Does God Care about the Suffering in Japan, New Zealand or Australia?

The recent earthquake and Tsunami disaster in Japan was one in a string of disasters that have come quite close to home for the people of Australia (even though most Australians have been untouched). Earlier in the year we had the floods in Queensland, Northern NSW and Victoria followed by Cyclone Yasi (a category 5 cyclone) in far north Queensland. These were followed by the devastating earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand where hundreds of lives were lost, and then the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami where up to 20,000 lives have been lost.

It is entirely reasonable that this string of disasters should lead to people asking questions: What does this mean? What does this say about God? Why does God let this happen?

There have been many different answers. Some end-times watchers have said this shows that the end is getting closer. I haven't heard of anyone claiming these disasters were judgements for specific sins - although this has been claimed in the past (eg. the Victorian bushfires). One answer I read from a non-Christian perspective suggested that the earthquakes happened in response to our damaging of the environment through mining, oil drilling and pollution - in other words it was the earth showing its annoyance!

Can I say up-front that I do not claim to be an expert on suffering. I have had some suffering in my life, but it wouldn't be hard to find someone who has suffered more. What I do want to do - as sensitively as possible - is to set a framework for responding to the question of suffering.

I was listening to some interviews of Pastor Rob Bell on US TV. The interviews were about his new book, but two interviewers asked similar questions about the suffering in Japan. This is the question asked by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, and Bell's response:

Martin Bashir: . . . Just help us with this tragedy in Japan. Which of these is true. Either God is all powerful but he doesn’t care about the people of Japan and therefore their suffering, or he does care about the people of Japan but he is not all powerful, which one is it?

Rob Bell: I begin with the belief that, when we shed a tear, God sheds a tear, so I begin with a divine being who is profoundly empathetic, compassionate and stands in solidarity with us. Secondly, the dominant story of the scriptures is about restoration, it’s about renewal, it’s about rebirth, it’s about a God who insists – in the midst of this chaos the last word hasn’t been spoken. So people of faith have clung to this promise, and this hope that God will essentially fix this place. It’s a beautiful hope and we I think we ought to keep it front and centre – especially right now.

Martin Bashir: So which of those is true: He is all powerful and he [doesn’t] cares or he cares and is not all powerful?

Rob Bell: I think that this is a paradox at the heart of the divine, and some paradoxes are best left exactly as they are.

In both his interviews Bell began his answer with the assertion that "when we shed a tear, God sheds a tear".  I can understand his desire to emphasise God's understanding and empathy with our situation up-front, but I have two main concerns with his (partial) answer: (1) he doesn't acknowledge that suffering might be part of God's sovereign plan, and (2) he asserts a  paradox which the Bible does not really allow, and in so doing misrepresents God.

Let me offer some thoughts on each of these points:

(1)  Rather than starting with the assertion of God's empathy with the human situation, the Bible starts with God's sovereignty and his goodness.  Genesis 1 tells us that God is the creator (and sustainer) of the world. We also see that God is intimately involved in his world - he knows every hair on our head and no sparrow falls to the ground apart from his will. Without God's ongoing intimate involvement the world would cease to exist in an instant. Nothing happens outside his knowledge and will. This is what we mean by God's sovereignty.

The Bible also tells us that God made the world good - in fact "very good" according to Genesis 1:31. The goodness of the world reflects God's achievement in creating a world that was just as he intended and perfectly good and enjoyable for the people he placed there. Of course the goodness of the world also reflects God's character.

There are many other aspects of God's character we could mention that are important - God is Love, God is Holy, God is Just, God is Merciful . . . None of these should be 'played off' against each other. Rather we seek to find how they are worked out in relation to each other.

The Bible tells us that God expressed his Love and Goodness towards humans by giving them freedom to choose. Sadly their freedom was expressed by rebelling against God when they chose to do what they were told not to do - and in so doing received judgement on themselves and the earth. The judgement on themselves included pain, suffering and ultimately death. The ongoing effect of this rebellion is seen in the evil that is done by humans in their continuing rebellion against God - all too often leading to suffering for others and wilful damage to the creation.  The consequence for the earth was the kind of events that lead to 'natural disasters'. In other words, natural disasters are a consequence (sometimes directly, but mostly indirectly) of human sin.

So what does God do about this?  He has decided to show mercy!

