Family Feud

I recently watched a very interesting debate between two brothers, Christopher and Peter Hitchens. I knew and had watched some of Christopher's debates and arguments against God before but I didn't know he had a brother. They are so similar in their looks and even some of their mannerisms but far apart on much of their views.

They started debating whether we should have invaded Iraq. Christopher was for it and Peter against. However that was just the warm up and as Christopher said in the press conference before "religion is the debate as it underlay's all things". Christopher talks most of the time in the press conference and seems more confident and at ease but during the main debate Peter does make some very helpful remarks. Peter referrers to his relationship with his brother as akin to Canada's relationship with the USA". Not 100% sure what that means but watching the two of them together I can hazard something of a guess. The USA is defiantly the more prominent on the world stage and while Canadians have many similarities to the states they are very different and, in my experience, rather resent getting mistaken for Americans. There is a certain amount of tension between the two. 

I have made notes on the debate which I include bellow sprinkled with some of my comments. I should say that the quotes I have put in are what I wrote down as they spoke. I may have missed the odd word or sentence out but I tried to capture the words and thoughts as meaningfully as I could in the time I had.

In the main debate Christopher kicks off with some arguments or thoughts against the existence of God. He starts off by saying that a very negative aspect of religion is that  religious people must want somehow to be slaves. He portrays God as a totalitarian ruler who watches you round the clock and convicts you of thought crimes. A celestial North Korea if you will. "Who wants this to be true?" he asks before quipping "at least in Korea you can escape by dyeing". In the bible and Koran you can never escape.

He then attacks the premise that without God we would not know or do the right thing. I don't think many Christians believes that anyway so it's a bit of a straw man. It's more that religions and belief in God provide (or posit or recognise) a basis for right and wrong and ensures that the concepts are meaningful. It seems to me for example that the existential concept of absolute morality require ultimate justice. It also seems reasonable to suppose that morality isn't a physical thing, it's a personal thing, ie its rooted in a person not energy of matter.  

Christopher recons that religion is a first version of truth (in the realms of morality, philosophy, health care etc). "We didn't  know much when we invented it. We had not escaped from the childish origins of our ancestors. We now have better versions. We have cleared up all these mysteries. Where once religion was an aid to survival it is now a peril. How much more lovely and elegant are Darwin and Einstein than the burning bush?"

He finishes with his argument against God's timing. For 100,00 years, he says, humans are born, live around 25 years and endure horrible diseases, tribalism, etc then die. "For 100,000 years heaven watches with indifference. Folded arms. Only 2000 years ago, in a barbaric illiterate part of the middle east, does God do something."

He sums up as follows : "If you believe in this God you are stupid and immoral. The case for divine intervention falls and we should be glad of it."

Up gets his brother to bring the case for the existence of God. One of his opening comments about his brother is "How little he knows of what he attaches. How he mocks and belittles. He seems to think that others have not been troubled by the things he mentions and yet despite them all have come to believe in God in wise, beneficial and good God.". I think that's a fair point in some ways. Christopher is so very cleaver and knows so much but seems at times to be attacking a straw man. His incite is at times so forceful and clear that it blows some cobwebs away from me and helps me in my understanding and shaping of what I believe and yet at other times there seems to be something he is missing. I feel like I'm in a pantomime and want to shout "he behind you!" Maybe it's one of perspective. If you come to the bible hostile there is plenty to knock. If you come loving and knowing God there is so much good, yet I still agonise over some bits. 

And so to Peters first point. It's a familiar one but has some merit. "Why is there something rather than nothing? Since we know so little it would be unwise to form absolute certainties. Again the book is entirely jeering and mocking on this point". Others have made this point much stronger and he doesn't  really press it that much. It seems no more than a plea for caution before writing off God. In any case it doesn't really hit Christopher where it hurts as he, at times, seems open to the possibility of a deist God. A God who started things off. But as he says "Even if you can prove [a deist God], you have all your work ahead of you to get to a God who hears prayers, meddles in history, and cares about who you sleep with..."

The next argument Peter gives has more force. If there is no God you may behave as you wish. Peter makes an observation that I think is very important. He talks about "Luxury atheism". "I've seen where they live" he says. "These atheists live in nice places. They can advance the theory of atheism as a nice theory" while enjoying privileges, protection and a morality largely shaped by Christianity. Meanwhile youths, who don't share their morality, or see any basis for it, kick people to death on our streets. "They are the practical atheists". Christianity didn't just appear in a vacuum, it pushed out other things and as it's taken away these things will come back. The worship of Ba'al Hammon (I think he said mok I don't know which God that is) with the slaughter of children. "180,000 babies a year are now killed in the womb".  We worship Mammon in our preoccupation with money, (he mentioned others but I didn't get them - ahsterth?).

Peter said that he also had been to North Korea. "It is a country run by people who despise the idea of God. - eat of this tree and ye shall be like God".  

Christopher answers with the story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son. "I find a father holding a knife to his sons throat to show his loves to a  totalitarian dictator wicked."

He then goes for the jugular, not with an argument but a massive accusation, attacking the truth at the heart of Christianity:

"You either believe in vicarious redemption or you do not. I can throw my sins on another and he can die and suffer for me and throw my responsibly away. It's the most immoral idea in circulation. I could offer to pay your debt, maybe even serve your time in prison, but not take your sins away. Wash you white as snow."

I agree you either go with the possibility of your sins being placed on another or you don't. There is no good analogy for it. That's why God did the whole sheep and goat sacrifice thing for hundreds of years to get the idea across. If it's true it is a unique concept and possibility. Your sin, the guilt for the things you have done wrong, can be transferred to Jesus Christ, the unique and perfect son of God and son of Man, fully man and fully God. There is no other way of offloading them because doing good things doesn't rub out your culpability for bad things. 

