Testimony Versus Historicity

In this and other cases, including the Gospels, testimony asks to be trusted.  It does not consist in the presentation of evidence and argument for what only the witness, the involved insider, can tell us.  In all cases, including even the law courts, testimony can be checked and assessed in appropriate ways but nevertheless has to be trusted.  In the unique events we are considering, this is all the more true.  To insist, with some Gospel critics, that the historicity of each and every Gospel periscope must be established, one by one, with arguments for each, is not to recognize testimony for what it necessarily is.  It is to suppose that we can extract individual facts from testimony and build our own reconstruction of events that is no longer dependent upon the witness.  It is to refuse that privileged access to truth that precisely participant testimony can give us.  Ancient historiography rightly valued such testimony as essential to good history...

--Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony  p. 502

Yes.

Bauckham has definitively destroyed the underlying assumptions for the quests of the Historical Jesus by rightly defining the Gospels not as history or mythology, but as stories based upon eyewitness testimony (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and by an eyewitness (John). 

I am in agreement with Timothy Keller that this book will take a number of years to infiltrate current biblical scholarship, and it will be a new generation of biblical scholars who will carry this torch as it (hopefully) blossoms into a roaring fire.  Yeah, it's that good.

It stands in sharp contrast to those who have undertaken the quest for the "historical Jesus."  Those who undertake this task approach the gospel narratives with a skeptical nature--that they are narratives which include embellishment and perspectives of communities of faith instead of the reports of individual, eyewitness testimony.  The task of the person/scholar searching for the "historical" Jesus is to wade through the mud and the muck in order to find the true jewels or authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus. 

This Jesus historian then must reconstruct Jesus based upon those nuggets.  So, you have a book like Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and The God We Never Knew.  In each of these books, Borg reconstructs Jesus and God giving us a picture of a Jesus we never knew and a God we never knew. 

Well...

Of course we never knew THAT Jesus and THAT God.  They are Borg's reconstructions of Jesus and God.  As such, they are Borg's Jesus and Borg's God not the God of scripture.

Plenty of folks have met Jesus through the Gospel accounts.  Plenty of folks have met God through the biblical account, but they haven't met Borg's God and Borg's Jesus for obvious reasons.

Yet, Borg and others like him have garnered a hefty following in certain Christian circles.  It's not surprising.  (See: How Do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around)  

Bauckham turns the tables and argues quite successfully that the Gospels demand to be approached with trust instead of skepticism--just as a person approaches another's testimony with trust unless given a reason to the contrary.  Changing the assumption of how one approaches these documents changes the game--completely.

I Have Been Ruined

I know that sounds like a strange title, but I found out something about myself this past weekend.

On Saturday, the family and I traveled to Camp Lutherhill in La Grange, TX.  This year, my oldest will be attending summer camp, and we wanted to give her the chance to see camp and become a little more comfortable before leaving the nest for a week.  It just so happened that Lutherhill was having "Open Camp" this Saturday, so not only did we get to see the camp, we got to experience it.

Open Camp gives folks the opportunity to engage in camp activities including swimming, archery, ropes, worship, and dining--all for free.  It's a fantastic idea and one that really put my eldest at ease.  As we were leaving, she even remarked, "I want to stay for two weeks!"

Now, enough of the advertisement for camp.  Let's address the title of this post.

At 11:00 a.m. we gathered at the main outdoor chapel for worship and a sing-a-long.  The camp counselors provided the music as we sang a host of camp songs, and in the midst of that sing-a-long, I discovered I had been ruined.

The song leader would get up to lead a song.  He played guitar.  He would play in one key, and he would sing in another key. 

Musicians are cringing at this moment.

Those with little to no musical background are probably thinking, "What's the big deal."

Well, for those who have trained ears, having someone play in one key and sing in another is tantamount to:

nails on a chalkboard
rubbing a cat the wrong way
squeaking a balloon for hours
rubbing sandpaper on your bare butt

Yes, it's that bad.

I found that I couldn't sing along.  I couldn't get into the music.  I was ruined.

Years ago, this wouldn't have made a difference at all to me.  I'd have simply followed the voice and not worried about the music.  Heck, I'd have probably even sung in a third key, but things have happened to me over the years.

I began playing the guitar.
I began singing in a choir on a regular basis.
I began singing in a gospel band on a regular basis.

My ears began to change. 

• Whereas I used to have difficulty finding my part in singing in a choir--it comes with much more ease.
• Whereas I used to strum my guitar without worrying if a string were a little off--because I couldn't hear it, now, I stop and adjust if things are wonky.
• Whereas I used to sing and not worry about hitting pitch, I can immediately tell when I am off, and I have to adjust.

Because of all these things, my ears have become sensitive to music.  And when things are off, I have difficulty joining in.  I know I'm not alone in this.  As the sing-a-long was going on, I looked at my wife only to see her cringing as well.

Perhaps this is a stretch theologically, but I don't think so.

I believe developing an ear to listening for God and developing an ear for music have several similarities:

• The more you are around music, the better you become at hearing the harmony.  The more you immerse yourself in Christian disciplines--prayer, study, worship, fasting, etc.--the better able you become at distinguishing God's voice in the crowd.
• The more you are around music, the better you become in hearing that which is off key and out of tune.  The more you have immersed yourself in disciplines--leading to distinguishing God's voice--the more you can tell when something is out of tune and out of line with God's will and desire.
• To truly develop your musical ear, you need to work with people--in a choir, in a band, with a coach.  Going it alone only gets you so far.  Ditto with developing your relationship with God; we need worship, coaches, pastors, scholars, those who write books, spiritual directors, and others who help in discerning God's voice.
• When you develop that ear, you are ruined.  No longer do certain things satisfy.  No longer is singing off key acceptable.  No longer is it acceptable to allow a guitar string to be flat or sharp.  Constant adjustment is needed.  Same with living a live tuned into God.  Constant adjustment is needed (repentance, forgiveness, absolution).  No longer do the same things satisfy--"Man does not live by bread alone."  You can see things which are out of tune with God--injustice, hunger, sickness, suffering.  You desire to bring things back into tune and do so to the best of your ability.

I've been ruined in one respect when it comes to music, but it is because I have become a better musician.  I've been ruined in one respect when it comes to growing in the life of faith, but I hope it is because I have become a better Christian.

Who Are You Trying to Please?

There is a little saying I have seen on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and on the internet on numerous occasions. I might be paraphrasing it a little differently, but the gist is the same. It reads:

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow is not looking good either.

I hope that caused you to chuckle just a little bit. It generally brings at least a grin to my face every time I see it. But as is the case with many little snippets, there are some underlying truths that are being addressed.

One of the truths being addressed is the seeming need by some people to have everyone please them. Perhaps you have run into such a person in your life. Fortunately, I think such folks are relatively rare, but when you run into them, you know it.

When I was in seminary, part of my training was to work as a hospital chaplain for 10 weeks. During that time period, I was called to visit a patient who was causing some difficulty. When I arrived, we began talking. After only a few minutes, the lady began asking me to do all sorts of things. At first, I graciously helped her with a few items, but then she asked me to do something that I wasn’t allowed to do.

I said, "I’m sorry ma’am, I cannot help you with that."

She retorted, "Why not?"

I replied, "I’m not allowed to do that. You will have to talk to your nurse to see if she can help you with that."

The woman, in a none-too-pleased tone responded, "You are a chaplain, aren’t you?"

I said, "Yes."

She quipped, "Aren’t you supposed to make me feel better?"

I answered, "No, ma’am. You’ve got to do that yourself."

And that’s when the fight started. No, not really. There was no fight, but there was a look of shock from this woman. She literally expected me to do whatever it took to please her, and she wasn’t exactly happy when I wouldn’t comply. Fortunately, there were no ill effects of this visit, but I have remembered it to this day. Why?

Well, when you run across such people, you learn very quickly there is no way to absolutely please them. They will continue to ask for things and harp about things ad nauseum because of a reality I pointed to–no one can make another person happy. Happiness cannot be brought about by expecting others to provide it to you.

That’s point one. The second point is that if you end up trying to please everyone or please someone who expects you to provide that happiness, you will end up in dire straights. I’ve seen this happen more than a few times, but perhaps someone who illustrated this in a marvelous way is science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his book I Robot. Now, please know this before I begin, the book I Robot is vastly different from the movie staring Will Smith. The book is actually a collection of short stories, and it is to one of these stories that we now turn. It is titled, "Liar!"

Mind you, this book is science fiction, so you will have to allow your imaginations to work. In the story "Liar!" a robot develops the ability to read minds. The people in the story are trying to figure out why to begin with, but they soon find themselves entangled in a massive web of intrigue. It seems like the robot is lying to them. Theoretically, this should be impossible according to the three laws which govern robot behavior. Those laws are:

Law #1: A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction, or allow a human being to come to harm.

Law #2: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

Law #3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Now, Law #1 is critical to the story "Liar!" A robot may not injure a human being through inaction or allow a human being to come to harm. The robot in the story can read minds, and because it can read the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of those humans, it works diligently to make sure no injury comes to those human beings–even emotional injury. Think about that, and then think about your thoughts and what you desire and who you care about and what you would like to happen to you in the future.

Imagine someone who could read those thoughts and then read the thoughts of others. Imagine what would happen if you asked them about what others were thinking. Oh how nice it would be to find out what others were actually thinking about you. But then realize, the person who could read minds couldn’t injure you even emotionally. Imagine the person who could read minds saying exactly what you wanted to hear so that you felt no emotional pain. Imagine what that would do to you when you found out that you had been lied to. What would happen?

Well, in the short story "Liar!" the robot who actually did this ended up making absolutely no one happy, and when it realized it was actually causing pain by trying to make everyone happy, its brain short circuited and was fried.

Can you see the lesson raise by Asimov? Perhaps he didn’t intend for that lesson to come forward, but it’s pretty obvious to me–if you try to please everyone, you will actually please no one, and you will fry your brain in the process.

But this raises the question: who then are we to please? Who are we to focus on? Ourselves? I think if we focus totally on pleasing ourselves, we become like that lady I spoke about in the hospital. And we certainly cannot try to please everyone? Should we just work on pleasing our family? Our friends? Our boss? But what if they turn into those who abuse our good nature? Who are we to work toward pleasing?

As Christians, we have the answer to that question. It is tackled by St. Paul in the book of Galatians, and we have a portion of that before us this morning. In the opening verses of this book of the Bible, Paul writes:

10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Which do you think Paul focuses on?

If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. If there was any doubt, Paul clears it up with that statement. He is not here to please people, and neither are we. We are here to please God. Period.

And what does it mean to please God? What does it mean to make God happy? Well, first off, we need to realize, that we can’t totally please God. All have fallen short of His glory. Even with being redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection, we still don’t stop sinning. We cannot achieve perfection. So, even if we don’t achieve perfection, what do we do? Do we cease trying? Do we stop trying to please God because we know His standards are unattainable?

Let me ask you this: does a baseball player refuse to step up and try to hit the ball even though his or her chances of actually getting a hit are generally about one in three? Does a basketball player stop trying to shoot baskets even though there’s only roughly a 50% chance she or he will make a basket? Does a football player refuse to give his all knowing that on most plays a touchdown is never scored or that he will not score that touchdown? Does a sprinter stop running as fast as he or she can even though he or she knows there is only one winner in the race–and there are others likely faster? No. In each scenario, the athlete strives to do his or her best. The athlete works because every once in a while, a ball is hit, a basket is made, a touchdown is scored, and a time is improved.

And what do you think happens when God sees us doing our best? What do you think happens when He sees us trying to please Him even though we fall short? Do you think He becomes angry? Do you think He grovels and prepares a couple of lightning bolts? No. Not at all. I’m pretty sure He says the same thing to us that He said to Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, "You are my child, with you I am well pleased." Amen.

America Losing Its Religion

CNN Religion blogs ran the headline yesterday: America Losing Its Religion.

The headline is a bit of a misnomer because Americans aren't exactly losing their religion.  The article spells that out.  The headline is a cheap ploy to get people to read--yours truly included.  :-)

Pertinent quote--the first four paragraphs:

More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.

"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."

According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.

According to the poll, 75% of Americans said it the country would be better off if it was more religious.

So, the headline is blatantly wrong.  America isn't losing it's religion.  In fact, the poll actually suggests the vast majority (3/4) of Americans believe the country would be better off if it were religious.  This speaks volumes!!  People believe religion has a positive effect on the country!!!

Yet, these same people believe religion is losing influence. 

It's not surprising.  Religion has had a very tough time adapting to a host of things:

1. The rise of secularism.  The secular worldview has ascended to prominence when it comes to debating what goes on in the United States.  Faith based arguments generally no longer have much persuasive power.  This forces people of faith to suspend the place where they draw most of their ethics and morality and argue from a much different, uncomfortable place.  Too many people of faith do not have the tools to do this or to argue the difficulty of dealing with moral issues from a strictly secular point of view.  #2 below has contributed to this mightily as well.

2. The rise of relativism.  This path of thought developed to deal with pluralism.  In our now global culture, we have been made aware of the differences in thought and practice of people and belief.  It is not easy to forge a way forward when confronted with many differing worldviews.  Yet, instead of arguing the merits of which worldview provides a better way forward (atheism? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Secular? Scientific?), we strive to say all worldviews are equal--none is better than another.  This is most certainly an absurd argument, but it actually has a good number of adherents.  Many people of faith have few philosophical tools to argue with the rise of relativism.

3. The prominence of science.  Science is cool.  It's brought about some awesome things--the ability to understand the world, how it works, and how we can work in the world to improve our survival.  Yet, science has proven poor at providing a framework for morality and ethics despite the claims of some that it is capable of doing such a thing.  Science has also been shown to be quite limited in other areas and aspects; yet one might never really know this based upon what one hears in the news.  For many, science is the be all and end all, and people of faith have had little training in saying, "Science is not this.  It is good in one area and not in others."

Because people of faith have not been provided such tools, secularism, relativism, and scientism have undermined the power of religious faith to shape public policy.  Most are unhappy with this because they see the benefits faith can bring.  Yet, most don't have any idea how to argue in the cultural milieu we find ourselves in.

Perhaps Christian apologists like Timothy Keller, Richard John Neuhaus, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantenga will be read and studied more as they offer some substantial tools to deal with this process, for it seems like America does not want religion to lose its influence--and you can count me in that portion of America as well.

Awesome: Trinity Sunday Sermon

This past week, I had a text conversation about some church matters with one of our members. This member needed Sam to send something, but Sam was home sick. I have permission to share the following, so please allow me a moment to do this:

Me: Sure. I’ll have Sam send it tomorrow. I sent her home because she was sick.

Our member: No problem. I hope she feels better.

Me: Me too. Working without your secretary is like steering a boat without a rudder.

Our member: Awww, I am sure you do a great job. You are awesome.

Me: I am only as awesome as those I work and serve with.

Now, why would I say such a thing instead of blushing and offering a word of thanks? Why even say anything at all? Why not just let the comment stand alone since a response can either seem conceited or self-depreciating? Why tie this member’s thoughts about the job I do to the congregation as a whole? Why?

Because, I believe this whole Christianity thing is about individuals who live in relationship with one another.

Let’s talk a moment about the way a congregation works. All too often, our congregations are only focused upon the pastor and the job he or she does. But is this fair? I mean, don’t get me wrong, a pastor is very important to the life of a church. He or she serves as its spiritual leader.
If a pastor doesn’t have a solid relationship with God, can’t preach a decent sermon, and does not show kindness and compassion along with having a strong sense of doctrine, problems will arise. Effective pastors are essential to the health of a congregation.

But pastors can’t make a congregation thrive alone. I think you know this, but let me repeat it just so it sinks in: pastors can’t make a congregation thrive alone. I mean, what if a pastor preaches excellent sermons, shows kindness and compassion to everyone he or she meets, has a strong sense of doctrine and belief, and has a solid relationship with God–what if a pastor has all these traits, yet, his or her congregation continually bickers with each other, refuses to invite and welcome others into its midst, or refuses to give to support the ministries of the church or try to connect with the community and its needs? Do you think that congregation will thrive? Of course it won’t. The pastor and congregation must work together as a team in order for a church to thrive. This is why I said, "I am only as awesome as those I work with and serve." It’s about relationship.

But there is one more component to this whole dynamic. At this point, we have a pastor and a congregation. Is this enough? Is this alone enough to make a church thrive in this world? At this point, I will argue no. That might raise a few eyebrows, I am sure, but none the less, I believe I am correct. It is not enough for a church to thrive to have a good pastor and a good group of people. This relationship is not enough. Yes, you heard me correctly, this relationship is not enough.

For, you see, the Pastor and the congregation must be intimately connected to God. In order for a congregation to truly be effective in doing God’s work, in order for a pastor to be effective in doing God’s work, they each must be connected to Him. The relationship actually forms a triangle–a dance between three entities that work together to accomplish what needs to be done in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ to the world.

And how is that accomplished? Well, we have to move the points of the triangle a little bit. The pastor is now included into this entity that is called the congregation. There now exists a relationship between God and the congregation, but one more component is now added–the surrounding community. We bring people within the community into the relationship dance. The triangle continues and shifts. What I find interesting is how the relationships I am talking about need three entities.

God + the congregation + the pastor = a thriving church–relationship.

God + the congregation (including the pastor) + the community = fulfillment of the Great
Commission–relationship.

Relationship is at the core of the Christian message, and can anyone here see the mirror yet with the nature of God Himself? If you can’t, please let me attempt to show it to you.

Today is Trinity Sunday. It is the Sunday of the church calendar where we celebrate the nature of God. God is the Father. God is the Son. God is the Holy Spirit. Yet, these three do not make up three Gods but one God. Logically, this does not make any sense. Mathematically, it doesn’t make any sense. But relationally, it makes plenty of sense. Relationally, three are one and one is three. At the core of God is a relationship; a relationship that is so strong between the entities that they cannot be seen as separate.

And, here is an intriguing thought based upon a portion of our gospel text for today. Jesus says about the Spirit, "14He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." The Spirit will glorify Jesus. But we know later that Jesus says He strives to glorify the Father. And we also know that the Father glorifies the Son.

In this relationship called the Trinity, all three parts continuously strive to glorify each other. Let’s put this into different terms. In this relationship called the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit work diligently to make one another awesome. They love one another to the point that they strive diligently and with reckless abandon to build each other up in a glorious dance of eternal love.

Is it possible for us to do likewise?

We know that God loves us and wants us to be awesome.

We know God loves the community and wants it to be awesome.

Do pastors love their congregations and seek their awesomeness?

Do congregations love their pastors and seek their awesomeness?

Do congregations love their communities and seek their awesomeness?

And can you imagine what would happen if we set aside our own personal desires to implement those kinds of relationships in the world? What effect would that kind of love have in communities affected by disaster like in Oklahoma? What effect would that kind of love have with parents who have lost their children to tragedy? What kind of effect would that kind of love have with people who were striving to find their purpose in life? What kind of effect would that kind of love have on people who truly are seeking to know whether or not God existed? What kind of effect would that kind of love have on those who struggle with abusive relationships? What kind of effect would that kind of love have on the world?

Well, in a word, I guess it would be awesome. Amen.

God's Will and Suffering

This is the second CNN article which grabbed my attention this past week--especially in light of the suffering endured by parents and children in Moore, OK.  Is suffering God's will?

This is a most difficult question...for believers.

For atheists, there is no difficulty in wrestling with the question, because there is no question.   How can a non-existent God cause suffering?  Suffering just happens.  Period.

But the atheist has to then answer a very important question--at least a very important question to a whole host of people: where then is hope?  In the atheistic world view, there is no hope to be offered anyone who loses a child to a tornado, a school shooter, cancer, a tsunami, or what have you.  Essentially, one is left with "You know what Happens.", with no ifs, ands or buts.  One is out of luck.  For those of us who believe hope is essential to the viability of the human species, atheism is not an acceptable route.

Which brings us to belief.  And suffering.  And the place of God in it.

Joshua Prager's article struggles with meaning in this regard.  He offers two options:

And it occurs to me that whenever any of us wish to assimilate why we suffer (or prosper), we must choose between these same two narratives. We can attribute our lots to God and his writings, his unknowable ways. Or we can root them in the natural world and chronicle them ourselves -- on paper or simply in our minds. We can take comfort in ultimate if inscrutable justice. Or we can take comfort in observable reason and responsibility.

Pragner confesses later in the article, he falls squarely in the second camp.  He professes to be agnostic toward God--which is fine for him.  He comes to a place where he has come to grips with why he suffered by getting rid of God.

Suffering as God's Will

Interestingly enough, he also found others who suffered who found comfort and solace in his first narrative: that God ordains suffering.  Again, a relevant, long quote:

Surrounded by seven shelves of holy books, Yaakov, the family patriarch, told me that God had caused the crash and spared our lives. He said we had to follow the example of Job and serve God though we did not understand him.

Next, I found the widow of the bus driver. She was a secular Jew of Yemeni descent and lived in the industrial town of Petach Tikvah. (She wished to keep her name private.) She told me that her husband had feared nothing but God. And, she said, it was God who had ordained the crash. "It is written," she told me. "If you don't believe that, you will go crazy."

Finally, in the Arab town of Kfar Qara, I found the driver whose truck had crashed into the left rear of the bus where I sat. Abed told me that he had become religious after the crash and that the crash was an act of God. He then paused from his coffee and his Hebrew to speak an Arabic word: Maktoob. "It is written."

I left Abed, mindful as I drove south toward Jerusalem that, in this land of competing narratives, Arab and Jew were for once in perfect agreement.

Three different sets of people found comfort and understanding by believing God had ordained the bus crash which caused their suffering. 

Theologically, this gives people like myself the heebie-jeebies.  There are a good number of theologians who do not believe God intentionally causes suffering in the manner understood above--and for good reasons which I will outline below.

However, before I do that, please allow me to relay why I believe this understanding of God's will is held onto by many.  Much of it has to do with the understanding of God's power.  If indeed God is all-powerful and God is all-knowing, then God has ultimate control over everything--every event--every occurrence both with natural disasters and human inclination. 

This is the logical conclusion of believing in a God that is all-powerful and all-knowing.  The hope that people have is that since God is all-powerful and all-knowing, there is a reason God caused the suffering even though that reason is not known.  Emphasize the word hope.  Not content to deal with the way things are, there must exist a deeper, more meaningful reason for suffering.

Problems with this Approach

The biggest problem with this approach to suffering has to do with the theological assertion: God is all-powerful.  Does God have such power that He controls each and every formulation of the human mind and will AND each and every act of nature?  If one concedes that God indeed is this powerful, then there is no free will (which is one of the reasons I believe Pragner uses the word responsibility only from the agnostic, second perspective). 

If there is no free will; however, then we are left with another significant problem.  If we as humans have no free will, we are simply puppets being used at the mercy of the divine persona.  One could easily get the perception of a kid playing with his toys.  He's got some favored toys which he cares for and keeps in pristine condition, but there are others which he cares less about.  Why not have some fun with them?  Make car crashes.  Have them play army against one another.  See what happens when they get caught in massive amounts of water, and fire, and rain, and wind, and falling earth--just as a child does with toys he doesn't mind getting broken.

Is it any wonder why some rebel against this notion of God?  Is it any wonder why they run screaming from this theological position?  I personally would too, but does this mean I am left with only one alternative?  Does this mean I have only one other option as Pragner suggests?  In a word: no.  (Let me stress here, that I have no animosity toward those who hold this particular theological position.  In it, they have found hope and comfort, and it is my last desire to remove that from them.)

A Christian Approach to Suffering

It is necessary to say that there are many approaches to the problem of suffering within the Christian tradition.

There are those who subscribe to the understanding that suffering is a part of God's will.

There are those who believe our suffering is a part of God's redemptive plan for the world--as Christ suffered, we also suffer for the sake of the world.

There are those who find meaning in the words of St. Paul in Romans 5:3-5: 3And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.

I believe a Christian approach to suffering begins with the understanding that God intended a creation which was perfect where suffering did not appear.  I believe God created such a creation only to have it ultimately rebel against Him.  I want to be very clear here: it was not just man that rebelled against God, it was the entirety of creation that did.  This is an important point.

It is well argued that God gave free will to human beings so they were not puppets on a string.  In order to fully live in a relationship, one must be free to have some choice in the matter.  God initiates every relationship and brings people to belief; however, He gives us the ability to walk away.  At this point, I am also conceding this ability to creation as well.

How can I do such a thing?  In the Judeo-Christian story of the Fall, man and woman desire to be like God, so they disobey God's instructions and eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.  Yet, they were coaxed into eating by...a part of creation: the serpent.  Parts of the creation were already rebelling against God's command, and they knew the lynch pin was humankind since God had given humankind the job of tending the Garden.  If humans fell, the whole of creation would simply continue its rebellion unchecked, and that's exactly what happened.

God allowed humankind and creation to make it's choice, and God continues to allow it such freedom.  I do not believe that God ultimately has control over every action taken by humans or by nature.  I believe God gives freedom to each to act accordingly--humans to their thought processes or lack there of, and the world according to scientific laws (as best as we understand them). 

I believe sometimes God intervenes in the process in the form of the miraculous--I know scientifically this is possible--however, I have no idea God's reasons for intervening in some cases but not others.

Suffering, then, is a consequence of the brokenness of the world.  Humans bear responsibility for part of that suffering and it cannot be attributed to God.  Nature bears responsibility for part of that suffering that cannot be attributed to God.  Yet, I also believe that God bears responsibility for suffering in that He does not intervene at all times and in all places to prevent suffering.

Yes, you read that last statement correctly.  God is on the hook for suffering which takes place in our world since He theoretically has the power to abolish it.  However, we must note that God places Himself on that proverbial hook--not us.  He does so through HIS OWN SUFFERING AND DEATH.  This is something that is uniquely Christian--the belief that God took on human flesh, suffered, and died so that creation could be redeemed.

As Timothy Keller puts it in The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism:

Let's see where this has brought us.  If we again ask the question: "Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?" and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the answer is.  However, we now know what the answer isn't.  It can't be that He doesn't love us.  It can't be that He is indifferent or detached from our condition.  God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that He was willing to take it on Himself.  (pp. 30-31)

But it is not enough for the Christian to simply say, "God suffers with us." because there is more--resurrection.  Christianity proclaims a God who is not content to allow tragedy and death to be the final word, and so He offers resurrection.  This is the news of Jesus' rising from the dead.  Jesus is the "first fruit" of what is to come--the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.

A Third Way

And so, we have arrived at a third way from understanding God's will and suffering as opposed to Pragner's two.  Suffering is not caused by God's will.  He does not intentionally cause tornadoes or train wrecks or bus wrecks.  Nature causes suffering.  Humans cause suffering.  God does not stop such things from happening for reasons only known to Him.  In some cases, God intervenes for reasons known only to Him.

But God takes responsibility for all suffering by taking it upon Himself as He willingly suffers and dies to redeem the world so that at the end of time a new world will be brought into being where all the wrongs are made right.  This is the hope to which we subscribe.

In Defense of Prayer

I have been intrigued by two stories that appeared on CNN.com in the past few days.  Both concerned matters of the spirit.  Both concerned the place of God in human suffering.  Both deserve commentary, much deeper than can be found in the usual comments section on such websites.

Today, I wish to deal with the topic of prayer.

In this CNN article, there are a few people who are criticizing the practice of prayer, both Christian scholars and atheists. 

Pertinent quotes:

"A prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you," said Elizabeth Drescher, a lecturer at Santa Clara University in California. "It's not an act of magic."  ...“It seems to express hope and anxiety, and maybe even helplessness,” Drescher said.  “At the same time, it evokes this strong response from people who see it as a cop-out, a way of claiming some kind of spiritual space that doesn’t actually have any meaning to the people who are posting the meme or the community they are addressing.”

After MTV tweeted that pop stars Beyonce, Rihanna and Katy Perry are sending their prayers to Oklahoma, Gervais responded, “I feel like an idiot now … I only sent money.”

“If all people are doing is praying, it is worthless,” Hemant Mehta, an Illinois math teacher who writes the blog “Friendly Atheist,” told CNN. “If they are praying and donating to the Red Cross, that’s more like it.”

 Why We Pray

First, let's examine the reasons that Christians pray.  Of course, we must root our understanding on prayer in the person of Jesus, and it was he who commanded His followers to pray.  Jesus Himself prayed, and as imitators of Christ, we are called to do the things He did to the best of our ability.

Drescher is correct in her assessment that prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you, but what she believes that consequence is, I am not sure.  What I do know is that prayer, at its best, links a person to God.  During our times of prayer, we do not change God, but God changes us.  Oftentimes during those moments of intense prayer, God is working around in us rearranging our furniture so that we may come to a fuller knowledge of Him and His will for our lives.  This means, we are transformed to produce the fruits of God and His Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.

This process also helps us realize our dependence upon God.  The Prayer of prayers given to us by Jesus guides us into realizing what is most important: seeking God's Kingdom, seeking God's will, seeking heaven on earth, depending upon God for daily sustenance, seeking forgive as we have been forgiven, and seeking deliverance from evil. 

In such a manner, prayer indeed has consequences for our lives including when we pray for others.

It's Not Worthless to Pray for Others

What are the consequences for us when we pray for others?  This question comes to the fore whenever we pray for those involved in natural disasters, are stricken with grief, are diagnosed with illness, cancer, and the like, or who are going through other rough stretches in life.  Is there any value in praying for these folks?  Are there any consequences?  For us?  For them?

First, there are direct consequences for us.  This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but I can assure you, it is not.  Jesus instructed His followers to "pray for  your enemies and bless those who persecute you."

Why engage in such an activity?  From an atheistic point of view, this truly seems inane!  Why pray for someone who actively seeks your harm?  Why pray for someone who stands against what you say and do?

Quite simply, Jesus does not want us to forget our human connection to even our enemies.  Jesus does not want us to dehumanize even those who are persecuting us.  This world is a bed of roses--thorns and all.  We are surrounded by immense beauty and harmony, but there are many thorns which cause hurt and suffering.  One way we as humans cope with suffering is to dehumanize those who suffer and keep them at arm's length.  "I don't know them, so why should I grieve when they hurt?"  Jesus says, "Pray for them because they are human, just like you.  Your heavenly Father cares for them, just like He cares for you.  They deserve your care and concern because they are a part of God's creation, just like you."

But praying for others goes further--much, much further. 

Gervais and Mehta criticize prayer as worthless because it actually does nothing for those affected by tragedy.  They emphasize money over prayer.  This isn't surprising since atheism is inherently materialistic.  Atheism denies the existence of the spiritual--and actually anything that cannot be proven by measurement and reason.  (This presents a bit of a problem since atheism cannot prove the existence of other minds--other bodies, sure, but other minds--big problem.)  The only things that count in regards to such matters is how one deals with material needs.  This is why they make claims that money is more important than prayers.

It is indeed true that prayers cannot rebuild homes.  Prayer cannot provide food and clothing.  Prayers cannot pay for medical bills or funeral arrangements.  But--and this is a very important point--people are much more than these things.  People are much more than material objects.  People have more than material needs.

Again: people have more than material needs.

When we pray for others, we seek healing for their emotional and spiritual needs.  Atheism cannot begin to touch this subject with a 10 foot pole because it has absolutely no capability of measuring the success or failure of such things--emotions, spirit, or prayer.  Here is where Gervais and Mehta become badly mistaken. 

Prayers have an effect.

I cannot tell you the hundreds of times I have heard people say, "I feel the prayers of those around me."  Hey, I've even said the exact same thing.  The prayers of God's people are very effective at bringing healing to one's emotions and spirits.

This means that even those who are not able to financially and materially assist those who undergo tragedy or illness can affect a situation.  They can contribute to the well being of the ENTIRE person, not just one aspect--the material.

Therefore, pray away, my readers.  Pray for those affected by the Oklahoma tornadoes.  Pray for the parents of Sandy Hook elementary.  Pray for mothers and fathers whose children have died.  Pray for those who are experiencing suffering and pain and illness.  Despite what some would say, you are making a difference.