What we deserve for our sin is death - not only physical, but eternal spiritual death. Yet God makes it possible for us to escape this judgement for our sin through the gift of his Son. As John 3:16 tells us:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should receive eternal life."

God's gift of Love to us was to come into the world in the person of the Son to identify with us, to suffer the judgement we deserve and to offer us forgiveness and eternal life. This can only be received by putting our faith in God.

So what about suffering? Can suffering be a part of God's plan?  We see first of all that suffering is central to God's plan - the Son suffered the worst possible suffering so we could receive eternal life. And just as it was the Father's will that the Son should suffer, so also our suffering will have a purpose. Sometimes suffering is to refine our faith. Sometimes suffering comes as judgement (although we ought to be careful to label any instance of suffering as this, according to Jesus in Luke 13:1-5). Sometimes suffering is a warning to us. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: sometimes God uses suffering as a megaphone to get our attention.

Our problem is that we forget that this world is not the end. God has promised a new and 'restored' creation, where there will be "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Revelation 21:4). Christians have the hope of 'heaven' - of enjoying the new creation in relationship with God.

(2)  Is there really a paradox between God's goodness and the reality of suffering? The short answer is No.  God is really sovereign - he has not lost control to some other force that brings about these evil deeds. But God has given us freedom, and our rebellion has brought evil and suffering into the world. Suffering must somehow be a part of his plan.

So is God really good? Doesn't God care?  Of course he cares! But God has reasons for suffering that we will never know. All that we do know is that his plans are for the good of those who do and will put their trust in him and in his Son (Romans 8:28) - whose suffering (in God's plan) brings us eternal life and joy.

--

Al Mohler - Refuting those who Oppose the Truth.

I have recently been reading Titus 1, and as I read a recent article by Albert Mohler a verse sprang to mind:

[An overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9)

Al Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his blog (AlbertMohler.com) he regularly reviews theological writings. He has recently reviewed books by Rob Bell (Love Wins) and Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christianity). McLaren and Bell are leaders in the 'Emergent Church' movement - younger leaders who are seeking to refresh and renew the church for the new generation. Sadly, some of the things they teach need to be harshly critiqued.

Brian McLaren also recently wrote a response to a review Mohler did of Bell's book. That response in itself demanded a response, which Mohler wrote here on his blog. I thought Mohler's response was in the finest tradition of Titus 1:9. Basically he points out that McLaren and Bell represent the (re)emergence of the old Theological Liberalism - albeit with a postmoderm slant.

It is worth understanding this conversation to understand why these books are causing so much stir.

I will reprint part of Mohler's article below.

--------------

A THEOLOGICAL CONVERSATION WORTH HAVING: A RESPONSE TO BRIAN McLAREN

Some theological disputes amount to very little and serve mostly as exercises in missing the point, if indeed there is a point. Other doctrinal exchanges are quite different and deal with matters of central and essential concern to the Christian faith. The first sort of dispute is a waste of precious time and energy and should be avoided at all costs. The second sort of debate is a matter of both urgency and importance. The church cannot avoid and should not seek to evade this kind of theological conversation.


That is why a recent essay by Brian McLaren helps us all to understand what is at stake in the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Beyond this, his argument reveals a great deal about the actual beliefs and trajectories of what has become known as the emerging church. As such, his essay is a welcome addition to this important conversation.

McLaren, perhaps the best known of the leaders in the emerging church, seeks to defend Rob Bell and to act as his friend. He says that he had been waiting for an opportunity to speak in Bell’s defense, and, evidently my essay, “We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology,” afforded McLaren the opportunity he was seeking.

In his own essay, “Will Love Wins Win? We’re Early in the First Inning,” McLaren uses a baseball metaphor to reject my critique of Rob Bell’s arguments. He asserts that I “rounded first base” by affirming a clear understanding of the Gospel as found in the Scriptures and then suggesting that Rob Bell’s proposals fall short of the Gospel. My problem, according to McLaren, is that I assume that a clear understanding of the Gospel is even possible. According to McLaren, the complexities of interpretation render this claim implausible.


In his words:

Now communication is nearly always tricky, as any of us who are married or are parents know. The speaker has a meaning which is encoded in symbols (words) which then must be decoded by the receiver. That decoding process is subject to all kinds of static - for example, interference from the biases, fears, hopes, politics, vocabulary, and other characteristics of the receiver or the receiver’s community. If the receiver then tries to pass the meaning - as he has decoded it - on to others, there is more encoding and decoding, and more static. That’s why, with so much encoding and decoding and re-encoding going on, the challenge of communication across many cultural time zones is downright monumental.

Communication is indeed “nearly always tricky,” but McLaren’s argument leads to interpretive nihilism. Can we really not know what the Gospel is? If this is true, the church is left with no coherent message at all. All of our attempts to define the right form of the Gospel are just human interpretations, he insists, and we must avoid “excessive confidence” in any telling of the Gospel story. McLaren warns that we must avoid “a naive and excessive confidence,” but that we can retain a “humble confidence.” But his argument leaves us with very little idea of how this “humble confidence” is to be found, since “no articulation of the gospel today can presume to be exactly identical to the original meaning Christ and the apostles proclaimed.”

That statement leaves us with only approximations of the Gospel — some presumably better, some worse. And we would in fact be left with nothing more precise or authoritative than that but for one thing — we have the Bible. We are absolutely dependent upon the New Testament way of telling the Gospel of Christ, and the apostles were determined to pass along the Gospel as a clear and understandable message to others. This is why Paul instructed Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” and to “guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” [2 Timothy 1:13-14]

If we cannot know what the Gospel is, then there is no such thing as the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” [Jude 3] If so, we have nothing definitive to say.


The issues of communication are real, and we should never seek to minimize the challenge of interpretation. But the clarity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture are precisely the means whereby the Lord preserves his church in the Spirit and in truth. It is one thing to cite the challenge of interpretation. It is another thing altogether to suggest that we are left with an insurmountable problem and an indefinite message. This flies directly in the face of biblical claims and commands.

....

---------------

You can read the rest of the article here. - and there is plenty more good stuff to be found there.
(Includes links to articles previously referred to)


(Hat Tip to the ACL website.)







_________

Revitalising Struggling Churches

Michael Kellahan recently posted an article on the Sydney Anglicans website about the value and necessity of revitalising churches. He called it "Fixing our Broken Bikes".

I have done some reflecting on the issue myself, and after posting a comment in response to Michael's article, I thought I would put the reflections on here too. Here is what I said:

--------

Hi Michael, lots of good ideas here! In particular I concur with your point that in many churches that need revitalisation there are “people of good-will” who would be happy for change if it will mean growth.

I have been reflecting on this issue and, in trying to detect patterns, I have noticed that some of the stronger churches in the St George area have been 'revitalisations' - I think particularly of Beverly Hills (now with Kingsgrove) and St George North (formerly Carlton + Bexley + Bexley North).

In both cases the transformation included dynamic new leadership (Tony Galea and Zac Veron respectively), significant diocesan support (including probably hundreds of thousands of dollars of grants for assistant ministers at each place), mergers with neighbouring parishes and (at least initially), some transfer growth of key people. No doubt there were other things needed for growing churches (check Zac's book: "Leadership on the Front Foot" for details), but I believe these things were key.

I'm not suggesting these are the only 'revitalised' churches in the area - but others have generally involved new Asian (Chinese) ministries. Perhaps others have more stories? I know some revitalisations are also happening in the Inner West.

It is interesting to note that a reasonably successful church plant in the same area (Christ Church, St George) is likely to join with St George North this year after about 10 years holding meetings in a local High School.

Some implications of my previous post:
(1) Leadership and faithfulness are important and necessary.

(2) Transfers of key lay people may be vital in the early years.

(3) Money for additional ministry can make a huge difference. (But we are talking about significant amounts of money over perhaps a 10 year period. Given our financial crisis we could give up - or we could look for new ways to find the money.)

(4) Mergers can provide additional resources.

(5) We have people who are experienced in doing this (but are our diocesan leaders listening to them?).

__

Rob Bell's New Book on Heaven and Hell Causing Controversy

Rob Bell is the founding Pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church and author of a new book called "Love Wins".  Watch this interview on America's MSNBC to get an idea of the controversy.



I think I'll have to read the book and make a more detailed response.

For a lengthy but detailed early review see this one by Kevin DeYoung on the Gospel Coalition Website.

BTW - I wish he had answered the initial question about Japan better!

  ***