ALL POWERFUL OR ALL LOVING?

Questions about whether God is really in control when a tragedy like the Minnesota bridge collapse happens point to the classic theological dilemma known as theodicy. The argument goes like this:

1. An all-powerful God could prevent innocent suffering.
2. An all-loving God would choose to prevent innocent suffering
3. Innocent suffering exists in the world
4. Therefore God is not bot all-powerful and all-loving

The logic is sound, so that leaves discounting one or more of the premises to avoid the conclusion. The Calvinism of Pastor Tom defines the love of God in a rather limited way since there is no room for admitting that God is not in control of all things (with foreknowledge to predestine what happens). In light of the very real suffering in the world that leaves us with a somewhat uncaring deity. That school of thought finds plenty of support for an all-powerful God in the Bible and puts the blame for suffering on the depravity of human beings.

There is little appeal to be drawn to the extreme version of this theology. Logically, it leads to the Deist version of a "clockmaker God," i.e. God made all that is, "wound it up" and just sits back and watches things unfold. But in the end, even the strictest Calvinist acts as if free will exists. This is the point where I have gone hammer and tong with conservative "Bible-believing" Christians. I contend that even to accept what is purported to be an objective truth requires first a subjective choice. I understand why they won't accept this point, because it then becomes a slippery slope of deciding where to draw the line between subjective and objective truth. I can see the appeal in possessing the kind of certainty that they claim, but sadly I don't think we have that option.

When all is said and done, more is said than done. That is why in the face of innocent suffering I will choose to act as if God is all-loving and not worry what that says about the possibility of God not being all-powerful. If logic forces the choice, then I'm betting on love every time.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

IS WINNING A FAMILY VALUE?

Hey, I like tag as much as the next guy. I'd even say that losing at tag probably doesn't do significant emotional or psychological harm. So, yeah, banning the game may be an over-reaction. But why is defending competition something that Pastor Tom feels he needs to do? I would only be guessing, so I wont. But I do think that games without competition can provide valuable lessons in cooperation and group building. They can also be a lot of fun. Have you ever tried to do a "group sit"? Form a circle, then everyone turn the same direction and slowly try to sit on the lap of the person behind you. Of course that lap doesn't appear until that person begins to sit and your lap appears only as you start to sit, etc. It is not easy and requires everyone working together. There is a wonderful collection of these types of games called the New Games Book. The rules are simple: 1. Play hard 2. Play fair 3. Nobody hurt When you play this way everyone wins. Anyone, since the Bible tells us that the last will be first, it would seem better either to lose on purpose or to play games where there are no losers.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

HOW CAN WE ELECT A POOR PERSON?

I can't defend John Edwards' lifestyle. The hypocrisy of his message and his lifestyle is inescapable. But what do we do with his message of the two Americas and the need for sacrifice? Is is less true because he only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk? The sad reality is that the political system as it is currently dys-funtioning requires millions of dollars to get elected president thus nearly requiring candidates to have personal fortunes. We need to hear the message, perhaps a better messenger may come along. I don't know what it will take, perhaps it is not about the messenger but about America. JFK certainly had great personal wealth, but somehow he was able to speak with integrity about poverty. This is certainly true of his brother Ted, who despite his extreme wealth has consistently supported legislation that favored the working class and the impoverished. Perhaps we are simply too accustomed to fault-finding as a way of discrediting opponents to see beyond that sort of pettiness. Having said all that I still wish Edwards the individual had the credibility to match Edwards the politician.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHAT IS THE PRICE OF ONE LIFE?

Refusal to negotiate with terrorists has always been one of those allegedly obvious truths that the powerful put forward. Clearly, the worry is that even by showing the terrorist any legitimacy that the terrorist is empowered. Indeed, this is about power, especially about those with power not conceding any of it. I can understand that nations don't want to grant undue power to rogue groups, but when they take hostages then they have already seized a certain amount of power. Getting them to release the hostages thus releases the power they gained in exchange for whatever they receive in return. So whatever is given to the hostage takers is seen as the equivalent of the lives of the hostages. So is there any price too high for just a single life, let alone 19? We can all too easily get calloused by the overwhelming loss of life that war brings to us in daily body counts. Names get lost in numbers, lives become something less than personal when they become the currency of conflict.

