of a building. As such, judgment is worthy upon us and we don’t simply need to be given therapy. The classic essay on this is CS Lewis’ critique of what he called “The Humanitarian View of Punishment”. In this work he argues that in order to treat human beings as human we both judge and punish them when their acts deserve it. Dealing with people due to their just deserts, what they rightly deserve, is actually humane. To treat people only as sick in need of a cure robs them of their humanity and the dignity of their choices. In our world a small group of professional experts make judgments as to the saneness of us all and then are given rights to “fix us” as they see fit.4  One quote from the essay is worth sharing here:

To be “cured” against one’s will and be cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we “ought to have known better”, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.5

In judging us, God treats us as our beliefs, choices and actions truly matter. What we do means something! Our acts have consequences and accountability and are capable of being good or evil. Only human beings have this moral nature standing upright or fallen before God.  As such God’s judgment of us is fair, just and expected.

God’s Judgment Removes our Self-righteousness and Brings Humility

Finally, God’s judgment is good because it levels any pretensions of self righteousness and brings a proper humility to our lives.  CJ Mahaney is his book Humility, True Greatness defines humility in categories familiar to us above: Humility is honestly assessing ourselves in light of God’s holiness and our sinfulness.Knowing that all of life is lived before God and that my life will be judged rightly by God in the end brings a sobering effect upon us.  We are slower to hypocritically judge others and see our righteousness as far above “those other people.”  If we know and understand God’s judgment we have grasped an important prerequisite to understanding God’s mercy.  In fact, if we are to “get” the good news of Jesus Christ we must realize that we are rightly under the wrath and judgment of God for our own sin.

Why we must understand the judgment of God

As we close I want to review a bit and think together about the judgment of God.  First, God’s judgment makes life and our choices consequential. What we think, believe and do in light of these things deeply matters. We are responsible and accountable for our lives. Further, God’s judgment of me is a fearful thing.  I know my own heart and realize that if I were to come under the judgment of perfect holiness I would not find a place to stand. The Psalmist echoes this clearly: If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared. (Psalm 130:3,4). This passage reminds us that God telling us the truth about our sin and his judgment is in fact a great kindness. It is a kindness that can lead us to something the Scripture calls repentance (Romans 2:4). The repentant heart sees God’s holiness and its own sinfulness and has sorrow. It is a godly sorrow in that we come to our only judge to say we are sorry, to turn from sin to that same judge for his grace and mercy.  It is here that new life begins. 

Jesus came to the earth to live the life we have not lived, a life without sin fully following the commands of God. Jesus also came to die the death that we deserved as the penalty for our sin when it is judged by God. The wrath that we deserve was taken upon Jesus willingly for us so that the mercy and love of our heavenly father might give pardon and peace. It is at the cross of Jesus that judgment is poured out—the righteous willingly giving his life for the unrighteous! It is at the cross that grace and mercy win and justice is satisfied. God is our only true judge; he is also our only true savior.  He came in the flesh in Jesus to make peace with rebels. I’ll close by having Paul, an early Christian leader and messenger, explain in the inspired words of Scripture.

1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Romans 5:1-11

Amen and amen…

Notes

1. From Wikipedia— A meme is is a unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena.

2. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999), judgment.

3. We see this in the Psalms when many times the poets are crying out for God to act against the oppressor and judge between people on the earth when great evil is done.  See the first chapter of CS Lewis, Reflection on the Psalms (Orlando: Harcourt, 1958).

4. See the essay “The Humanitarian View of Punishment” in the collection of Lewis’ writings entitled God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1970), 287.

5. Ibid, 292.

6. CJ Mahaney, Humility, True Greatness (Sisters: Multnomah Books, 2005), 22.

The Axe Man or the Old Spice Man?

There are two men’s body washes that are creatively vying for the hearts and minds of man consumers (or those who purchase on their behalf) today. This morning after lifting a bit at the gym and using some man wash myself, I was thinking about how each of these brands is pitching its wares to men today. Ironically, two different versions of manhood are found. One note before we begin. I am endorsing neither product, nor their future choices in marketing schtick. Either company could produce very different advertising efforts in the future. I only want to comment on what we see from them today.

The Axe Man

The Axe brand is a new comer on the scene of man products not having been around as long as Speed Stick or Hai Karate. Its line of man sprays and washes is marketed quite aggressively to the young male today. What is their hook? If you use Axe, lots of hot chicks will want sex from you. Use Axe body spray or wash or hair product and look out…you will become the irresistible object of the uncontrolled sexual desires of multiple women at the same time. The Axe man is a picture of the modern view of manhood - adolescent, sex crazed and led around by things other than self control.

