Does Christianity have an answer for pain and suffering? Yes and no. Does any other religion or atheism have an answer? No. So, it's illegitimate to discount Christianity just because the world is full of pain and suffering. In fact, the Christian god has an amazing, poignant response to our questions about pain and suffering. He says: "Look to the Cross--my Son died there--I know pain and suffering just like you do."
First, let's briefly examine the proof for Christianity. If Christianity is true, then whether it has a definitive answer to pain and suffering is irrelevant. Second, let's see what atheism has to say about pain and suffering--a very unsatisfactory response. Finally, let's look at Christianity's response to, if not explanation for, a world full of pain and suffering.
Thesis One--There is a God--He is most likely the Christian God
Either there is or there isn't a God. Most atheists argue that we must turn to scientific proof to determine whether God exists, but then their logical analysis is stilted, dishonest, and falls woefully short of the scientific method. At this point in history, it appears that the universe started at "one point in time--The Big Bang." The question is what caused the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang occur out of thin air--this is what many believe. (I understand where they are coming from--I want solid proof of God. The great thing about Christianity is that we have solid proof in the person of Christ.) Or, did God cause the Big Bang. Of course, if God caused the Big Bang, we ask: "Where did God come from?"
Well, the Christian theory of God is that He has always existed. In fact, this seems to be the theory of most, if not all, religions. If God has always existed, then He had no creator--God just was. So, one can either go with: 1)I don't know what caused the Big Bang; or 2)God, consistent with our theory of an eternal all-powerful entity, caused the Big Bang. One answer, the first, is illogical; the second is logical. But most of the atheists won't go with logic. Hmmmm. It seems that most atheists, like many so-called Christians, have so many pre-conceived notions that logic flies out the window.
One of my pet peeves with many people who claim to be Christians is that they think the Bible is a science book--they think the universe was created in 144 hours, irrespective of the evidence to the contrary. The Bible is not a science book--that belittles the significance of the Bible. What's more, the Muslims say the same thing about the Koran--"It is the Word of God. Just believe it." The difference with the Christian Bible is that it reveals a God different from the other gods--it reveals a God that suffered with us. It reveals a God who revealed Himself to us, not just in word, but in flesh. This is why the Bible is important, not that it teaches us how to live, or teaches us science, or teaches us history, but that it reveals the God who became flesh for the sake of mankind.
Thesis Two--Atheism has no Satisfactory Response to Pain and Suffering
Most atheists are Darwinists. But Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest and advocated for it. Rather than believing that the more fit should provide for the less fit--that the more blessed should proved for the unfortunate among us, Darwin believed that the strongest should survive and the weak should die! The one good thing that you can say about Darwin is that he was intellectually honest. There is no such thing as moralism in the context of atheism. If one doesn't believe in God, then Nihilism is the only logical answer. So, under Darwin's theory, pain and suffering is fine--it thins out the herd--it leaves the strongest and their progeny alive. But, no Christian, and most atheists, would ever suggest that we should allow the strong to destroy the weak. In fact, if man were allowed to carry out his violent pre-disposition, if man were allowed to be his natural self, this is exactly what would happen. The strong would inflict pain, suffering, and even death on the weak. So, atheism has no satisfactory response to pain and suffering. In fact, atheism suggests that pain and suffering is necessary to "weed out" the weak, the dumb, and the poor.
Thesis Three--the Christian Response to Pain and Suffering
God's response to our complaints and questions about the unfairness of pain and suffering is--the Cross. The Cross doesn't explain the "why" of pain and suffering, but it does reflect that God, the all powerful creator of the universe, submitted himself to pain and suffering the the death of His son. God did this willingly! Would any of us? While some of us might give our own lives for another, would any of us give the life of our son or daughter for another? No, most decidedly no.
When we go through pain and suffering, what word(s) do we want to hear? Do we want someone to tell us: a)that things aren't as bad as they seem; b)that pain and suffering makes us stronger; or c)that it will be alright in the end. Perhaps the last, but definitely note the first two. But what we really want is a sympathetic ear, better yet an empathetic ear: "Yes, I've been there. I've walked that path. I carried my own cross. Tell me about it, my son." That is what we find in the Cross.