Does Jesus' overturning of the "eye for an eye" code in favor of "turning the other cheek" only apply to individuals...and civilian (i.e. non-military) ones at that? Sure, you can point out that Jesus didn't tell the Centurion to leave the army, but by extension would you say that he then supported the warfare of the Roman Army? Clearly, Jesus calls us individually to a high calling with a high price, why should we be appalled when nations choose not to resist the evildoer and not to return evil for evil?

Am I sorry that Korea will now be restricting Christian missionaries from going to Afghanistan? Sure, it would be better if they could go. On the other hand, the peaceful resolution of this issue and the respect shown by Korea to those who don't deserve it just might work on the hearts of the terrorists. If we believe in grace and forgiveness and the power of love, maybe we should give them a try. This may end up being a more powerful witness than what could be accomplished by Korean missionaries on the ground. At least I pray that it might be, because I am willing to trust the power of God over human power to work.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

QYW Goes Analog

I am now writing a weekly column called Questioning Your World in the Tantasqua Town Common. The paper is delivered free to every home in Brimfield, Brookfield, Sturbridge, Wales and Holland. If you go to their site you can read the entire paper, but it is in pdf format, so it is a big download. I'm posting all my columns here at Cross Left (you can get an early read of tomorrow's column there today).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

TESTIMONY

I'm sorry to hear about the robbery at Holland Congregational Church. I really feel for Pastor Tom finding his office ransacked. I can only imagine the feeling of violation that brings. But I am also glad that he was filled with inner peace and that it was obvious to the reporter he talked with. Good for him to be able to offer that good testimony to the faith. The church will be in my prayers.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

BULLY OR BULL?

I don't want to live in the "Christian" world of Theodore Roosevelt. If my ability to practice Christianity relies on the killing of Muslims, then I don't want to be that kind of "Christian." Frankly, I should be thanking Pastor Tom for this blog post as it sums up precisely what is wrong with this way of thinking. It reminds me of the saying, "why must we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?" As long as we see the Christian faith as something that requires democracy and capitalism, as well as the militarism to defend it, we will be practicing some religion foreign to what Jesus came to proclaim. If Pastor Tom is saying something different then he needs to explain himself. As far as I can tell, he is supporting a crusade mentality that justifies killing of infidels. I suppose I should be fearful that he would declare me among them or that he will take the next step of supporting the killing of heretics of which I'm sure he considers me one.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

THOUGHT POLICE?

Pastor Tom has at times been quite concerned about legislation focused at one's beliefs or thoughts. That would indeed be dangerous. Legislation can only restrict observable behavior, such as the bagginess of pants or exposure of bra straps as is the topic of today's post. Tom is right not to make the blanket statement that these externals do not necessarily reveal with reliability what is in the heart. So if his job as a preacher of the word of God is to focus on the heart, what does that say about the limitations of what can be accomplished by legislation that only speaks to the external not the internal? I don't have firm answers, but I take this as an important caution when suggesting restrictions on another's behavior, particularly through legislation.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

MISSING THE POINT?

