Suffering

Recently, I have really had a long bout with suffering -- not personally, but philosophically. A topic that has consumed much of my thinking is suffering -- how do we suffer and why. One recent story I heard about suffering was told by Ravi Zacharias in a talk I subsequently read through his website. It dealt with the suffering of a woman who faced great suffering -- through violation of her self and the eventual death of her child. A deeply moving story that served to really darken my morning cutting grass and listening.

Part of what really bothered me about the talk was just how in our society, someone can face such suffering and seem so alone. I really don't think it is physical proximity of others that can change loneliness -- instead it is our own suffering and reactions to our suffering that define loneliness. Let me develop these thoughts a little more and see if it becomes clear.

I recently blogged about the will of God and one illustration I discussed was Christ in the center of the will of God. At the moment that Christ was crying out in Matthew 27:46 -- in a moment of loneliness from the Father -- he was recalling the words of the psalmist in Psalm 22.

In Psalm 22 we read when the psalmist wrote, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" In this lament of the psalmist we sense his loneliness. However, we cannot let his loneliness convey loss of faith. The psalmist is clear in one thing -- faith in God in hearing him cry out!

Follow me to the story of Job. How many times have we heard the story recounted where Job's wife says in 2:9, "...curse God and die". To a woman who had suffered with Job in the loss of their children -- we can still only have faith in one thing -- she had faith in God! Where is that found? Why would she even offer that cursing God would result in death if she did not believe God existed? Surely only a living God could respond to a cursing. The grief and suffering of Job and his wife did not remove their faith, only demonstrated it.

So, how does our reaction to suffering define our loneliness? Well, Job was suffering, yet we know from his testimony and that of his wife that they knew and loved God. Likewise we know the love of the Father by the Son. In their suffering, they called out to the one most in proximity to them that could enter into that suffering with them.

As each of us suffers -- it is to whom we call out that defines our sense of loneliness. To someone without a knowledge of the love of God, they have no one to share in the suffering with. That seems to embody loneliness. It is through our withholding ourselves from the only relationship which most completely fulfills our purpose that we can truly experience loneliness.

Do I trust in God -- or his provision for me? Is it the times that God has provided that I can trust in him? Or, is it when I no longer have his provision, only his love that I can truly cast off loneliness and revel in the relationship of the deepest spiritual calling of my soul?

Reading the Fifth Gospel

Many people when asked what book of the bible should be read first are pointed to the Gospel of John. That is a good choice -- John presents the gospel in a straight forward manner and leads an unbeliever into the understanding of salvation. John tells us this himself. In John 20:31 we read, "...but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

However, there is another gospel that our friends have been reading that is the most powerful of all. As Irish evangelist Gypsy Smith once said, “There are five Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four.” Our friends see our lives and we have to wonder if what they see makes them hungry for what we proclaim.

During the intro to DC Talk's, "What if I Stumble" there is a voice over track. The words said are, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him with their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable."

So, that leaves me to wonder -- am I living the gospel I proclaim? When my friends see me, do they get my point without me saying it? When I watch a child eat an ice cream cone, I have little doubt that they are consuming something they love! Do my friends see me consumed by the one I proclaim to love?

So, rest assured that people will not bother to read the four gospels if they do not believe the testimony of the fifth -- which is us.

Further thoughts on the Will of God

Since blogging on the will of God, I have developed some additional thoughts and heard some other great insights. I hope in sharing these it helps to crystallize what I said so horribly the first time.

God's will is really kind of simple. I think it all boils down to us allowing him to restore the relationship with him that was his intention all along. God so fervently seeks a relationship with us, that He has demonstrated just how far He is willing to go to restore it! All the way to the Cross -- then further still.

On the will of God, maybe no better example of being in God's will has ever been offered than Jesus on the cross. We are reminded of the word's of Christ when he hung on the cross as recorded in Matthew 27:46:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

At the very moment that Christ uttered those words -- he stood firmly in the center of God's will! That is not a trivial issue -- that may well be the central theme for all of us -- stand in God's will even when it hurts. Maybe it is even stand in his will until it hurts. For it is only through suffering that we truly make connections with the world.

“Suffering and joy teach us, if we allow them, how to make the leap of empathy, which transports us into the soul and heart of another person. ln those transparent moments we know other people's joys and sorrows, and we care about their concerns as if they were our own.” Fritz Williams

I believe the strength of the message of Christ is not how to avoid suffering, but how we can suffer with a hope. I only hope that I can suffer enough to find myself in the center of His will! Not in any trivial way -- no, I don't ask for God to give me pain, I am perfectly capable of generating enough of that on my own. I pray that God will so touch me that I understand that I suffer because I am -- and only through my suffering am I really moved.

Give me a heart that suffers for others, Oh God -- breathe into me a spirit that seeks to comfort others and thereby find comfort through Your Will.

Who's Will be Done

'Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...'