The Old Spice Man

In contrast, the new fantastically popular “Man Your Man Could Smell Like” is surprising, funny and different. Apparently, the campaign has been economically effective as sales appear to be up some 107%. The spots highlight masculinity, have brilliant writing and are so ridiculous that their humor seems to appeal to a broad audience. I know I find them awesome and I even had my wife buy some Old Spice Bodywash for me this week.

As I thought about the two full length Old Spice commercials as well as the myriad of responses given to peeps on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites something quite surprising came to mind. The man your man could smell like is quite a different man that the Axe man; in fact, we find a mand of Chivalry. Now hold on professor, are you not reading too much into some humor - perhaps, but I don’t think so.

  • Two Tickets to that thing you love! The man your man could smell like is thinking about woman and how he might woo them. How so? He is thoughtful to know what she loves and proactively buys tickets. Men, this sort of initiative with women is an old school art that the Axe boy knows nothing of.
  • A Cake He Backed for You Again, an attempt at thoughtfulness, planning and giving to his woman - men, let us be awake to learn here!
  • In the Kitchen He Built for You This man fixes house stuff and seems to do so as an act of service to the lady of his manor. Again, the man is serving his woman…Swan Dive!
  • Finally, he’s on a horse and we know who rides horses right? Men who protect and provide for a lady. Men who both ride to battle and rescue what is valuable from the hands of marauders, idiots and tyrants…maybe even from childish Axe men. Yes friends, a knight rides a horse and I just think Old Spice giving a nod to men on horses is refreshing.

Where are the men of the old code, where are men of courage, truth, valor and respect for ladies? Where are the men who are like the man your man could smell like? Well, perfect ones do not exist. And this man is a caricature. Yet men can become knights and men can learn to love a lady. Men can learn to fight for the good and resist the evil without and within. Men can treat women with grace, service and yes honor.

Yes indeed Old Spice Man you are on a horse. May that tribe increase and the Knight’s sword triumph over the barbarians Axe. Let the old school return my man friends.

Thoughts on Suffering

When one arrives into the world we  are quite helpless, small without much thought to the whens, whys or wheres of our existence.  As we grow and learn we realize that the world is a puzzling place.  It is filled with great joys and goodness, kindness and love.  It is also filled with great pain and evil, malevolence and suffering.  Our world is quite mingled with good and evil and any worldview or philosophy which does not deal with this is either forgetting to smell the roses or has their head buried deep in proverbial sands.  In this essay I want to address the issue of suffering in a few ways.  First, as a human being traveling life and wrestling with this question. Second, as a follower of Jesus looking to the Scriptures for teaching about suffering.  Finally, I want to write as a pastor who has seen much and walked through suffering with many over the years.  The structure of the essay will proceed along these lines.  I will first treat the experiential and existential nature of suffering.  I will then mention various theological and philosophical ways of dealing with suffering.  Then we will look, in an abbreviated fashion, at the teaching of the Bible regarding this.  Finally, we will look at our own hearts and give some counsel in walking with God through a suffering world on the way to his Kingdom.

A Universal Experience

Chronic pain wracks someone’s body day after day.  A young woman has her heart mistreated by a selfish little boy masquerading as a man. A young family goes into the nursery of their fragile new born only to find out their precious one is not breathing.  A family watching a loved one decay to a painful disease. An aging parent looses their mental faculty as the erosion of time destroys the body. A storm of nature arises suddenly dismembering lives and property. A young girl is kidnapped and abused in the most unimaginable ways by other human beings. A mob murders a young pastor and then terrorizes his family. Warring nations and their powerful rulers create realities that destroy the lives of millions.  Whether small or large suffering is a part of our world.  It is at times minor, at times severe and always constant.  While we must never overlook the massive floods of goodness, grace, kindness, love and beauty abounding every day, suffering will visit our lives and it does need an answer. When the sun remains shining upon us we may not fully come to terms with the storms raging upon the seas of someone else’s life.  Yet the harsh realities of our world will bring the darker specter of suffering upon us and bring a need to seek answers. Many different answers are given and they are not all created equal.