On the surface (I didn't do any research) the suspension of a 13 year-old student for a doodle that only nominally resembles a gun is indeed an over-reaction on the part of a school. However, it seems to me that this is about fear of a school shooting rather than some agenda to "de-genderize" boys. But even if it is about moving boys away from violence, someone needs to explain why that would be a bad thing. Oh, I forgot, God designed boys to be interested in guns and cars (at least Pastor Tom thinks so, just follow the link to his blog post). He's the one who believes that the Bible is free from error and contains all the answers, so I'll leave it to him to quote chapter and verse to support that absurdity. Yes, there are differences between boys and girls and boys will tend toward violence more so than girls, but is this a "God-given right" that must be defended? Tom didn't quite go so far to say that, but that seems to be the gist of his post. It is disturbing and dangerous to involve God in the fight to defend guns. May God forgive us all for too easily sinking to this way of thinking.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. As a pacifist, I oppose any violent means to achieve any end, no matter how noble. Still, as a nation reliant on violence to achieve our goals we have little credibility when accusing others. If indeed, intifada, means "shaking off" then who are we to say it doesn't? Yes, in Palestine it has meant a violent shaking off, but the use of this word in relation to this school has to do with young people of Arabic descent in America choosing to shake off the oppression of prejudice against them not through violence but through art. Should they have chosen a less politically-charged word? Probably, but if we truly believe in freedom of speech we should be able to accept the language and move toward dialogue.

It is very sad that knee-jerk reactions keep an inter-faith and inter-cultural conversation from every beginning in this country. Surely Pastor Tom would compare my position to Chamberlain's misguided notion that talking with Hitler could prevent World War 2. I'll risk taking my stand with the Prince of Peace who was willing to spend time with the marginalized in hopes that they might understand the Reign of God.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Intelligent Design?

It is a wonderful to learn that teens want to spend time with their families (I am actually returning from vacation...and pre-dating this week full of posts...with my family and have had first hand experience of spending time with my teenage children). I just wonder how Pastor Tom takes the leap to conclude that God designed families in this way. If we look to the Bible for examples we see Jesus tell us that we need to hate our families choosing only the family of God. We also have examples of great dysfunction in the families of the patriarchs. Don't get me wrong, I think that families are vital to our well-being. I also think that the biblical example of extended families taking care of each other is a fine model that we can learn from. But I also think that we need to avoid the wall-building of isolating my family against others. Remember that God's blessing of Abraham in Genesis 12 was so that all the families of the world might bless themselves by his family.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Would You Go?

I'm glad to agree with Pastor Tom that the rescue workers who sacrificed their lives in the mines attempting to save others showed Christ-like love. I simply would expand the consideration to a reflection on our own lives. Look deep inside and ask yourself if you have what it takes to be this kind of hero. As followers of Christ we are called upon to take up our crosses and follow Christ. That implies a willingness to show the greatest love, to lay down our lives for another.

Following Christ is a lofty as well as a demanding calling. May we all be inspired by these heroes to more fully realize our faith. And I'm sure you join me in offering a prayer for their families and friends.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Live the Word?

The death of Elvis Presley ought to be a reminder to us all that wealth and fame cannot satisfy the soul. Presley apparently was searching for meaning despite these things, with tragic results. I have to agree with Pastor Tom that life and life's riches are fleeting and that we need to search for permanence in those things that transcend this life.

I even agree that we should live our lives for the glory of God. What I want to know is exactly what Tom means when he says that the Word of God shows us how to do that. The reason I ask is because he and I seem to read the book differently. I certainly don't think that simply talking about how God has forgiven my sins and saved me to be a sufficient description of living my life to the glory of God. Faith without works is dead, so if people don't see my faith in what I do then I haven't lived my life to the glory of God.

I'm not saying that Tom wouldn't agree with that, but he and I might disagree about what actions should flow from faith, or at least the priorities. In part, I think the differences would come from our understanding of what constitutes the Word of God. The Bible is a human document and shows the limitations of being a human creation. The Word of God is living and real in a way that goes beyond words on a page. I believe that the only way to find God's Word is to "listen" for it among God's people. This is on-going work because God is still speaking.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

What If Jose Were Gay?

Lots of leeway and forgiveness is being shown for Jose Offerman over at Engaging You World. Pastor Tom is "sure" that something is going on in Offerman's private life, although he doesn't seem to know if he is a believer. I just can't help but wonder if Tom did have a chance to meet Jose and hear his story if the same compassion and understanding would continue if Jose turned out to be gay?

