Why does God’s goodness seem arbitrary?

This week we return to Tony Jones’ e-book Questions that Haunt Christianity: Volume 1.  The original questions and responses can also be found on his Theoblogy blog. 

Lisa believes that her life has been blessed by God, but still sees so much poverty and suffering in the world. It lead her to ask, “Do I believe God is Good, or do I believe God is just good to me?” Or, as Tony Jones framed it, “Is God’s Goodness Arbitrary?” Tony Jones’ response was “God Is Arbitrary, and That Is Terrifying”. Actually, he says more than that, so be sure to click on the link to read it.

At the heart of the question is a challenge to examine closely what we believe about God. Is God the dispenser of all blessings? And, if so, does that mean that God must also be the source of all suffering? How does God determine who is blessed and who suffers? Or does God determine that at all? And, if you believe God blesses those people who have prayed “hard enough” or “sincerely from the heart,” then how does that settle with what you know about grace? 

This is a variation of “why do good things happen to bad people?” and vice versa. I like it because it’s the kind of question someone who is trying to understand the nature (or even existence) of God might ask. It asks “How engaged is God in this world?” and “If God is engaged, help me understand why God’s actions seem arbitrary.” It’s not the kind of question that will be satisfied with clichés but demands a thoughtful (not to mention prayerful), honest answer. Lisa said she didn't know why she believes God is good but points to the Gospel of Jesus as her reason for doing so. It’s just as likely that the question will come from someone who is struggling to make sense of what seem to be arbitrary actions on God’s part in the face of pain, suffering, and death to so many whose “sin” appears to be little more than to be born in an impoverished and/or violent, unsettled time or place. The person may be questioning God’s engagement, or even existence, in light of what they see.

The question is more likely to arise from a deeply personal experience or confusion and frustration from actual events. Each of us who believes in God and Jesus has had to struggle with times when tragic events shook our belief. Or times when God’s blessings don't make sense. I watched my parents die relatively young, never having the opportunity to see a grandchild. I've watched dear people I knew die young and I've prayed enough to realize that God’s healing doesn't happen consistently in hoped-for ways. And I have looked to God and asked “Why?”

On one end of the spectrum of responses is “God doesn't always answer prayers the way we want” or “God’s ways are too mysterious to understand.” That may be true, but it’s not the kind of response that heals a broken heart. On the other end of the spectrum is the response that such things only show that God doesn't exist. Both of these responses begin with the premise that God is all-powerful and controls everything that happens in the world. The first response accepts that premise; the later rejects it. 

Others say that maybe God is not all-powerful or engaged in human history. In saying that God’s goodness is arbitrary, Tony Jones offers this explanation:

God’s first act, the act of creation, was an act of self-limitation. It was an act of humility…. God made a creation that is not God — I am not God; you are not God; that tree is not God.

The only way for God to fashion a creation that is other than God is an act of withdrawal, or self-limitation…. 

Thus, the very nature of the relationship between God and creation hinges upon God’s self-limitation.  [Read more in God Is Arbitrary and That Is Terrifying].

The Bible chronicles God’s engagement with us. The experiences of many lead others to believe that God continues to be engaged with us, even in this self-limitation.  But our experiences also suggest that this engagement appears to be arbitrary. 

Tony Jones concludes his response by saying: 

God’s solidarity with us is so important to God that God entered into human history to experience this arbitrariness. The experience of Jesus was moments of closeness to God (baptism, transfiguration) and moments of the absence of God (Garden of Gethsemene, Golgotha)….

Here’s what I know: Based on what I have experienced, God’s activity in human history is arbitrary and unpredictable, which means it’s terrifying. This, I think, is the “fear of the Lord” that is throughout scripture.

And here’s what I believe: In Jesus, God experienced this terror. And that’s what causes me to love Christ in the midst of God’s silence.

How would you respond to the question? Do you agree with Tony Jones that God’s goodness is arbitrary? If not, how do you explain why some people seem to experience God’s blessings while others experience pain and suffering? Do you believe God is all-powerful or that God is self-limiting in creation? What do you think about Tony Jones’ concluding response?

Does it matter whether the Genesis accounts of creation are literally true?

In comments on last week’s post, Greg Suess asked: “Are the Genesis accounts of creation literally true? Does it matter whether they are or are not?” We've previously touched on questions about the creation accounts here and here. I don’t want to rehash those discussions but Greg’s question offers an opportunity to look at some different aspects, so let’s jump in. 

Some folks believe very fervently that the creation accounts in Genesis are literally true. The world was created in 7 days; Adam and Eve are real, historical figures who lived in a real Garden of Eden and were tempted by a real talking snake. That forms the foundation of their faith in God as sovereign and all powerful and in God’s redemption through Jesus. In fact, they might argue that not accepting Genesis 1-3 as accurate, factual accounts of creation undermines the rest of the Bible. 

I believe that the first chapter of Genesis is more of a statement of faith in God the Creator than an actual account of the creation of the universe. As for Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, I don’t know if it actually happened as it is presented in the Bible, but I don’t think the fundamental truths of the story are lessened if it turns out to be an allegory or a parable rather than a factual account. In fact, I think it’s possible to miss at least some of the deeper meaning if you insist on it being entirely factual. 

This leads to the first questions to explore: What are the essential messages conveyed in these creation accounts? What do we miss if we believe the creation accounts in Genesis are parables rather than accurate, factual accounts of what really happened? 

I quit trying to change the mind of anyone who believes that the creation accounts are literally true. It shouldn’t make a difference in our common relationship through Jesus, except when some insist that believing in creationism is a condition for being a Christian. Then it goes from being an interesting discussion or intellectual exercise to a potential barrier to the Gospel. In my experience, such an insistence has created an unnecessary tension between science and religion and has only served to turn many people away from Christianity. 

The late Michael Spencer wrote of a Japanese exchange student who attended a Christian school in the U.S. for a year. She told a teacher before she returned home:

“I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say ‘You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.’ So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true.”

Spencer lamented that the student didn't hear that many Christians don’t believe science and faith are incompatible or that many Christians accept both evolution and Christ. It’s a false condition that distracts from the Gospel. Fortunately, the perception that religion and science are conflicting or incompatible may be changing. A recent study found that the vast majority of college freshman saw no conflict between science and religion (The (Lack Of) Conflict Between Science and Religion in College Students). Folks who insist that science is hostile toward Christianity (in my experience, it isn't) or that only a literal interpretation of every aspect of the Bible is true to God (I don’t think God’s grace insists on this) may only be pushing others away from the overarching story of God’s relationship with us and how God is at work in the world. And that is far more important than any claims that the Bible also serves as a scientific text for creation. 

Now for the second set of questions: Does it matter whether the creation accounts are literal or not? Why would it make a difference? What do we lose when we focus on debating whether God created the universe in 7 days or several billion years or whether Adam and Eve were historical people or a metaphor? What does it have to do with the Gospel? 

I will add some personal thoughts in the comment section. Hope you’ll join in the conversation!

God, perfection, and extra dimensions: Did God create an imperfect world?

We’re kicking off a series of questions using Tony Jones’ e-book Questions that Haunt Christianity: Volume 1.  The original questions and responses can also be found on his Theoblogy blog. 

The first question is: “Why would a perfect God create an imperfect universe?” The full question and reader comments can be found here. Tony Jones’ response – God is not “perfect” – is here. 

Tony’s response was basically along the lines of “perfection is a quality we get from Plato, not scripture.” While many Christians embrace the platonic concept, he argues “Perfection is a purely imaginary state. It doesn't exist.” 

“I don’t find any indication from either the Hebrew or Christian scriptures that perfection was a quality that ancient Jews or early Christians attributed to Yahweh or to God.” Click here to read the full reply. 

Several of the reader comments to the original post follow that same line of thinking:

Perfect, in the evangelical sense of being “sinless,” perfect in the Hebrew actually means "complete". 

…

Creation by its very nature is on-going, both a noun and a verb. So, in a sense it can never be complete. However, the God of Genesis said it is Good- not Perfect. 

…

All things have a purpose toward "completion". Perhaps the question is what is our purpose in that.

…

Imperfection is woven inextricably into the very being and functioning of Creation. We could live without imperfection. We would not be here (at least in this universe) were it not for imperfection.

I’d like to ask the question differently. If God created us in God’s image and intended for us to live in a relationship with God, why can’t we see and interact directly with God? We’re told that nobody can see God and live (Exodus 33:17-23). From Moses and the Prophets to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we’ve needed an intermediary. 

But why do we need an intermediary? Why would God create something with which God cannot interact directly? Why is it so hard for so many people to even recognize God at work on earth? Is it because we’re so imperfect and/or sinful/unholy that we’d perish in the presence of God? That seems to go back to the original question and opens up a lot of messy implications (see the post Are we totally depraved?). Is it because we are not yet complete (in some manner) and can’t fully comprehend God? That might explain why the first disciples could spent their daily lives with Jesus but didn't fully understand who he was until after the resurrection. 

Here’s an idea that has bounced around in my head for a few years. I’m not sure if I buy it, but I’ll toss it out. Maybe we can’t fully comprehend (or see) God because we don’t exist in the same dimension as God does. Bear with me for a minute. The idea was inspired by a book called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, written by Edwin Abbott, an English schoolmaster and theologian. The book, a satire of Victorian culture, describes a two-dimensional world that is visited by a three-dimensional sphere. The two-dimensional creatures can’t comprehend the sphere until they see it in three-dimensional space. Those who don’t experience it not only deny the existence of a three-dimension space, but forbid anyone from talking about it. It’s beyond their comprehension that anything can exist outside of what they can see and know. 

What if we can’t fully comprehend or directly interact with God because God exists in a dimension beyond ours? What if, for instance, God exists in a dimension in which time is not linear? Much like the two-dimensional characters in Flatland, we can only experience that portion of God we encounter in our particular slice of time. It might explain why we find different aspects of God emphasized in scripture passages that span time. Following on last week’s discussion, it might also explain how different cultures that developed in different times and locations could end up with different but complementary experiences with God to share. Or it may be none of that, except for my imagination, and all I've done is create confusion.

So back to the original question: Tony Jones concludes his answer by saying perfection is not something Christianity promises. Instead, 

Christianity promises a narrative that meshes with our experience — and my experience of life is rife with inconsistency and paradox. What Christianity offers me is a vision of God that more or less matches my experience of life. 

Do you agree with Tony’s response? Is there anything you’d add? Why do you think we can’t (or don’t) directly encounter God in our lives?

Is the Holy Spirit confined to Christians?

NOTE: This summer I plan to explore some of the questions in Tony Jones’ ebook Questionsthat Haunt Christianity: Volume 1, which grew out of a discussion series bythe same name on his Theoblogy blog. But on the way to that first post, I was sidetracked by something I read in Brian McLaren’s book Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha,and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-faith World. You may call it “easily distracted,” but I’ll go with “work of the Spirit.”

Brian McLaren wrote that “the Holy Spirit preexists all religions, cannot be contained by any single religion, and therefore can’t be claimed as private property by any one religion.” [p.150]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus told his disciples that God will send the Holy Spirit to teach us everything (John 14:15-31); And in Acts, the Spirit came down upon Jesus’ disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13). But does that mean the Holy Spirit is unique or exclusive to Christianity?

Acts isn’t the first appearance of the Holy Spirit. In the beginning of Genesis, we read that the “wind from God” (also translated as the Spirit of God) swept over the waters at creation. The prologue to John tells us that the Word was with God from the beginning (Some interpret that to refer to Jesus; others suggest this is the Spirit, or an intermediary). There are other passages in the Old Testament that mention the Spirit, although the work of the Spirit is not ubiquitous (unless we include the prophets or the acts of God). But, there are indications that the Spirit of God was at work before Acts.

Nor is the Spirit confined to those who consider themselves God’s chosen. Peter discovered that the Holy Spirit didn't distinguish between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 10). We also see glimpses in the Bible where God (or God’s Spirit) is also at work through non-Israelites: Melchizedek, a priest of God, blesses Abraham (Genesis 14:17-24); in Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to leave the descendants of Esau and of Lot alone because God had already provided them land (Deuteronomy 2:1-9); God worked through Israel’s enemies when the Israelites turned their backs on God, and to restore Jerusalem (Ezra 1); Amos suggests that the Philistines and Arameans had their own Exodus experience (Amos 9:7).

Not all of those passages clearly mention the Holy Spirit, but they do show that God’s work in the world is not confined to one people or one religion. If we work from that premise, then McLaren suggests two implications (and this is where I’d like to focus the discussion):

First, encounters with the Spirit (or presence) of God can occur anywhere, including the world “outside of church control”; in other words, the secular world [p. 151 in McLaren's book]. That means, among other things, that “the scientist studying interstellar dust is investigating the domain of the Spirit.” As a scientist, I've found that, by studying the broad spectrum of God’s creation, we also get a glimpse into the nature of God. In fact, some physicists have described their studies as looking into “The Mind of God.” It also means that we can be inspired by music, art, books, and other things that are not strictly “Christian” (a pet peeve of mine).

Second, people outside of Christianity may have had (or have) encounters with the Spirit (just as Peter discovered with Cornelius’ Gentile family). Under differing circumstances and without a common language or understanding, the may describe it differently than we would.

Before dismissing McLaren’s ideas as heretical, read what he says:

That is not to deny the presence of unique divine revelation in any one religion, nor is it to affirm that all religions are the same, nor is it to imply that the Spirit should be credited or blamed for everything going on in our religions. Instead, it is simply to propose that each religion, based on its unique location and history, would have a unique, particular, and evolving perspective from which to encounter the Spirit in a unique way. That would mean that differences between religions would not necessarily mean contradictions. [p. 151]

That also does not diminish our particular Christian experience. Instead, McLaren writes, it means three things:

First, we Christians can make a strong claim to have received a real revelation through real encounters with the real Holy Spirit in specific locations and at particular times in creation. Second, we have something unique to offer members of other religions, based on our unique and real encounters with the Spirit. And third, it would mean other religions have something to offer us as well, based on their real and unique encounters with the Spirit. To refuse to receive those gifts would be tantamount to dishonoring the Holy Spirit’s work beyond our group’s own experience. [p. 152]

McLaren's book invites us to consider an alternative to the too-often pervasive us-vs-them exchange between Christianity and other religions and asks us to consider that maybe even God’s Spirit is inviting us into conversation that crosses the traditional borders that separate us [p. 152]. He’s not advocating that we abandon the core of our Christian faith but to consider that God may be calling on us to reach out to our neighbors with the same love and grace Jesus brings us.

Do you think the work of the Holy Spirit is intended only for Christians? Can God’s Spirit come to us through someone who is not a professed follower of Jesus? Have you had any experiences that would lead you to believe that God is working only within a Christian community or that God is working in the world beyond the church?

What does it take to be a disciple of Jesus?

As we reach the end of the education and youth group “year” at church and shift into planning for the next “year,” I've been thinking about what kinds of things help us become disciples of Jesus. A couple of premises underlie my thinking. 

First, I see a “disciple” as someone who is intentionally and actively learning from Jesus – not about Jesus, but from him. A disciple also seeks to embrace those teachings in the way they live and interact with God and with each other. Discipleship, then, is intentional, active, applied, and ongoing. 

Second, I’m a believer in the kind of education reflected in this quote from Albert Einstein:

“I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.”

So, how do we create an environment that encourages us to become disciples of Jesus? And how can we grow in that discipleship?

Is offering (or attending) weekly worship services enough? What about Sunday school classes… or posting questions for reflection on a blog? What about weekly youth group gatherings and occasional retreats and work camps?

Is reading the Bible sufficient? Daily or weekly? Alone or with a group? What about praying, meditating, practicing spiritual “disciplines,” or serving?

What about something like this?

Source: http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/20080114JJ.shtml

Or this?

Source: Grace Youth Group Facebook page

The first followers of Jesus didn't become disciples by picking up a book on Jesus’ interpretations of the law or Jesus’ rules to live by. They didn't attend a Jesus lecture series and go home and try to figure out how to apply it to their lives. They didn't become disciples by reading scrolls and studying scripture for a few hours each day. Instead, they accompanied him day in and day out, watching, listening, learning, asking questions, walking, eating, drinking, assisting, and otherwise living with him. When Jesus spoke, he more often used parables that challenged them to think rather than rules to follow. Jesus showed his disciples how to live more by living than by talking about it.

How do we create that kind of environment today? The Internet Monk ran a week-long series on Spiritual Formation this past week. A few things jumped out at me:

1. Discipleship “training”, spiritual formation, spiritual growth (or whatever term you want to use) is not about a program, it’s about life: “The Christian life is not Bible study, prayer, solitude, silence, fasting, giving, and so on. These are ways we walk with Jesus in secret so that we can live life differently with Jesus in the course of ordinary life. The Christian life is life lived Christianly. It is not some special, different variety of life. It is life.”
2. The primary focus is on Jesus, not any particular religious doctrine: “Growth happens through walking with Jesus, living with Jesus, eating and drinking with Jesus, watching Jesus work, listening to Jesus teach, asking questions of Jesus, fulfilling the callings Jesus assigns us, and living the life with God that Jesus showed us and makes possible for us.”
3. God intends growth to happen in community: “Spiritual formation is about the development of a people, not just individuals…. The growth and development of human beings is meant to happen within a community of love, support, and mutual service in which all members, at different stages of life, are being nurtured into greater health and well being, becoming wiser and more loving.”
4. Spiritual growth and discipleship is not part of a one-size-fits-all program. Each of us have unique circumstances in our lives. 

What kinds of things would you like to see the church do to help us become better disciples? What kinds of things are you doing now? What do you need more help and encouragement in doing?