How many times have I prayed that prayer? How many times have I considered what I am saying? Am I asking that God should hear my prayer and grant my request? Have I considered that I am asking not that God will satisfy a desire of mine, but that the will of the creator of the universe be done? How strange is that?

God did not seek my help in creating the universe. He did not ask for my advice when he made the heavens nor the earth. Why did Jesus teach us a prayer that would include the request that the will of the Father be done?

Perhaps Jesus was trying to impress upon man our uniqueness among all of creation: free will.

So, why do we pray that the will of the father be done? Because we stand as a singular impediment to the fulfillment of that will being realized. So what is the will of the Father? Do we seek to discover what that might be? Or are we so consumed with our own will that we try to impose that which we desire upon God as his will for us?

Jesus taught us so much more than a simple prayer which we so quickly recite from memory without hesitation and more sadly without thought. He taught us the secret of life: finding contentment in our role in the fulfillment of God's will.

Recently I was listening to an Apologetics.com episode entitled 'Thus sayeth the Lord'. One of the apologeticists, Lindsey Brooks, commented that the key difference between the bible and any other self help book is that while a book like Jim Cramer's 'Mad Money' might attempt to change our manner of thinking on investing: the bible goes beyond simply changing a singular view and transforms the entire scope of our being. I read 'Mad Money' and I have to begin to synthesize what it says and change my view of investing. The bible, on the other hand, is read and it goes so far beyond changing my view or focus on a particular subject. It seeks to transform my outlook on each and every facet of my life. It goes beyond how I look outward, it forces me to look into the mirror that reflects my soul.

I sat recently in the Sunday school class of Art and Annette Foster at Nashville First Church of the Nazarene and the lesson being taught was dealing with the glory of God. Associate Pastor Dale Benson's sermon had been drawn from Philippians 4. Annette, in presenting her summary of the book of Philippians had written several summary points on the white board. One word stood out, contentment.

Why would Paul say that word? Is he not aware that he himself wrote that 'I am to press on toward the goal before me'. Pressing on and being content, come on Paul, surely the two concepts are dichotomous and cannot both be my goal. Unless the goal I press toward cannot be something which I can attain within my own abilities.

A goal I cannot obtain? What a silly goal. I would never encourage an athlete to set a goal that they cannot attain. What would be the purpose in that? A goal should be obtainable. That is what I learned and what I teach. But, there is something I forget, the words that were spoken by Jesus as he prayed in the garden, 'Not my will, but your will.' As Jesus cried out in anguish from his knees in the garden, he returned to the simplicity of the prayer he taught us, to the fulfillment not of our will, but God's.

Our prayer should be that we conform to the will of God. That God will send His spirit not to accompany us but to indwell us. Not to influence us but to consume us. We must subject ourselves to the proposition that God's will is greater than ours and in His will being satisfied, ours will be made whole.

1 Peter 3:15 -- Apologetics vs Ministries

During a recent Sunday School session, we were dealing with the verse 1 Peter 3:15. Specifically the portion that speaks of always being ready to give a defense of the faith for anyone who asks.

The statement we were dealing with was the interpretation of the word "apologia" -- or more accurately, whether a rational defense was what was being required. The example drawn up was not dissimilar to a discussion on here previously -- reaching people through other methods such as dealing with emotional or physical needs.

Personally, I am a firm believer in the discipline of apologetics. However, it can never be a complete response. I think sometimes we confuse theology or doctrine with ministry. I think what many point out about reaching the lost, feeding the hungry, or providing shelter for the sheep is the fulfillment of the ministry of the church. We should not confuse the discussions of doctrines with the ministries of the church.

When a person with needs presented themselves to Christ, he did not share parables or question their hearts. Instead he met their needs. The woman with the "issue of blood", the lame man lowered through the roof, the blind man, the demon possessed man all had their needs fulfilled before Christ even spoke to them. He did not share the doctrines -- he shared the gospel, his very presence. Those are two very different approaches.

If we don't first deal with the needs of those who are in need, then why should our doctrines even be of a concern to them? Pat Williams in his book "How To Be Like Jesus" gave some excellent advice on how to be like Jesus. First, we must be good listeners so that we can hear the worlds problems. Then we must be willing to help the person in having their needs met. Then, our witness has a basis. Without that basis, our theology and doctrines are irrelevant to them. Our theology is only important in that context in being the motivator behind our actions. It is the motivation that separates us from how the world would try to meet that goal. Jesus lived his theology, we are challenged to do the same.

So, back to 1 Peter 3:15 -- what about the person that asks? If they ask, then I believe we are commanded to give a rational, respectful, relevant explanation for the faith that is within us. The question is, do they ask for help, or an explanation. We should be prepared to meet both questions.