Sure, competition brings all of us closer to our animal natures, making us more likely to do most anything to survive. But to be a professional certainly should mean that one has learned to remind oneself that this is only a game, not survival. Especially since professional athletes become idolized, we ought to expect at least civil behavior from them. Another of my sports heroes growing up was Willie Stargell. He used to say that the umpire doesn't start the game by yelling, "Work ball!" He yells, "Play ball!"

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can You See the Irony?

Today Pastor Tom attacked a poor defenseless eggplant! OK, so it was a comment about the absurdity of seeing God in the sliced eggplant. I dunno, just look at that picture , it sure looks like the letters G-O-D, so maybe that is not so absurd. Fine, I'll peel away one more layer and agree with Tom that finding a message in an eggplant is odd. But, the problem only exists with literalist nature of calling this a miracle. that is, claiming that God is speaking through the vegetable. But wait a minute, Tom, are you claiming that God cannot use a part of creation to speak to us of the glory of God? That sounds a bit like saying that there are limits to God's power.

Can God only speak through humans? (What about Balaam's donkey?) Can God only speak through the Bible? (God couldn't use the Koran or the Tao Te Ching to bring truth into the world?)

These lines are tricky to draw. Maybe God is simply still speaking...perhaps even through an eggplant.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Clear as Mud?

Pastor Tom is certain that the Bible is crystal clear on the issue of homosexuality, calling it an abomination. Well there are a number of things that the Bible calls abomination and until we starting giving them all equal weight I don't see how we can cherry-pick the ones we care to enforce.

Let's take kosher laws as an example. Christians have long rejected those restrictions, primarily based on Peter's vision recorded in the book of Acts in which he saw unclean animals but heard from God that all things were clean. OK then, pork is back on the menu, right? Sure, ALL things are clean...like the Gentiles that Peter was sent to visit. Let's stop talking about people as abominations shall we then? Perhaps we can talk more about how we are to be responsible in love to one another. If two people can experience the grace of God and commit themselves to each other in the presence of God and honor that commitment, who am I to say that they are hearing God incorrectly?

I'm not so sure that the Bible is as clear on this subject as Tom would have us believe. There are precious few verses on the topic and there is the cultural context to consider (such as homosexual pagan temple prostitution) before we pass judgment on faithful couples committed in loving relationships that harm no one.

On the other hand, I've never heard anyone argue that the Bible supports exploitation and oppression of the poor or sanctions neglecting those who can't care for themselves. And the last time I checked there was more than enough suffering in the world for us Christians to be concerned about, so I have a simple proposal for a truce on this subject: let's take care of every widow, orphan, sick person, homeless person, hungry person, prisoner, and stranger first, THEN we can talk about homosexuality (I won't even demand peace first, I'll settle for justice).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Rule of Thumb?

The expression, "rule of thumb," comes from the English common law that permitted a man to beat his wife as long as he used a switch no larger around than his thumb. Of course, this is one area where the absolute "no beating" is better than a relative drawing of the line.

Pastor Tom is typically one to draw absolute lines, but is taking the relative route in relation to the thumb surgery a man chose to improve his ability to use his iPhone. Tom admits to a bit of technophilia and I likely am a greater lover of technology than he. So neither of us can take the Luddite moral high ground here and declare an absolute.

But that doesn't mean that we are left with moral relativism. We have an obligation to apply our principles as ethical decisions. Looking at the motivation of the man who chose the iThumb is certainly the correct thing to do. I didn't find anything in my research that showed me the intentions of his heart. Pastor Tom went quickly to his theology to speak of the unregenerate heart. Since I don't have more to go one, I'll reserve judgment on this man. What I am willing to say is that I hope that he will use his new one-of-a-kind thumb to serve the greater good.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Context?