Philosophical and Theological Answers

The amount of reasoning and philosophizing given around the reality of suffering is quite astounding and the answers are variegated.  Some say suffering is because of ignorance and lack of enlightenment . Some may ignorantly accuse God of sleeping on the job. Others see it arise for the evil and sin of human beings.  Others say that it, like poo, just happens.  Most who wrestle with this question deal with three things: God, humanity and the reality of suffering.  What follows is but a small sample of what some major worldviews teach about suffering.1

Pantheistic views of life teach all is one and all is divine or ultimate. Furthermore, any distinctions seen in reality between things is called maya, or illusion.  You and me are not different beings, but part of one great being or reality.  As such, good and evil are simply illusory as well, two sides of the same coin as it were.  Various flavors of eastern philosophy share this view (flavors of Buddhism, Hinduism) and many represent these ideas with the yin/yang symbol.  You have probably seen it in tattoos.  Pantheism solution is to say  that enlightenment comes when you realize all suffering is illusion and you escape it through various paths of meditation. You realize that you are part of the one reality and suffering no longer holds mastery over you.  So Pantheism, in effect, denies the reality of suffering. This is puzzling to me for several reasons.  First, suffering seems very real to me and not something we can meditate away. Second, it can lead to a passive acceptance of suffering particularly when coupled with doctrines such as reincarnation and karma.  If someone is suffering in this life, they have “earned it” through bad karma in a previous life and as such deserve to be in the position assigned to them.2

Rather than removing the reality of suffering there are those who in the face of human suffering deny the existence of the divine.  It is not uncommon for certain atheists to rant against God for the suffering he allows while anger is aimed at the idea of a God they do not think is real.3Agnosticism is the position that finds no good reason to believe in God but cannot state definitively that God does not exist.  Most in the face of suffering get more specific and deny the existence of a good and powerful God as described in the Bible.  I have always been a bit puzzled by agnostics who claim that others cannot know things about God while stating to not know for sure themselves.  It is like stating everyone is NOT right even though you yourself claim to not know. To me this is not a humble position but rather arrogant. In any fashion, atheists and agnostics typically deal with the problem of suffering by saying God does not exist.  In the denial of God what then is left of reality?  In western unbelief matter is supreme and all that is.  Our lives and the entire universe are simply the result of a blind and amoral universe where time, chance and the laws of physics are sovereign.  There is no answer to suffering in this view and even more tragic good/evil are simply arbitrary assignments by arbitrary bits of matter called you and me.  CS Lewis made the classic argument here that in claiming something to be “evil, wrong” with suffering we are assuming there is standard by which to really judge such things.4  Atheism has no such standard to offer yet uses it to critique God. I find empathy with people who have such objections about life and suffering; suffering is real and it is pervasive. What I do not understand is the intellectual inconsistency in this point of view.

There are various points of view which hold God, humanity and suffering in tension.  The three large monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all treated the subject of suffering in various ways.  Islam teaches that suffering is according to the will of God, is the result of disobedience, lack of submission to God’s purposes or divine judgment.  Judaism teaches that suffering is mysterious and at times is God’s discipline of his people for breaking covenant. In some cases it is taught that God is unable to do anything about the suffering in the world.5  Various Christian teachings see suffering as the result of sin, God’s judgment/discipline of people, existing for redemptive purposes and only represent a temporary state.  In a moment we will look at a summary of this from Old and New Testaments but for now let us just say that flavors of theism hold in tension belief in a good God and the reality of human suffering.

Much more can be said about dealing with the philosophical compatibility of evil, suffering and the existence of a good and loving creator God.  Philosophers and Theologians such as Alvin Plantinga, Ron Nash, CS Lewis and John Feinberg have provided excellent work in this area which are compatible with various Christian theological points of view.6Yet as Christians we stand in the biblical as well as a philosophical tradition.  In fact, the Scripture has much to say about suffering God’s relationship to his creatures.

The Biblical Narrative

The question “Why is there suffering?” is not a simple issue in the Bible and we have many writings which speak to us about the mystery of evil and suffering. One thing that must be done is to see suffering and evil in the larger biblical story line of a good creation, human sin and the fall, God’s redemption in Jesus and the coming Kingdom of God/Heaven. Seeing and understanding suffering must happen within this story. The biblical literature provides many reasons for suffering. The writings compliment one another and provide a broad panoramic view of the purposes of God. God creates all good things and allows suffering in the world and the reasons are many.