So, we should live out our faith in a simple manner. It should not be so mysterious that they will not see it (or witness it). It should be a simple life of love for God and our fellow man. That should be based on a maturing theology that takes us from the understanding of the need in our life, to be able to share the hope that is within us. A simple faith and a maturing theology should be our goal.
__________________

Literalism and the Bible

Previously, I was a very strict literalist when it came to the bible. I used the slippery slope argument that if one part was not real and factual, we would end up having a pick and choose theology. However, my study of history and how people/events are passed down has shown me that in fact, while a particular may not be in itself truth, the whole can be. This fits very nicely with the "full inspiration" of the scripture -- and is why proof-texting is so weak.

In the matter of creation, we have stories that were orally passed from one generation to the next. It is a very convenient method to break creation into periods of "days" for the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun have always marked a period that could be recognized as a day. (For those true science-minded, I realize the sun neither rises nor sets, and that some portions of the earth might have the equivalent of six-month days...but, I hope you get my drift). Picking apart the language of the choice of the word day makes no sense. I will use another story as a backdrop for this:

Is the person in the Da Vinci's Last Supper painting a man or a woman? Is it John or Mary as some hypothesize. We could study the facial features, we could study the pose -- the result? Who cares. Da Vinci was not there! He is not an eye witness painting an artists sketch as in some courtroom. He frankly could have painted any features/details in that he wanted. What we see is how the artist pictured it in his mind.

So, back to creation. The story of creation was passed down orally for many generations before it was written. So, to make the account more easily committed to memory and able to be retold, a certain poetic license had to be exercised. Which came first light or darkness? I contend light -- look at the sun, darkness occurs when the sun is obscured. Without something to obscure the sun from view, we would naturally have light... But, I digress. Man was created on the first day? Ummm, no. The second? Again no, so frankly how do we know if God created the heavens or the earth first? Well, only because as the story was passed down, it was determined that it was significant to place them in that order... Let's assume it was how God related it to Adam, and how he related it to his descendants -- it is important not how it was done, but, how it was recorded -- that is the truth we are to take away.

Did it really take God six days? Why not six seconds? Well, there was no truly accurate measurement for a second (maybe they used 1-Mississippi or something). So, it became a definable period of time for the story -- 1 day (later determined to be one revolution of the earth -- funny, when it was discovered that the earth rotated around its own axis as well as the sun, math did not change, but was confirmed! -- this contradicts those who say that science would fall if the earth was discovered to not be old).

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we must recognize the bible as a record. It is accurate in that it was meant to record the relationship between God and man. The interesting thing is that many have through the years doubted the bible. Some would hold up certain passages and say, "See not true." It might be verses about a place or an event. Yet, discoveries are made that consistently show the bible to be an accurate record of a people.

Do I have a point? Not sure. I have journeyed from literalism to a deeper view of the bible. Is it simply a photograph that catches the sun and the figures represented? Or, is it a beautiful poem that captures the heart of God and his yearning to be closer to us -- his creation? James Thomas Flexner wrote in "Washington: The Indispensable Man" that once the myth of Washington was removed, we would more fully appreciate the man that Washington was and his true greatness. How much more so this is true of God!

When we see how God has so jealously sought to have a relationship with us -- with me; I am awed that the creator of the universe has so sought my worship! When I realize that the story of the bible is not man struggling to be close to God, but, God seeking his creation's fellowship -- I understand that the story is so much deeper than did the earth come into being in 144 hours, or was it for me to fall to my knees upon to worship My Creator

Was Christ ever Angry?

I have also been interested in what is said, and what is written. Many times people will point to these verses and say that Jesus was angry. I really don't get that impression (and boy, did I ever use these verses myself to justify my own right to be angry sometimes).

Here are the verses in particular:

Quote:

12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He said to them, "It is written,'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN." 14And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant

So lets investigate it a little more:

Verse 12 simply reports the facts of the event. We read the word anger or angry in the actions, but they are not in the prose. We assume that if Christ did those things, it would have been in anger why? Because we would have done it in anger. So we transfer our emotion to Christ and give it that intepretation. For the record, the Greek words there have two different connotations -- one implies with anger, the other implies without -- I am not a Greek scholar, so I don't really understand which context it was in -- but, the possibility of without anger does exist in the specific Greek root word being used.

Verse 13 records Jesus' words -- pretty strong words...but, are they really? He was quoting scripture!

Mark records the act with a slightly different passage:

Quote:

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" 18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. 19When evening came, they went out of the city.

Here it says not only was he quoting scripture, but, did so as he taught them! Think for second...how many teachers begin with an angry tirade would ever get your attention!

To read anger into the actions, you must assume he rampaged through the temple, stopped, calmed himself and people sat to listen to him teach, then irritated the chief priests by evening! That would be a tall order for a man. If he scattered the people in a rage from the temple, how many do you think would have welcomed his teaching? And the Chief Priests and teachers began to conspire against him not because he rampaged through the temple -- but, because of his teaching. Which one would really inspire more hatred?

Was Jesus ever angry? Not sure. What my intention was is to divorce ourselves from our own interpretation based on our feelings -- and really investigate Christ for who/what he is. Quit reading with tradition, and really look at what is written -- those stories are far richer!