I would suggest to Pastor Tom that he take his own advice and read the Bible in context. Taken in small enough snippets, the Bible can support most any position, such as the health and wealth heresy as he suggests. The way to avoid this sort of problem is to read the whole book before drawing conclusions and looking at the big picture of that story. I suggest that his view of homosexuality suffers from a lack of this sort of reading in the big context.

Perhaps if there were more Bible-believing Christians we wouldn't have this problem. And I'm pretty strict in my definition of "Bible-believing." According to Faith Comes by Hearing, 65% of Bible-believing Christians have not read the entire New Testament. I disagree with this statistic for one simple reason: I would not call anyone "Bible-believing" who has not read the whole Bible! I've read the whole Bible and I read it as a whole. How about you?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Who Knows the Heart?

Just when I thought Pastor Tom was on vacation, Barry Bonds has to go and make news (to show who little I follow baseball, it was that blog where I got the news...after getting home from a soccer match...New England Revolution 2, Harrisburg City Islanders 1)

While I know little about Barry Bonds, I do know that I've heard about his faith. He talks God-talk doesn't he? Doesn't he thank God for his ability? Now Pastor Tom assures us that Bonds' problem is that he is not content in the Lord. How exactly does he know that?

I can't say that I disagree with Tom's theory, but I'm sure that I would suggest it a bit more reservedly, at least without some quote from Bonds or someone who knows him well (his pastor perhaps?) I would venture to guess that if Bonds didn't have the specter of steroids use hanging over him and he was praising God for the accomplishment that many would be holding him up as a stellar example of striving to give glory to God. In fact, if I recall correctly, Engaging Your World sang the praises of the Super Bowl coaches ascribing their success to God.

While it is nice to see people being able to name their callings in doing what they do well, it is equally dangerous to ascribe motives to people when we don't like what we see. I, for one, don't know the heart of Barry Bonds or know if he is guilty of juicing, so I will refrain from saying with certainty whether he did what he is alleged to have done because of his discontented life.

One thing I do know is that I'm looking for more significant heroes. I grew up watching Roberto Clemente play elegant baseball while being the consummate gentleman even though he knew the sting of prejudice being the first Puerto Rican to succeed in the Major Leagues. He also knew what it was to serve God, literally giving his life in a plane crash as he took relief supplies to Central America after an earthquake.

I wish we could spend more time accentuating the positive instead of speculating about the negative.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

The Consequence of Truth?

Pastor Tom shows a great concern for the defense of our nation and very little concern for the Bible in today's blog.

He obviously puts higher stock in the Hebrew Bible's theocratic directives that allow an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, than in Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. I won't get into a long discussion of Biblical truths and whether they apply to individuals and not nations for two reasons: first, it is long and messy, and second, I refuse to accept that what is immoral for me as an individual can conveniently become moral when done as a group of individuals.

Congressman Tancredo is simply pandering to fears and counting on nationalistic chauvinism to win him some votes. He goes so far as to say that it isn't the job of the president to make sure that every child has health care. This sort of swaggering bravado, if allowed to lead this nation, will be like painting a target on ourselves. Warmongering begs warfare.

Jesus taught us a different way. Does that mean that our way of life might end? Absolutely! Is that a bad thing? Only if you consider dying to self and the sinful ways of the flesh bad. Even in the bloody warfare of the time of ancient Israel, there were the voices of the prophets. Look at what the messages are in the books at the end of the Old Testament. During the time that Israel had a strong nation, God's message to them again and again was not to conquer or even to protect themselves (that was God's job). Their job was justice, taking care of the weak, poor and disenfranchised among them, whether Hebrew or foreigner. Don't believe me? Just crack open your Bible and read pretty much anything after Song of Solomon before Matthew.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

BTW I have to say that talking about nuclear attacks and retaliatory strikes on the 62nd anniversary of the day OUR nation dropped the first atomic weapon (on civilians, no less) is rather sickening.