The ultimate origins of suffering is in volitional creatures (beings that can choose following God or otherwise) both angels and human beings.  Scripture and Christian teachings hold that God created angels, many of which became evil in rebellion against God.  The foremost being called Satan, the accuser. In the initial teachings of the Bible, Satan is a being intent on evil who calls humanity away from joyful fellowship with God into their own disobedience and sin (Genesis 3). As a result of human rebellion the world is quite literally cursed and not the way it is supposed to be.7We now live in a world that the late British author GK Chesterton once described as a shipwreck.8  It has great good strewn about but very much in the midst of a wreckage. Ultimately all suffering and evil is the result of sin and rebellion. The creation itself is in a state that is both beautiful and chaotic displaying to us the condition of our world (See Romans 8:18-25). It is in the context that the goodness of God and the evil of this world must be understood.  A very quick and necessarily abbreviated summary of the biblical teaching regarding suffering is as follows:

  • Suffering can be the direct result of human choices. This is self evident to all and taught throughout Scripture.
  • God speaks to us in our suffering. He is not uninvolved and it is not without purposes even when unknown to us.  Our call is faithfulness to God whether in times of ease or times of extreme difficulty. The book of Job teaches us this.
  • Some suffering is the result of the discipline and judgment of God. This is the message of the Prophets and sections of the book of Hebrews, particularly chapter 12.
  • Suffering plays a part in God redeeming us from the curse of sin and death. God has purposes for suffering and uses it for good ends. See Romans 8 and the latter part of 2 Corinthians chapter 4.
  • Suffering gets our attention and creates in us a longing for redemption and for God to act. Many of the Psalms and the Prophets show this, we see this particularly in the biblical cry “How Long O Lord.”9  CS Lewis said this well: “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”10
  • Suffering is also used by God to shape and transform us and help us identify with Jesus himself. The early part of James and 1 Peter 2 teach us this.
  • Suffering exists temporarily to glorify God for his work to overcome it through Jesus—John 9 teaches us that some situations exist so that God would be glorified.  Further, as we will see in a moment, the suffering of God himself in Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of the glory of God. 

Due to the fact that Scripture does not give “one reason” for each instance of human pain, some have declared the Bible gives contradictory reasons for suffering. Most recently, Bart Ehrman’s book God’s Problem

11

comes to mind. In reading Ehrman, it seems he fails to see that there could be many possible biblical reasons for a particular instance suffering. The precise point we must remember is that God knows the true reason behind each instance while we, at times, do not. As such because of unbelief, some people stumble to understand and explain every bit of suffering while others believe and relate deeply to God in the midst of it. I like to say it this way: Suffering does not always lead to unbelief, but unbelief will find no answer in the face of suffering.

We desire love, relationship, peace, safety and permanence yet in this present age these elude us and result in our suffering. Sin has racked life, separated relationships, created calamity and death and we wander the earth fearful and longing for a home. The truth is that in dealing with our suffering love and relationship are central. A truthful system of intellectual answers is important but is incomplete without love. In the gospel of Jesus Christ we find both truth and relationship, hope in the midst of suffering through the love of God.

In the story of Scripture, the suffering of the world is taken on by God himself.  Jesus, who is God become man, actually bears suffering on behalf of suffering people.  Immanuel, God with us, is also God suffering with and for us.  Jesus’ death for sin is the ultimate sacrifice where God himself takes the sting of sin and death to forgive us and transform us.  Jesus’ resurrection displays that the ultimate enemy and bringing of pain, death itself, is and will be defeated by Jesus. The cross reflects God’s judgment upon sin and his reconciliation of people to himself. In Jesus we find grace, love and relationship.  In relationship with Jesus we have one that is familiar with suffering (Isaiah 53), who can sympathize with his people (Hebrews 4) and who is present with us in our grief (John 11). The gospel places Jesus in the middle of suffering to redeem a broken world through his own sacrifice and pain.

The first chapter of Peter’s first epistle summarizes the gospel view of suffering in light of the bigger picture. I will allow the Scriptures the last word for our encouragement:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Notes

1.

See discussion in chapter four of Randy Alcorn,

If God is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil

(Sisters, Multnomah Books, 2009). Alcorn’s book is popularly accessible yet handles the issue of suffering biblically, faithfully , intellectually and practically.

2. For more on the idea of Karma, see my A Comparison of Karma and Divine Judgment

3. Case in point are the recent writings of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens

4. See C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, 25. “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.  But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.  But the standard that measures two things is something different from either.”

5. The classic popular work here is from Rabbi Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

6. See Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil; Ron Nash, Faith and Reason; CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain; John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil.

7. An excellent book on the Scriptures teaching on sin goes by this name. See Cornelius Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be : A Breviary of Sin for a good treatment on the doctrine of sin.

8. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Image Books ed. (New York: Image Books, 1959), 80.

9. CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 83.

10. DA Carson’s excellent work How Long O Lord, Reflections on Suffering and Evil  (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006) has this phrase as its title

11. Bart Ehrman, God’s Problem, How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question-Why we Suffer, (New York: HarperOne, 2008)