What's more, God didn't just willingly send Christ to experience a gruesome death, He sent Christ knowing that He would experience all of the troubles and travails of life in this world--He would be homeless, He would be estranged from his family, and He would be rejected by society. God sent Christ not only to die, but also to live a life of perfection in the midst of the troubles and travails that we experience. No other purported or supposed god is reputed to have lived through the troubles and travails of this world and then died a gruesome death for us, for mankind. Christ's life and death is an emphatic, multi-faceted, beyond belief statement of solidarity and comradery between God and man in the midst of pain, suffering, rejection, and the travails of this world!
Now, there are other responses, but none are as satisfactory, at least to me, as the empathetic ear--the solidarity in pain and suffering. First, life is so, so short. Eternity it just that--forever. Heaven is God's promise that all pain and suffering from our "flash in the pan" lives will be swallowed up in our eternal presence before and with God--the perfect expression of Love. Tim Keller says: "Sin and death have been dealt with; everything else is simply flea bites."
Second, mankind is free to sin--and, therefore, free to love. We don't want others to love us out of compulsion or necessity, we want them to love us freely. This is how we love God when we understand Him. Because we are free to love God or to reject Him, we are free to act badly, to sin, to inflict pain and suffering upon others.
Third, given our imperfect nature, we cannot understand good without experiencing evil, we can't experience joy without knowing pain, and we can't see the light except in juxtaposition to the darkness. So, pain and suffering is necessary for us to experience joy.
When Debbie and I first began trying to conceive a child, it was fraught with difficulty. One doctor told me that I needed to freeze my sperm for the future, since it was dying. It turned out that he was wrong. Another doctor wrongly diagnosed what was going on with Debbie. Finally, after two years of exasperation, pain, and suffering, we finally found a doctor who knew what she was doing. We now have three children. I know that, even without the difficult of conception, we would love our children. But the difficulty, pain, and suffering of conception makes us that much more appreciative of the gift of our children.
Our experience is not unique. Debbie and I both have friends who have told us that their cancer experiences have brought joy into their lives. One said that it was the "best thing that had ever happened to him." (But I still don't want to have cancer. None of us needs to seek out pain or suffering, it will come in God's good time.) One of my best friends lost his brother when he was in elementary school and lost his mother when he was in graduate school. Yet, this pain and suffering has not turned him against God. Instead, he says that God is good. Wow, what a testimony.
So, pain and suffering certainly causes us to question God. But we know that God has solidarity with us in our pain and suffering. And, at some point, not while we are going through it, but later--we will be able to see how the pain and suffering wrought joy in our lives.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Mouthpieces for Satan or God
Luther said that men are like donkeys--we are either being ridden by God or by Satan. How does Satan invade our lives through preaching? When preachers teach that our efforts have some place in our justification or, more likely, our sanctification.
On The Gospel Coalition, one of the bloggers recently postulated: "What do you do when your preacher isn't John Piper?" He went on to make some good points that we should try to support our preachers and be thankful for them if they espouse the Gospel, even if their preaching is lackluster. Yes and amen, he's correct. But I query: "If your preacher is espousing the Gospel, will you find him to be lackluster?" Perhaps the issue isn't with the delivery of the message, but with the content of the message. In fact, having a dynamic preacher may even be detrimental to the Kingdom of God. Dynamic preachers can divert from radical Grace and, given their popularity, they can't be "called" on it.
If you have read earlier posts, you know that one of my new favorite preachers is Tullian Tchividjian. Tullian is a well-spoken dynamic preacher. But he correctly espouses the Gospel. And, importantly, it wasn't always that way. Tullian said that when he first embraced the message of Grace, it radically changed his love for God. He said that he had a similar radical change a couple of years ago when he came to understand that Grace applies to our sanctification as well as to our justification.
There is no place for teaching about the ethical use of the law in Christianity. Other religions yes, Christianity no. Christian ethical conduct arises not from the law, but from Grace. This is one of the things that makes Christianity different. If we really believe that God loves us just the same when we are sinning, then sin begins to lose its grip on us. Then, our thankfulness to God begins to drive the sin from our lives. But, only Grace and thankfulness give us any freedom from sin. Merely telling us to "do better," even if we desire to do so, never wrought a change in a sinner's heart and, therefore, never wrought a change in our actions.
I listened to one of Tullian's sermons from 2008 last week. It was terrible--from a Gospel standpoint. It was good--from a communication standpoint. Tullian is a dynamic speaker. But Tullian was speaking about how Christians need to live holy lives so that we can spread Christianity. He said that the problem with Christianity is how Christians conduct themselves. Of course, this is one of the problems. But Christians are always going to sin. What needs to be done is--the Gospel needs to be preached in all of its radicality--God loves you the same when you are praying to him as when you are yelling at your spouse.
So, Tullian's preaching, when it wasn't the Gospel, was terrible even though he was a good communicator. Now, it is life-giving. Two of my favorite preachers here in Birmingham are viewed by some as lackluster, but they are two of my favorites, because they without apology proclaim the true Gospel. Their preaching has the power to change hearts, not merely to remonstrate us for our shortcomings or to be "better" Christians.
Praise God for His humble mouthpieces, who courageously proclaim radical Grace.
On The Gospel Coalition, one of the bloggers recently postulated: "What do you do when your preacher isn't John Piper?" He went on to make some good points that we should try to support our preachers and be thankful for them if they espouse the Gospel, even if their preaching is lackluster. Yes and amen, he's correct. But I query: "If your preacher is espousing the Gospel, will you find him to be lackluster?" Perhaps the issue isn't with the delivery of the message, but with the content of the message. In fact, having a dynamic preacher may even be detrimental to the Kingdom of God. Dynamic preachers can divert from radical Grace and, given their popularity, they can't be "called" on it.
If you have read earlier posts, you know that one of my new favorite preachers is Tullian Tchividjian. Tullian is a well-spoken dynamic preacher. But he correctly espouses the Gospel. And, importantly, it wasn't always that way. Tullian said that when he first embraced the message of Grace, it radically changed his love for God. He said that he had a similar radical change a couple of years ago when he came to understand that Grace applies to our sanctification as well as to our justification.
There is no place for teaching about the ethical use of the law in Christianity. Other religions yes, Christianity no. Christian ethical conduct arises not from the law, but from Grace. This is one of the things that makes Christianity different. If we really believe that God loves us just the same when we are sinning, then sin begins to lose its grip on us. Then, our thankfulness to God begins to drive the sin from our lives. But, only Grace and thankfulness give us any freedom from sin. Merely telling us to "do better," even if we desire to do so, never wrought a change in a sinner's heart and, therefore, never wrought a change in our actions.
I listened to one of Tullian's sermons from 2008 last week. It was terrible--from a Gospel standpoint. It was good--from a communication standpoint. Tullian is a dynamic speaker. But Tullian was speaking about how Christians need to live holy lives so that we can spread Christianity. He said that the problem with Christianity is how Christians conduct themselves. Of course, this is one of the problems. But Christians are always going to sin. What needs to be done is--the Gospel needs to be preached in all of its radicality--God loves you the same when you are praying to him as when you are yelling at your spouse.
So, Tullian's preaching, when it wasn't the Gospel, was terrible even though he was a good communicator. Now, it is life-giving. Two of my favorite preachers here in Birmingham are viewed by some as lackluster, but they are two of my favorites, because they without apology proclaim the true Gospel. Their preaching has the power to change hearts, not merely to remonstrate us for our shortcomings or to be "better" Christians.
Praise God for His humble mouthpieces, who courageously proclaim radical Grace.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year's Resolutions about Internet Porn (or anything else)
In a recent sermon, Tullian was addressing the mechanism of change in our lives--radical grace. He had been counseling a man who had a problem with internet porn. The man told Tullian that no matter how much he prayed, no matter how much he resolved to leave it off, he could not kick the habit. (Obviously, if prayer wasn't getting it done, I doubt that a New Years' resolution would have.) He told Tullian that he finally came to have some victory over internet porn when he realized that "God loved him just the same when he was watching internet porn as when he wasn't!" Radical grace, not the law or resolutions, was the change agent!
A couple of years ago, I had a friend who wanted me to write down his parental code for his computer. He was going to make up some incomprehensible code, so that he couldn't remember it. Then, if he ever needed to change the controls, he could call me for the code. As I was contemplating what he was asking, I thought: "Do I believe in radical grace? Do I believe that only grace can change us and not the law?"
I told my friend that I wouldn't do it. I explained that God loved him whether he was watching internet porn or not and that God's grace was big enough to cover any sin, even repeated sins. I explained that focusing on the sin and praying about the sin all of the time wouldn't change anything--it certainly had never changed anything for me. (This type of praying is narcissism at its worst.) I told him how I began to have freedom from anger and lust only when I reflected upon the things that God had done for me through Christ. I told him that Christ died for all of our past, current, and future sins. Christ's work on the Cross was finished. I told my friend that he was already forgiven by God before he even asked. We also discussed his sex life with his wife and how that could change for the better through radical grace (more on that in a later post).
About a month later, my friend called and told me what freedom he had gained from internet porn. I was so thankful to God--I had refused my friend's request and instead had proclaimed what I understood to be the Gospel. It was difficult for me to do so, because radical grace sounds so untrue, so unlikely. But, time after time, radical grace changes lives.
I was discussing this issue with another friend of mine who doesn't have a computer at home because of internet porn. He told me that he still fantasizes about sex quite frequently. So, taking the internet away did not resolve matters for him. I told him what I had told my other friend and what Tullian had said. I pray that grace will grip him and give him victory over this. I also told him to get married. Thankfully, so thankfully, my wife and I have a wonderful love life, but only after allowing God's radical grace to work in it.
Why don't New Years' resolutions about internet porn or anything else work? Luther put it well:
A couple of years ago, I had a friend who wanted me to write down his parental code for his computer. He was going to make up some incomprehensible code, so that he couldn't remember it. Then, if he ever needed to change the controls, he could call me for the code. As I was contemplating what he was asking, I thought: "Do I believe in radical grace? Do I believe that only grace can change us and not the law?"
I told my friend that I wouldn't do it. I explained that God loved him whether he was watching internet porn or not and that God's grace was big enough to cover any sin, even repeated sins. I explained that focusing on the sin and praying about the sin all of the time wouldn't change anything--it certainly had never changed anything for me. (This type of praying is narcissism at its worst.) I told him how I began to have freedom from anger and lust only when I reflected upon the things that God had done for me through Christ. I told him that Christ died for all of our past, current, and future sins. Christ's work on the Cross was finished. I told my friend that he was already forgiven by God before he even asked. We also discussed his sex life with his wife and how that could change for the better through radical grace (more on that in a later post).
About a month later, my friend called and told me what freedom he had gained from internet porn. I was so thankful to God--I had refused my friend's request and instead had proclaimed what I understood to be the Gospel. It was difficult for me to do so, because radical grace sounds so untrue, so unlikely. But, time after time, radical grace changes lives.
I was discussing this issue with another friend of mine who doesn't have a computer at home because of internet porn. He told me that he still fantasizes about sex quite frequently. So, taking the internet away did not resolve matters for him. I told him what I had told my other friend and what Tullian had said. I pray that grace will grip him and give him victory over this. I also told him to get married. Thankfully, so thankfully, my wife and I have a wonderful love life, but only after allowing God's radical grace to work in it.
Why don't New Years' resolutions about internet porn or anything else work? Luther put it well:
The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
This is made clear by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans (3:21): »But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.« St. Augustine interprets this in his book ›The Spirit and the Letter‹ (De Spiritu et Littera): »Without the law, that is, without its support.« In Rom. 5:20 the Apostle states, »Law intervened, to increase the trespass« , and in Rom. 7:9he adds, »But when the commandment came, sin revived.« For this reason he calls the law »a law of death« and »a law of sin« in Rom. 8:2. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 3:6 he says, »the written code kills« , which St. Augustine throughout his book ›The Spirit and the Letter‹ understands as applying to every law, even the holiest law of God.
Christianity is the only religion that says that the law cannot bring about what it commands. The commands of the law are perfect and beautiful, but they are not efficacious in bringing about change. Only the radical grace of Christianity can bring about change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)