Special Comment

Keith Olbermann calls his editorials special comments. Everyone's opinion is a special comment and I believe I have been wrong to deny them on this blog. I was taking my cue from Pastor Tom who turned off that feature at Engaging Your World. I'm sure his reason was to control the major influx of rude and thoughtless attacks. I can't say that I blame him. Now Holland's Opus has turned off comments at Think Worm. His reason is to encourage more listening.

I started this blog to voice my differences with Engaging Your World as a sort of pseudo-dialogue. What is much better is real dialogue, so I will start allowing comments.

This will remain a venue driven by the choices Pastor Tom makes at Engaging Your World. When I want to address a topic I will continue to do so at Culture Dove So let's see how this goes.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Is Sabbath the Answer?

If Pastor Tom's numbers are accurate, the frequency of the tragedy of a child dying in a car left there by parents is about once every ten days or so. Let us all pray that it doesn't need to become more frequent before we figure out how end it. Pastor Tom suggests "slowing down," he could have used Biblical language and called it what it is, Sabbath.

I am fully convinced that stress is something we do to ourselves. We can all be busy without being stressed. Granted, it can be extremely difficult to do and in many cases the far better solution is to be free from the burden. Thankfully, the Biblical model for community, using Sabbath principles, is to take time off from our labor to realize the truth that it is God caring for us all along. In Leviticus 25, the principle of Sabbath is extended from weekly to yearly, ultimately to a Sabbath following seven seventh years-the Jubilee every 50th year. The Jubilee brought economic justice, restoring balance to the community with forgiveness of debts, liberty to the captive....and in Jesus' interpretation in Luke 4, even return of sight to the blind.

Perhaps we have been too blind to Sabbath principles and need to put more trust in God, not just as individuals, but even more importantly, as a community and a nation, so that we might proclaim a Jubilee for all the oppressed people of the world.

Finally, one observation to watch in Pastor Tom's blog: he said "I don't want to question God's sovereignty, but..." I'm not sure I understand that comment, but I guess he is saying that the death of 340 children over 10 years might be part of God's plan. That is a complex and tricky theological discussion if that is indeed what he means. I would simply say that if God informed me that God had a plan to kill children, I know full well that like Abraham arguing with God trying to save Sodom, I would very much question God's sovereignty (or at least I pray I would have the chutzpah to do so).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can You Get There from Here?

Sometimes it is really hard to draw a straight line. Today Pastor Tom started out talking about a Scottish woman surprised by a dead frog in her bag of prepared salad and ended up talking about the need for families to spend more time together. It wasn't the most direct path, but I suppose it is one way of getting there.

I have to agree that much would be gained by families spending more time together and family meal time is one good way of doing that. I wouldn't be so quick to paint all families that have two parents working as "living beyond their level of income" as many families would find themselves homeless without multiple incomes. Until we replace minimum wage with a living wage we will never be able to return to the alleged halcyon days of 1950s suburbia.

Still, the point is well made that too many of us don't know the meaning of the word "enough." Instead we pursue "super-sufficiency" instead of counting our blessings when we have enough and using the extra to help others. It is deeply counter-cultural to suggest that, but then wasn't Jesus so radically counter-cultural that the powers of his day put him to death?

And just to complete this tortured circle of conversation, let me add that one great way to avoid dead frogs in your salad is to shop at farmers' markets. It is likely that any critters you find in your veggies will still be alive and you can release them out the door knowing that this is the ecosystem they inhabit since the food is local! ;-)

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can Heaven Wait?

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, scripture tells us. So on the whole I agree with Pastor Tom about the misplaced priorities of beautifying the body in this world. On the other hand, the idea of seeking salvation in order to have literally a "heavenly body" is shallow at best. I don't imagine that he is suggesting this an evangelistic tool, but it seems to be a misplaced priority to seek some eternal reward when Jesus clearly and consistently proclaimed that the reign of God was at hand. I am unashamedly biased toward the here and now, not the by and by.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian