Does God Cause Suffering?

Every Christian will eventually have to work through his or her theodicy (i.e. Why does a good God let bad things happen to people?). Some will swing to the side of hyper-Calvinism, which sees God as the author of all manner of evil, from the Holocaust to the hangnail. Others will see God as an eternal victim of a universe gone wrong, as He battles to wrest control from Satan, who alone is responsible for everything that can, from a human perspective, be labeled "bad."

I've been reading Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God, and he makes what appears to be an offhand statement that I thought shed profound light on the question as to whether God causes suffering. He asks, "How can we experience God's comfort if we never experience suffering?" This same question could be asked about many of the other ways we experience God:

• How can we experience God's provision, if we do not experience want?


• How can we experience God's mercy, if we are not aware of His wrath?


• How can we experience God's protection, if we live a life devoid of danger?


• How can we experience God's healing, if we never suffer illness?


• How can we experience God's freedom, if we have never known bondage?

One could argue that these instances are simply God following Satan around, redeeming all the bad things he does. But what if He sovereignly ordains some of these experiences so that we may know Him better?

Oh you'll meet the Lord in the furnace,
A long time before you meet Him in the sky.
- Rich Mullins, "Where You Are"

Different Folds

@rickwarren's Tweet on Thursday got me thinking: Some subgroups of Christians will be shocked when they see who is in heaven."I have sheep that arent of this fold"- Jesus

First, I've got nothing against Brother Rick—he once bought me mini doughnuts and a pint of milk, and told me he was a Bapticostal, thereby securing my affections. I'm not even sure exactly where he was going with the Tweet, but I know that the passage he cited has often been interpreted as an inclusivist text:

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." - John 10:16

On a daily basis, Jesus reveals Himself personally in visions to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and animists—without the help of a missionary—and they experience radical conversion. But inclusivists believe there may be people in other religions who are saved apart from putting faith in Jesus. In other words, Jesus saves them without their knowledge.

Of course, these are not the Hitlers, Pol Pots or Idi Amins of their respective religions we're talking about here. They are the sweetly ignorant savages who have good hearts but are geographically isolated from the gospel. That would be so cool if it weren't so Pelagian.

Does the context—and the meaning—of John 10:16 really support the idea that people can be saved apart from putting conscious faith in Jesus?

Ready for Cancer?

I heard recently that a college acquaintance succumbed to cancer at 40, and I was reminded again of the blessing and the curse that is cancer.

It's entirely possible that a cancerous cell is even now lurking somewhere in my body, having received its assignment of mutation from a twisted strand of DNA gone wrong somewhere between me and Adam.

I'm not wishing for it, but I've known others who made the transition from life to Life courtesy of a bullet, a windshield or a blocked artery. So, how could I curse God for giving me three months or three years to set my house in order and say goodbye, to drain every last good word from my soul—particularly those that become trapped on the tongue when the Grim Reaper is off attending to someone else's business?

The thing worse than the physical suffering of the afflicted must be the grief of the long goodbye, the interminable boarding of the plane before it sets off for an exciting new destination, those left behind standing forlorn on the tarmac.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well. - Ecclesiastes 12:6

Who's the Boss [Revised]

So, I overreacted in my post several months ago on leadership. Some readers a bit more discerning than myself pointed this out in conversations and comments, so I thought I'd revise the post. (Note, I'm not deleting it. This blog is a living record of my learning process.)

As it turns out, what I was reacting against was probably not real biblical leadership in the church, but "savage wolves" posing as shepherds. Of course, this should come as no surprise, since Paul warned that such thugs would rise up from within the church and ravage it. But the presence of wolves does not negate the need for shepherds—it reinforces it. [And, yes, Mr. Stanley. With all due respect, we should still call them "shepherds."]

Of course, what that leadership looks like is something unusual, countercultural and crucifying to the flesh. There is no model for true New Testament church leadership apart from that found in scripture. It is not found in the business world, in the military, in the classroom or even in the Old Testament religious structure.

I wrote, "The early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers." But, as friends pointed out, elders and deacons clearly had positions of authority and oversight in local fellowships, and bishops seemed to have responsibility over groups of congregations. While the ultimate accountability for spiritual growth lies in the hands of the individual, scripture does point to those who have been called to leadership in congregational life.

Note my emphasis of "congregational." I still don't see much biblical substantiation for modern denominational government beyond the local level—whether Protestant or Catholic—or the similar "apostolic" and "prophetic" spiritual pyramid schemes common in the independent charismatic/Pentecostal community.

But I'm open to change. Show me the scriptures, like you did last time ...

Music Is Not Worship

Since when did the word "worship" become synonymous with the practice of singing and playing instruments during a congregational meeting? The biblical concept of worship is much broader—something far greater than the liturgical aspects of singing, playing instruments, etc. It encompasses one's lifestyle, one's orientation toward God, one's work.

I recently saw the following video of a "worship leader" encouraging kids to remove their flip-flops and spin them around as a sign that they were on "holy ground." There are not a lot of words, but the song is catchy and basically talks about God spinning us around like a record. It's hypnotic and goes on for 10 minutes. Don't worry. If you watch the first 2 minutes, you've heard the whole song.

So, imagine my surprise when I heard the "real" song a few days ago when I was at a water park with my kids. Luckily my kids were in the wave pool, so the lyrics were drowned out. The song euphemistically (yet repeatedly) describes a sex act. Sorry, there are some things you just can't sanctify.

Marriage, Divorce and the Church

Recently, I was in a car with a few of my colleagues—all older and smarter than me—and I began making outrageous statements (as is my custom) to see if any of them would rise to the occasion and correct me as a young fool in need of some schooling. Unfortunately, no one took the bait. I'm not sure what that means, but I'm hoping that someone here will take the challenge and set me straight, if I'm in need of edjewkashun. Here are some bullet points of my thoughts on the topic of marriage and divorce—and its implications in the church:

• Marriage is something that God (not a pastor or justice of the peace) performs (Genesis 2:22; Matthew 19:6). It occurs when God seals a man and woman into a life-long, covenant relationship with the community of faith as witnesses. Governments and religious bodies may or may not recognize this union and confer on it various legal privileges or responsibilities, but their recognition (or lack thereof) in no way legitimizes (or delegitimizes) the union.


• Therefore, divorce among believers is not a legal issue, but an issue of "church discipline", as it is a breaking of a covenant within the body of Christ (Matthew 18:15-17). Reconciliation, not legal dissolution, should be the first step of dealing with it. If an offended party refuses to reconcile, or an offending party refuses to repent, there would appear to be biblical substantiation for the church body to expel that person (or both) from the covenant community and for the faithful party to separate him/herself from his/her spouse indefinitely until the sinning party repents and is restored to fellowship.

Now, maybe these statements don't seem that inflammatory or controversial, but consider the implications. I'm arguing that there is no biblical concept of "secular" marriage, since marriage is a covenant institution inextricably intertwined with its purpose as a reflection of the Trinity and the relationship of Christ and His church and as a means of advancing the gospel. Therefore, ...

• Are unbelievers really married? Apparently so, because Paul gives instructions to people who are married to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7:14).


• Do new believers, who were previously married, need to get "re-married" or affirm their covenant in the presence of the believing community?


• Just because a couple is legally divorced, are they really divorced in God's sight, if they have not gone through church discipline?


• What would a church look like if it actually applied these principles? How long would it take before it was sued or the pastor "ridden out on a rail"? (Someone, please explain that euphemism, while you're at it.)


• On a personal note, I would like to take my Holy Ghost time machine back in church history and strangle the person whose idea it was to relinquish marriage into the hands of secular government.

Now it's your turn ...

Where's the Wackiness Start?

I've had the opportunity to meet people from many church traditions—from strict fundamentalists to self-proclaimed prophets and apostles and everything in between.

One of my favorite stories is when a well-known pastor (he called himself a "bishop") explained to me that he possessed an even greater level of "genius" than T.D. Jakes, because he was born under the same astrological sign, but that his birthday was several days before that of Jakes.

Another TV evangelist explained to me that, if one could master the proper formula, he or she could possess absolutely anything they asked for in prayer. "It works like a charm," he noted.

Someone else described how, on a trip to heaven, she had seen warehouses with aborted baby parts that were reassembled by angels and distributed to childless couples.

Several times, I've been asked whether I thought there is a common denominator among those who cling to religious fairy tales—and successfully convince others to believe them through their teaching.

There is. The common denominator is that these people do not accept the "authorial intent" of Scripture. In other words, they don't believe that the text means today the same thing the author intended it to mean to his original audience. Since there is no anchor, when they "study" Scripture, virtually any meaning can be injected into the text.

Often, odd interpretations are attributed to the Holy Spirit revealing a "deeper" or "revelatory" meaning to the reader, since the plain meaning of the text is simply too mundane. Additionally, this model of hermeneutics creates a special class of interpreter who is able to mine insights from the Scriptures that are inaccessible to the average Christian.

Someone once explained to me the concept of "sympathetic magic" that they said they had observed in deliverance ministry. I questioned them as to where in Scripture they had seen this idea. This person admitted that there was no direct reference to sympathetic magic in Scripture but said, “Everything can’t be put to Scripture. It’s got to be rhema, not logos. Napoleon sailed across the water, but you can’t find that in the Word.”

I don't think the answer to this problem is more book exposés, more theological education or more heresy hunter "ministries". This battle is fought on a local level as pastors model good Bible study methods and these methods are reproduced in families and small groups in the church. I'm thankful for every pastor that fights this fight, laboring in the gospel by properly handling the text.