If you don't go for vicarious redemption, you have to live and die with your sins. If you believe this then it is also reassuring to believe that you will not be judged after death for the things you have done wrong (and neither will those who sinned against you). As I touched on earlier, you then have to consider in what sense something is really wrong. If you do go with substitutionary atonement then there is a wonderful possibility that you can be declared not guilty. I didn't go with it until I got a good view of my sin and then I clung to it and put it on like a life jacket in a stormy sea. It was a life or death situation.    

Christopher moves on to refute Peter's next argument:

"As for why there something rather than nothing - Well results of the Hubble telescope tell us that we are in an expanding universe heading for nothingness. Who designed that? We must either convict the designer of extreme incompetence and or extreme cruelty and callousness and  indifference towards those he summoned into existence."

I would respond to that by saying that the current creation is broken but not by God and it's going to be remade. It also does not address the problem of first causes but I don't think that is Christopher's main beef with God.

Peter starts his answer by returning to Abraham and Isaac. He says something very helpful: "The Knife at the throat was not used. That is the point of the story." How true, people did used to do things like that but God does not! He provides a substitute. I have never seen the story in that way. It's a massive revelation and turning point in the unfolding revelation of who God is. Peter makes the point very strongly:

"The point about vicarious sacrifice is what it replaced. It replaced child sacrifice. To speak of the story of Abraham as if this is a recommended action is not merely a misunderstanding it is repulsive and really should not be acceptable in civilised debate. To speak as if something is being advocated when it is actually being spoken against."

The debate breaks into a more free flowing exchange at this point and Christopher replies:

"Is not the point that God wanted to see if he would do it? If his submission reaches such heights? Is this not worse than job where the dictator toys with the emotions of one of his effortlessly made creatures?"   

He goes on:

"On the point of morality my brother has highlighted the awful nihilism that has poisons much of social life. But this is not to be equated with atheism. How do those who say 'god is on my side' act? You don't get rid of [moral] relativity by claiming you have God on your side, rather you make anything right."

He then gives the challenge that he often gives out but of which I can't quite see the relevance:

"Name me a moral action by a believer that could not have been made by an unbeliever?

Name me a wicked statement uttered by someone claiming God's permission to do so."

Peter's answer is short and sweet but not that relevant:

"I left the daily express when it was taken over by a pornographer but you're articles still appear in it."

It's not an answer to Christopher's question as many non-believers find pornography immoral and don't want to be associated with it. It also raises other ethical questions about how much you remove yourself from association with evil. What bank do you use, what companies you buy products from, what TV programs do you appear in, what are the no compromise moral issues for you, etc etc. It's too subjective a point to  be of much use in this debate.  

This blog is already far too long so I will write up my notes from the Q&A another time.

Love in an RSJ

Had a great time speaking at a wedding today. What an honour and a privilege to be able to bring something from God's word at such a significant time. When I met the couple to talk about marriage I felt God impress upon me to speak on "the significance of promises" at their wedding and it ended up fitting in well with the rest of the service.

I felt confident that my main point was very biblical (and backed up by John Piper!) but I wish I had been able to find a good key text to base it on. I always feel a bit at sea not staying close to a passage as I know that left to my own devices I am inclined to get things a bit muddled and wrong. I have just read Joel Virgo's helpful blog on prayer and come across this verse which illustrates a bit more what I was trying to say:

Neh 1:5   And I said, "O LORD God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, (ESV)

or

"keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands." NIV

My point was that love, enduring love, steadfast love, is undergirded and supported by a framework of promises. This verse captures the link quite well with its "keeps covenant and steadfast love". I referred to Psalm 145:13 which says it simply and poetically:

The lord is faithful to all his promises

and loving towards all he has made

Hebrew poetry often "rhymes" with similar concepts rather than sounds, and this verse says the same things from two slightly different perspectives. On one side of the coin "The Lord is faithful to his promises" and on the other  he is "loving to all he has made". The downside with this verse is that is it not universally included in all of the best manuscripts (just one of the Masoretic Tests, the dead sea scrolls and Syriac). Is it really inspired? Well, like the end of Mark, since the concepts are taught elsewhere in the bible it's not that important. Using it does feel a bit like walking on thin ice though!

A larger and more overbearing example of my point was that when God initiated a relationship it was with promises. These promises formed a reliable structure, not just for their relationship but in fact undergird and form the framework for God's love to be poured out for the whole world in Jesus Christ.

Covenant promises give love it's backbone. Without it you can be left with what I call "spineless, lily-livered, jellyfish" love (Actually Sybille Faulty used that expression to describe Basil's, her husband's, lies. It just popped into my head from 20 years ago! "Basil" - she says the name so wonderfully quickly and sharply, like a gun going off - "I have had just about enough of your spineless, lily-livered, jellyfish lies!").

I gave an illustration from James Mays TV series where he does cool things with toys on a large scale. In one of his programs he decided to build a full sized two story house out of Lego. The problem was Lego is manufactured to come apart easily so for safety reasons some wise people persuaded him to build it around a wooden frame. It would probably have been ok for a while but if you are going to live in it for any length of time and not tip toe around, it's best to put in some support.

It's the classic image of a house being built - The wooden framework goes up first, then the roof and sides and paint and furniture.  If you really want to build big nowadays you can't beat a steel frame for sturdiness.  In a marriage ceremony, when couples make promises to each other they are setting up a supporting structure for their love. With each promise, you can almost hear the banging of hammers driving nails into wooden beams or the sonorous clangs of steel supports being bolted together. It struck me that at the next weeding we should decorate the hall with massive steel girders. It would be more manly than linen and express something of the strength and power of love. I don't think any self respecting bride would or should go for it though!

I always feel uneasy about quoting Shakespeare as I can't really understand a word he says but I like this bit:

            Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds,

            Or bends with the remover to remove

When I first read that my reaction was the same as when I read any Shakespeare. What on earth is he talking about. He's using words but they are all jumbled up. It took me a while to understand what he was saying. I'm not a great one for poetry, but basically, translated into my language: he's saying that Love is an RSJ. A Rolled steel joist. It's not quite as romantic but it makes the point. (Perhaps someone should produce an annotated Shakespeare that just says it like it is in pithy to the point statements). Maybe the bibles "love never fails" is a good compromise between clarity and poetry.

I was more comfortable quoting John Piper:

"Staying in love isn’t the first task of marriage. It is a happy overflow of covenant-keeping for Christ’s sake."

I love this quote. As well as reassuring me that I'm on the right track, it points to how we can actually stay faithful to the promises we make. We do that by living for the glory of Jesus Christ and seeking his kingdom first. As we live in the good of his love and live our lives for Christ the Holy Spirit will give us everything we need.        

I ended with a quick word about the roof, walls and furniture. While the strength of love is in the promises, who wants to live in a steel framework or a mass of iron girders. It's drafty,  the rain comes in and there in nowhere to sit. It also has no personality. We clad and furnish our marriage with expressions of love to one another, with how we talk to each other, how we look at each other, presents, touch, and maybe even poetry! These things determine how a marriage feels; how healthy it is - not only for  the couple but to others like children and friends.  Without it all that steel can start to look a little like a prison! I guess if you neglected the upkeep of a building for long enough it can weaken the frame but ultimately its the promises that give love and marriage its enduring strength and that's what happens in a good wedding ceremony.   

Is he for real?

A friend asked me a really thought provoking question today. Is Reinhard Bonnke for real? I hadn't come across them before but there are a few accusations around that some of his reported miracles are fraudulent  in nature.

What do I think? I think he's for real. I guess the reported miracles could be mistaken or even downright fraudulent. Without any personal, first hand information it’s hard to be certain. There are lots of testimonies and counter claims out there. I can read them and try to get some sense of the truth, like a jurors listening to witness in a trial but it’s not easy. Who do I believe? In general I find it hard to believe that someone who evidently loves Jesus and the truth would purposely be involved in lies and deception. Sadly that has happened in the past but I don’t think it’s the norm. Could it all be psychosomatic, or misunderstandings, or gullibility? It's possibly I suppose but not probable.

I suspect what makes the biggest difference is the basis upon which I approach testimonies of healing. If you don't think miracles happen today to back up the gospel then it obviously biases you towards not believing and you will need an almost impossible amount of proof. If you do expect miracles when the gospel is preach you are biased towards accepting testimonies and claims of healing and you might be happy with less proof.

I know Bonnke preaches the gospel and so I would expect miracles to follow. I would therefore need more convincing that they were not real than that they were real (if that makes sense!).

There is a complication here though. I am living and working in two different realms. In my actual firsthand experience big miracles (ie people getting raised form the dead, or healed from terminal cancer - although a couple of hours after writing this I got the news that a friend has just had the all clear after a year long battle with cancer. After medical treatment and persistent prayer he no longer has it) don't happen but as I read the bible and let it inform my expectation I find that they do. Which one will I let dominate my approach to testimonies of miracles from people like Bonnke? I've got to go with the biblical expectation or I might as well throw the bible away. Perhaps a less overstated reason is that I found that I didn’t in fact expect people to get healed when I prayed for them because people hadn’t got healed in the past. I decided that my thinking and practice were influenced far too much in an unhelpful way by my experience resulting in my faith being crushed and stunted. Since the word of God produces faith I decided to let my thinking and expectation be effected more by the bible rather than my experience.

That doesn’t mean I am gullible or simple minded, believing any story I hear. It does mean though that I am not ultra sceptical. For example a few of us prayed for a man recently who had bad hearing. After a short time of prayer he said his hearing and tinnitus was 70% better. I believed him. Why wouldn't I? At the same time another friend of mine got her back prayed for which had been bad for years and felt totally better. I asked her the next day and it was still better. I've no reason to think she wasn't healed by God but I will ask how she is again when I see her and get more info. Could these have been coincidences or psychosomatic? Maybe, but I think in light of God's word it's more reasonable to believe that God did it.

When passing on stories of testimonies it’s sometimes helpful to say where you heard it and what degree of proof there was. ie "I heard that so and so got healed" can sometimes be more helpful than "so and so got healed". In the examples above though I would be happy saying "so and so got healed" and give the context as I have done.

Just one more thing, a few weeks ago I saw someone prophecy over people with such amazing accuracy that it blew me away. I spoke to some of the people afterwards to confirm it and was convinced that I had witnessed the supernatural. This sort of experience along with first hand experiences of "small" healings reduce my natural reticence to accept stories of healing (and increases my faith to see them) as my experience catches up with my biblical expectation. 

One final final thing. Faith is linked to action so it's always helpful to think “what practical effect does this have on my life and what action will it cause me to take or not take?”. If you come to the conclusion that Bonnke is a fraud then it's best not to have anything to do with him. Don’t read or watch his stuff, ignore testimonies of people who have ‘got healed’ by him, don’t go to his meetings if you are not well etc. If however you think he is or might be for real, and you knew someone who was not well you might invite them along to one of his meetings (if the opportunity came up).  Or you might read his stuff in the hope of gaining insight into the things of the Spirit and be encouraged to step out and pray for people more. Without practical application it could all be just time consuming academic speculation. Not wrong in itself I guess as academic thinking does inevitably effects our actions in the future but it’s as well to be aware of how our current thinking will affect our actions in case we don’t like the direction we are going in. Our actions also reveal what we really believe. I might conclude that someone was a fraud but when I got ill turn up to their meetings hoping to get healed. We show our faith by what we do not necessarily by what we say of think and we can be as surprised as anybody to discover that we had more or less faith than we thought.

That’s a long answer. In short I don't know the definite answer to the question but I have tried to say how I approach it. Hope that helps. Here’s a testimony site that I have been visiting to feed my faith www.HealingHerald.org.

           

O Lord God of vengeance

Driving back to our campsite yesterday I listened to a radio 4 program about child abuse. It was awful. I had to keep turning it off. I found myself being glad there was a God who would punish injustice, glad there was an eternal hell from which there was no escape or parole. But was I right to think like that?

Most human beings it seems, have an innate desire and appetite for justice. Children are quick to express it when they think they have been hard done by "it's not fair" they cry when someone else has had a toy for longer than them. Many of our stories have injustice as a central theme. I remember watching the original A-team. Every week someone does something really bad to someone. Who will help? Who will right the wrongs, who will bring justice where there is none? The A-team of course! After playing hard to get, they respond to the cry for help, the bad guys get exploded out of their vehicles, punched about a bit, humiliated and hauled off to jail. Steven Segal was the master of this too with his much harder hitting films like "hard to kill" and "out for justice". Dirty Harry films played to my sense of justice in the same way.   

But back to the horrors of real life. I think there is some insight to be had in the raging of my emotions. Hell is not just a difficult doctrine that comes along with all the good "happy thought" ones. It's not an embarrassment to be explained away or sanitised. It's good and right. All God's ways are wonderful. The psalmist exclaims "I love your law!" (Psalm 119:113), presumably the curses as well as blessings; They are right and proper and just. This morning I read Psalm 94 which starts "O Lord God of vengeance". Who can delight in a God who is indifferent to evil; A God who never shows up like the A-team or Dirty Harry to dispense justice? We worship a God who is just and will not let the wicked go unpunished. The Proverbs, the book of Godly common sense, states it again and again (Prov 11:21, 16:5, 17:5, 19:5).

Jesus too spoke a lot about hell. I must not apologise for hell or make it something it is not. It is not just separation from God, that's only one side of the coin. It is not just "you choose to go there", "you reject God and so he lets you go your own way". Those things are part of the story and helpful to an extent but Jesus did not just speak in those terms. As much as hell is a Godless place, the natural consequence of rejecting God,  hell is a place of active punishment.  Jesus tells a story about the kingdom of God that ends with this sobering line Luke 19:27  "'But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" (ESV) Jesus talks of the possibility of being Mark 9:47b-48 "thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" (ESV)

My NIV says he is referring to Isaiah 66:24  

"And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (ESV)

Jesus says hell is worse than anything anyone can do to you in this life.

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Luke 12:5    (ESV)

There is a foundation to justice. There will be a day when all accounts will have to be paid. Jesus is the one appointed to see justice done either on the hill of Calvary or in the lake of fire (Rev 20:14). And yet these thoughts bring two things to mind.

The first is my sin. I am a sinner too. I have done things that are wrong. By God's grace they might seem relatively small compared to some but next to God's perfect Holiness they are rotten and foul and would have been my doom. I do think there are degrees of punishment. The law reflected it and Jesus' parables imply it. We will be judged "according to what [we] have done" Rev 20:12. The punishment of some will justly be more than others but that will be little consolation in an eternal hell under God's wrath. By God's great love and mercy he has seen fit to forgive me, placing my sin on his son and punishing him in my place. I find myself being humbled and deeply grateful. This first thought prepares my heart and mind for the second.  

As I read Jesus words about hell I begin to feel compassion. I don't want anyone to go there. It's worse than anything in this life and will go on forever. You sometimes hear people say "go to hell". That's a very strong thing to say and I don't think I want to say it to anyone.

My desire for justice will be satisfied. Every sin will be justly punished. If I demand that it not be removed from one person and placed on Christ my hope for forgiveness is gone. Upon him was placed the guilt of torture and rape and other things unspeakable, and to me at least mercifully unimaginable. How it is possible for such a transfer to take place I do not know but it is. If not my sin still sticks to me. If it is then any sin can be cast on Jesus. There is hope for the vilest offender. When my anger and sense of justice rises up in me at people who do what should not be done, I need to look at what Jesus has done for me and what Jesus says about hell until mercy wins in my soul. My emotions started with anger and a desire for justice and vengeance but I pray the Spirit of God keeps moving me to thanksgiving for my own salvation and intersession for the salvation of others.

In all this emotion and pain my thoughts and prayers need to be most of all with the victims. Thank you Jesus that your gospel can heal the deepest hurts and cover the most painful shame. Thank you that you came to release the oppressed and bind up the broken hearted. Please please please please do that in may lives today.   

ill :-(

Was I'll today so spent most of it in bed. Did manage to read a bit about Israel and the land though. Think I understand it a bit better now.  

What does the bible say about God's sovereignty

In maths you are taught to show your working. Sometimes how you get to an answer is as important as getting an answer, especially if you get to a wrong conclusion as you may still get marks for your working. That's one of the reasons I am showing my working here. Even if I don't get to a right answer (or can't)  I learn will lots in the process and will have record of my thinking to revisit and revise. It can't all be wrong! Anyway having looked at a film, I'm going to look at the bible. What do I mean when we say God is sovereign? I will look at some of the scriptures that this word summarises:

I'll start with this:

Deut 32:39  "'See now that I, even I, am he,

    and there is no god beside me;

  I kill and I make alive;

    I wound and I heal;

    and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

While this says that God wounds and heals it doesn't say anything about the circumstances in which he does these things, his reasons, or how he feels about it. He can and does inflict pain on people but surly his emotions, motives and reasons are key to our understanding of it. If I take a splinter out of my daughters finger it may hurt, discipline is never comfortable, and we don't fine people or put them in prison for their pleasure. This is not even an exhaustive list of why we might inflict pain on someone so I must be cautious before concluding that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for doing so.

Psalm 135:5-6  For I know that the LORD is great,

    and that our Lord is above all gods.

  Whatever the LORD pleases, he does,

    in heaven and on earth,

    in the seas and all deeps.

"Whatever the Lord pleases he does" is emphasising God's unrestrained power and might. It is not saying that he delights in everything that happens and is continually happy about it. Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus, and later in the garden of Gethsemane, shows me that there is great distress in the heart of God at times, even when carrying out a plan that is ultimately pleasing to him.   

Next one:

Isaiah 45:6b-7 

    I am the LORD, and there is no other.

  I form light and create darkness,

    I make well-being and create calamity,

    I am the LORD, who does all these things.

The KJV has the even more problematic: "I make peace, and create evil" while the NIV translates it "I bring prosperity and create disaster". The word translated in the KJV as "evil" has a wider range of possible meanings and given that the bible says God is not the author of evil ie:

Deut 32:4  "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.

  A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

Pslm 5:4  For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you.

we can reasonably rule that out and consider the other possibilities of "injury, misery, disaster, distress and calamity". Even these may seem troublesome, but I must remember that God is not, as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy categorized earth, "mostly harmless". If I think that then I will end up scratching my head wondering why I should fear him. It's like Mr Beaver said about Aslan, the great Lion in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", "He isn't safe but he is good".

In "Hard Sayings of the Bible" F.F Bruce et al conclude their article on Isa 45:7

"it is not as if God can do nothing or that he is just as surprised as we are by natural evil. Any disaster must fall within the sovereign will of God, even though God is not the sponsor or author of that evil. When we attempt to harmonise the statements we begin to invade the rounds of divine mystery."

     

There is that word mystery again! I'll look at another passage:

Dan 4:34-35   At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

  for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

    and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;

  all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,

    and he does according to his will among the host of heaven

    and among the inhabitants of the earth;

  and none can stay his hand

    or say to him, "What have you done?"

This passage, as the others, shows God as the king and ruler of the heavens and the earth. He can do anything and no one can stop him. All the people of the earth are as nothing next to his power and might (yet of course he sent his son to die for them so it's not saying he doesn't love them or mistreats them or ignores them). 

A couple more for now:

Rom 9:6-26   ..."For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

   You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?..."

This is a profound passage stating in no uncertain terms that God is ultimately sovereign over our salvation. What's more it actually asks the question on everyone's lips "why does God still blame us?" Rom 9:19 (NIV). The answer is basically putting us in our place. "Who are you to talk back to God?". The difference between us and God is highlighted. God is not a big version of us, just because we can't understand him, or find a human analogy, doesn't mean there is an inconsistency here. Actually we are given in these verses a partial answer, or application, of God's sovereignty in salvation. He doesn't save all in order that the objects of his mercy see more clearly his grace in forgiving them. He really didn't have to save me but he did and this is at the heart of his glory. The fact that he passes over some provides a heart breaking, sobering backdrop to his glory in saving others.  

One final scripture summaries God's sovereignty in predestining some to salvation:

Eph 1:11   In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (ESV)

Basically in these passages God is presented as having no equal, no greater power to restrain him and nothing he is not powerful enough not to do (sorry too many negatives). It does not say he is pleased with everything that happens; delighting in sickness in the same way he delights in healing. He can work sovereignly through some things that he hates to achieve other things that the delights in. As bad things happen he is not out of control, nor limited to working around them, but rather works through them. He does so in a way that does not make him the author of their evil, but allows him to achieve a greater good. It seems to me that the cross is a template, a blue print, even a shining example of this. Evil men sinfully put Jesus to death. God was working right in the heart of their actions to carry out exactly what he wanted to be done. It was his will but I don't think there was the same degree of joy in God's heart on good Friday and there was on Easter Sunday. God is not emotionally neutral as his plans unfold. He may grieve or be joyful at various points of implementation. Also, his sovereignty does not mean he makes bad things happen in the same way that we make things happen. It's just not like that.

I must handle this doctrine in the same way I handle the trinity. You make certain truth statements based on scripture and live faithfully in the good of them. For example we say "there is one God but there are three persons each who are fully God". Someone says "ah, so it's like water, ice and steam", to which we say "no it isn't, they are distinct coexisting persons". Someone else pipes up "ah, I see, they are each part of God" to which we say "no, they are each fully God". The ball comes back again (it's almost Wimbledon)  "so there are three God's them" to which we have to say "no there is only one God" and so on.

It's like that with God's sovereignty. Just was with the trinity something doesn't quite add up in our thinking. "God is sovereign and nothing and nobody can oppose his will, but his will is not always done".  Someone says "Ah, so God made the robber steal my stereo". No, the robber stole your stereo but God was working sovereignly through that event in some way we may never know. "Ah, so God wanted to give my mum cancer". No, he didn't. Not in the same way that I might inject you with a potent carcinogen to harm you. He is in control of the circumstances and situation though so we can confidently trust him and call on him and ask him for help. In fact the bible tells us that he wants her to be well. I guess it's harder than the trinity because the issues seem more concrete and the situations more distressing (I'm not very happy with this paragraph. I feel like I'm not quite brining something into focus. I've sat on it for a few days but hey it's just a blog so I'll let it go as is).       

The aim of this blog was to look at a few concrete biblical passages so that when I think about God's sovereignty it's not in the context of a man made doctrine that has been smoothed and shaped by the need to systematise it, but has roots and context in the actual word of God.  

I think these passages emphasise that God is unconstrained by forces or powers outside of himself, stating things like " I am the LORD, and there is no other." or "the Lord is above all other God's". But God is internally constrained by his own nature. Constrained is not quite the right word, but I can't think of a better one. That's often the case when talking about God. He is the ground, the basis, the foundation of all things. Any description of him in terms of those things is going to fall short. I get a headache when I try to understand and define is Holiness or righteousness. That's because he simply is those things and actually impurity and unrighteousness are defined in relation to his perfection.

I am tempted to talk about "tensions" in the heart of God, for example his love and justice, but the word feels too negative. The cross seems like a point of tension, the Son pleading with the Father for another way, then submitting to his will in expectation of the joy to come. But are love and justice in tension or at the cross or do they kiss? If I can remove all negative sense from these words then perhaps they will do.  Rope in tension in a ships rigging or pulling a heavy load is not a bad thing.

Another time I will look at how the bible testifies to our moral responsibility.   

The invention of lying

Just finished watching the invention of lying with Ricky Gevaise, that guy form "the Office". He plays a character called Mark Bellison who invents lying in a world where everyone tells the truth. It's a really, really great idea (the film that is, not lying!). Everyone says to each other exactly what they think is true. I was a little apprehensive about watching it as I knew it would be taking a dig at God but actually I found it very thought provoking in a number of ways.

Firstly it exposes the shallowness of us humans. Imagine that on meeting someone you told them what you really thought of them. Anna McDoogles, played by Jenifer Garner, keeps telling Mark that he is "a short, fat, looser with a stub nose". While each time Mark is visibly hurt, it's not taken as rude as everyone says things like that in this world. No beating about the bush, no little white lies to make people feel better, just the raw, honest truth. When Anna arrives at a restaurant looking beautiful the female receptionist says straight away "I am threatened by you" and in the next breath asks them follower her to their seats. Another example that made me sad was when Anna asked a short plump kid his name he replies "short fat Tim". Kids have been bullying him and calling him that so that's who he thinks he really is. Broke my heart and made me more determined to let people know who they are or can be in Christ.      

Secondly it's interesting to see Mark make up a system of morality on the spot. Really bad things mean you go to a bad place, "three strikes and you're out" but most people who don't murder, or do horrid things get a big mansion in the sky to live in forever, see all their loved ones and eat as much ice cream as they want. Morality is basically "don't do anything really bad or you'll regret it forever". 

Thirdly, and most significantly for my thinking at present, this film touches on the sovereignty of God. This is where, in the original screen play, the anti-God venom starts to spray. Mark appears in front of his house looking like Moses clutching two pizza boxes upon which are written his deceitful summary of life after death. When people discover that there is a "man in the sky" who makes all the bad things happen, they are really angry. 

MAN #4             Does he cause natural disasters?

MARK                Yes.

WOMAN #3       Did he cause my mom to get cancer?

MARK                Yes.

WOMAN #4       Did he cause that tree to land on my car last week?

MARK                Yes.

The crowd is quiet for a long beat....they’re mulling this

over. The first man to speak is a blue collar guy with a

thick Brooklyn accent.

BROOKLYN GUY        I say **** the guy that lives in the sky!

The whole crowd erupts in agreement. People stand up shouting, flicking off the sky.

MAN #5                         Yeah! That guy’s a ******* *******!

WOMAN #5       That mother****** better hope I never see him face to face!

MAN #6             That guy’s a ******* coward! Hiding up there and doing

                           bad  **** to us! Why doesn’t he do it to our faces?

WOMAN #6       We need to stop that mother****** before he kills us all!

Mark looks worried. He didn’t anticipate this. Suddenly a thought occurs to him.

MARK (shouting)           WAIT!

Everyone quiets down.

MARK    This guy who lives in the sky and controls everything is also

               responsible for all the good stuff that happens.

The whole crowd “aaaahhs”.

MAN #7             He’s the guy who saved my life on that fishing trip when the

                           boat capsized?

MARK                Yup.

MAN #7             Did he capsize the boat?

MARK                Well, yes.

WOMAN #7       He’s the one who killed my grandmother and left me those

                           millions of dollars?

MARK                You betcha.

WOMAN #3       So is he the same one who cured my mom’s cancer?

MARK                That too.

The crowd thinks this over.

MAN #8 So he’s kind of a good guy, but he’s also kind of a ***** too?

The language was turned down in the film (I have tried to * it out, sorry if I've missed any, I don't mean to offend) I think but the challenge is still there and it's not an easy one to answer. If God is sovereign, controlling everything and making both good and bad things happen, then surly he is a grotesque mix of good and bad; a sort of schizophrenic maniac making people ill and then healing them.

While describing God as "in control" and "working through all things", the bible does not let us make the seemingly logical deduction that God is morally responsible for evil. He does not stand behind good and evil in the same way. Hopefully I'll read some more out that in Bruce Ware's book, but for now I will make one observation.

The ballast that keep my understanding of a good and sovereign God from capsizing in these sorts of gross caricatures is the cross. While it is conspicuously absent from Mark's pizza box revelations it is essential to a true representation of the heart of God. The cross above all things shows me that God will stop at nothing to rescue us from greatest and most terrible suffering. If he did that then I hope I can live with some mystery with other bad things I see and experience.

Mark originally made up the lie about a man in the sky to make his dying mum feel better. Her frightened words are very telling:

I’m so scared, Mark. I don’t want to die. You know, people don’t talk about it much, but death is a horrible thing. One minute you’re alive, there’s a whole world around you, humming and jumping, people coming in and out, doors opening and closing, love and anger and the whole mess of it all, and then like that, it’s all gone.(crying) This is it Mark, only a few hours left of this until an eternity of nothingness.

She is literally shaking with fear but after hearing Mark's reassuring lies about life after death she sheds tears of joy and passes away peacefully. This is perhaps the saddest moment in the whole film for me. A lie at this, the most significant point in her life, is devastating. You see, she was right to be scared of death because we will be held accountable for the things we have done wrong. God is just and will not overlook the first two big offences while sweeping all the other "little things" under a rug. He will come against all wrong doing and all evil in all of its forms. It is this terrible and eternal consequence of our moral sin and failings that God has endeavoured, at all costs, to remove from us. Knowing this means I can't tip over into a view of God that makes him anything less than loving and merciful. Nor can I see him as anything less than good and just. We messed up badly and he was prepared to take the worst of the consequences in our place. It doesn't solve the problem of how he is sovereign over sickness as well as healing, death as well as life, but it gives me a firm foundation upon which to explore those things.

Fifthly and finally, God is not an "invisible man in the sky". Addressing this gets me deep into the mystery of the incarnation but I'll give it a go. We cannot look at a man (me, you, other people) and think God is a larger version. We are in his image but he is not in ours. Because we are in his image there are some things about us that tell us something about what God is like, but like any image there is much that God is that we are not. The reason we cannot grasp how God can be sovereign in the way he is, is that we cannot conceive of how we could be sovereign in that way. How could I, or even a bigger, smarter, more powerful version of me, work out my will through all the events of history to achieve a particular goal? I could, at best, improve the chances of something happening but I cannot with any certainty effect other peoples wills and decisions. Furthermore there is no way I can have any part in a bad thing happening without being morally responsible for it. If I suggest to someone that they do something bad, or set things up to tempt them to do something bad, I will bear moral responsibility for it along with them.

Although God is Spirit he became a man when the son of God "took on flesh". Around 2000 years ago the invisible God became visible. The fullness of God was in him. Now we can look at Jesus and know we are looking at God but when people saw this "man in the sky" come down to earth they took their chance and killed him. But God in his unsearchable sovereignty was working right though the heart of their terrible crime to pay for our sin and bring us into a wonderful relationship with himself.        

I thank God that he went ahead of us to take away the sting of death making a way through the grave to everlasting life. That's not a lie made up to comfort people, it's the truth testified to by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. If I start at the cross were I see my sin and failure and God's love and mercy then I will avoid capsizing or running aground as I navigate this difficult doctrine.

I Kant figure it out

I tried to explain an antinomy to my children recently. I find it such a helpful concept in understanding the bible, or at least stopping me from misunderstanding it, that I thought I'd teach it to them. A guy called Immanuel Kant used the term when two conclusions, arrived at by sound reasoning, appeared to contradict each other. I guess that's why his work was called "a critique of pure reason". For example, his first antinomy is that it is equally true from reason that time had a beginning and that time did not have a beginning. Now while I might take issue with the latter "truth" I find the word itself helpful and use it when I think two things are true but recognise that there are massive difficulties in putting them together. His second antinomy is that things both can and cannot be divided up into constituent parts and his third, which is more relevant to me at the moment, is that on the one hand our free choices are a real cause in the world and on the other everything that happens is a result of impersonal laws of nature. I guess it's kind of like a paradox but perhaps a more biblical word to use is mystery.

I read this in Bill Johnson's book "Face to Face with God":

 I don't have answers to all the questions about the differences in the portrait of God throughout Scripture is. But I have found a wonderful key for life: it's best to live from what you know to be true in spite of the mysteries that you can't explain. I cannot afford to stumble over my questions when what I do understand demands a response and commitment. My portrait of God the Father, as seen in Jesus Christ, is wonderfully clear. He deserves a rest of my life as I learn how to imitate him.

I think that is very wise. I want to live in the light of what I know without being paralyzed by what I do not know. If my understanding of God starts to drift away from Jesus as portrayed in the bible then I need to tether my thoughts to him again. 

Kant's last antinomy is that there both is and is not a "necessary being" who is the cause of everything. Kant might sound to you like a rather confused person but he was quite a clear thinker and did come up with some sort of "solution" to the problem of these antinomies. Frustratingly I am too dim to understand it from a quick read. In fact I'm feeling very much out of my depth here. That's to be expected though. If I can't understand Kant I defiantly won't be able to fathom God. In the "olden days" ships used to let down a rock on a rope to see how deep the water was. My trouble is I just don't have enough rope! We know some stuff about him in the shallows but some things I may never know.    

Sacrifice and Sovereignty

I have watched two films so far with my blinkbox account; Gran Torino and 300. Coincidently both have "sacrifice" as a key theme which made me wondered how many other films explore this profoundly central concept that is woven into all being and creation. Very quickly I came across a film called Sacrifice.

"Sacrifice offers a view of the terrible odds faced by women born into poverty where the only commodity for sale are their bodies. These are complicated stories that get beneath tabloid headlines to capture, with great visual invention, the dignity and damaged nobility of young Burmese victims. The lives of these women are revealed to be the stuff of fairy tale…the magic goes bad and the witch, the ogre, and the monster win the day in this chilling view of sexual exploitation…one we have never seen before."
       — B. Ruby Rich, San Francisco Bay Guardian

As I pondered why this film was called sacrifice, I look out of my study window and all seems well with the world. But it isn't. The magic has gone bad and the witch, the ogre and the monster are all out there. Repunzel is still in her tower, Bell is still with the beast, Hansel is still caged and Gretel enslaved. We also heard today that the girl we sponsor, and for whom we pray most nights with our children, has lost her grandfather and that her mother has been beaten and robbed leaving her seriously ill. We don't think she has a father.

How am I to understand God's sovereignty in all this? Only in a way that does not negate my responsibly. God use me! Work though me! Empower me. Fill me. Direct me. Strengthen me.

Bill Johnson tweeted this today:

"If God can trust us with mystery, He will trust us with revelation. If we trust God with mystery, we will trust Him in revelation."

God I trust you that you're son's sacrifice on the cross secured a "happy ever after". Help me follow in your footsteps, living a life of sacrifice and proclaiming freedom for the oppressed.    

The practical nature of the sovereignty of God

One of the first books I got after becoming a Christian was by R C Sproul. I can't remember the title but I called it "A doctrine a day" as on each page he laid out clearly and concisely a key doctrine of the Christian faith. I watched him do a video tour of his study recently.  Hanging over the entrance to his office hangs the framed remains of Herman Bavinck's book "the doctrine of God". Why? Well, in 1999 Robert Fraley, a man who served with R C Sproul died in a plane crash. He was the agent for the US open winner and golfer Payne Stewart and was accompanying him on the plane when it lost oxygen and crashed. In the wreckage, one of the few things that was found intact was Robert's copy of "the doctrine of God" by Herman Bavinck. Just over a year after the accident Robert's wife testified to her late husbands' last words:

About 16 months ago your radio or TV might have told you there was a jet out of control. That was my life out of control. Your announcer may have said Payne Stewart was onboard. It didn’t tell you the president of my husband’s company was onboard, and that my husband was onboard, too. 

I thought back on the night before, which was perhaps about 12 hours before they died. We sat in the bed and read to each other, which was our habit. Robert was reading Herman Bavinck’s The Doctrine of God. He read me the preface, which was about 4-5 pages, and he closed the book. He said, “Who couldn’t believe in the sovereignty of God?” So the next day those were the words that flooded me, not “jet out of control,” but “who couldn’t believe in the sovereignty of God?” 

The words in the bible are not a puzzle to be put together by cleaver theologians but truth to be lived out by ordinary believers. This is the case with the sovereignty of God. It is strengthening, encouraging and comforting to know that God is in control. Nothing is outside of his sovereign power and working. Even if everything looks like its falling apart God has his hands around it working all things for the good of those that love him. Of course there are questions but the truth of God's sovereignty is often a key part of the answer to those questions. If we let go of it we can be swept away in a current of pain and despair. The other key truth that holds us firm through pain and suffering is the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus for our sin. If it looks like God doesn't love us, one look at the cross shows us that he definably does. If it looks like he can't work all things for our good then one look at the resurrection re-fires our faith.   

Visiting Lewes and Eastbourne

Other than have a great time (under God's providential care) at Disney Land it was great to spend time with our family and the church in Lewes. We joined some of the NewFrontiers churches for a regional together event on Plumpton racecourse which is where the precursor to Stoneleigh called "Downs" used to be held. Ray Lowe was the main speaker so it was good to catch-up with him briefly before we left.  

Yesterday we visited King's Church Eastbourne. They have two meetings on a Sunday, one at 9 and one at 11. After some thought (a very brief thought) we decided to visit the later one:-) We got a really friendly welcome from a great couple who Sarah used to know from her time in a Seaford church, lead by a young pastor called Terry Virgo! It was exciting to hear that things have gone full circle and Eastbourne now have plans to plant a congregation back in Seaford.  

After the meeting we were shown round their massive building complete with sports hall, coffee shop, kids church area, offices, and conference rooms. I picked up lots of leaflets and ideas.

....

Well, I think that's covered the main happenings over the last week or so. It's really hit me now that I only have two weeks of sabbatical to go. I need to make sure I use them well. The main things I want to do now are study and prayer. So much has been said about intimacy with God over the last couple of months that I really want to have a focused time of pressing into Him and learning to hear his voice and enjoy his presence more.  I will continue to blog as I go and hopefully get a chance to blog my way a bit more through the bible (marcusbible.blogspot.com) where I have just about got to Abraham.

The sovereignty of God at Disney land

Bonjour! Just got back from Disney Land Paris. Had a great time and experienced the wonderful sovereignty of God again. We were queuing up for one of our first rides which was called something like "mountain train". Can't remember exactly. After 30 mins it finally got to our turn to get into the carriages, when all the lights suddenly went out and we were plunged into semi-darkness. A reassuring message about a "technical fault" which would be "fixed as soon as possible" was played in a few languages but as the minutes ticked by it became apparent that this ride was finished for the day. I was very frustrated. We had queued for ages, the children had been really good waiting but what a shame to be turned away just as we were about to board.

The next day my eldest really wanted to try it again so we queued up for another 40 mins but this time got to have a go. Well, it turned out to be a screamingly fast roller coaster ride down through a pitch black underground tunnel and up and around a mini mountain in the middle of a lake. As we staggered out of our carriage at the end of the ride it hit me what a lucky escape we had had the day before. There I was leading my youngest daughter by the hand step by step towards a thundering ride of terror that may well have put her off Disney Land and Mickey Mouse for life, when God sovereignly shut down the electrics of the ride. Suddenly I saw yesterdays frustrating nuisance as God's saving grace.    

What with all the excitement, there was not as much time for reading as I had expected (what was I thinking!) but I did start "The dancing hand of God" by James Maloney. My aim is no longer to read it before the end of my sabbatical in two weeks but merely to break into its 400+ pages and get some momentum. Same goes for "God's lesser glory".