Romans

I Have a Problem with God

John Barry — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:30:46 -0700

I am troubled because I feel blessed and cursed, simultaneously. Does God bring the good and the bad? If he does, I have a problem with God.

I hear at church, “God is in control. Do not fear.” Really, is he in control? Because what I see is a world out of control. John Calvin is going to roll over in his grave when I say this, but God is not in control. Because that God would have to be fine with evil to be in control of this mess.

Paul says that the creation and our very selves are subject to the corrupt world:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Rom 8:18–25 ESV)

“[C]reation waits” to “be set free from … corruption.” Likewise, we are waiting to be adopted and reclaimed by God sometime in the future. God is not in control of this corrupt creation, but is waiting to make it whole again. It was once good and will be good again. We hope for what we cannot see—a time when God will permanently reclaim this world by sending back his son.

Evil happens because the world is corrupt, not because God allowed it. Yes, God did place the curse on the world—he is the one who “subjected [it] to futility.” But Adam and Eve made the choice to go against God, and we continue this pattern. Are we then the ultimate reason for the problems? Can we be agents for change?

So I have a problem with this falsely characterized God who is in control of everything. God has let the world go its way, but yet graciously chosen to intercede throughout its history. He brought salvation to the world by sending his son—the greatest intercession of all. When we are blessed, it is God interceding. When we are cursed, we are just witnessing the way the world is when God is not holding back the powers of evil.

With this view, prayer is suddenly taken to a whole new level. Because when we pray, we influence God to intercede—to bless us by holding back corruptive powers. God will take back this world, but until then we should be sure to characterize him correctly and pray to him as if he can act. Otherwise, we might think he is the one behind the evil. Surely he can use evil for good, but he is not reason it exists—we and the other rebellious creations are. But we can work with God to bring order to the chaos. We can bring healing to the corrupt creation and all of humanity.

What do you think? Is God in control of everything? How much control do we have?

Fundamentalism: The Serial Killer of Biblical Interpretation

John Barry — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:00:00 -0700

Many fundamentalists thrive on violently murdering honest biblical interpretation. I have seen it happen to others and myself: a sound scholastic reading of the Bible is presented and is denied because it doesn’t fit within religious parameters. Let’s talk about the fundamentalists, the serial killers of sound biblical interpretation, and see whose the real literalist: me or them?

First, let’s define fundamentalism:

1. A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
2. A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

Now, from Merriam-Webster’s definition, I could almost (not quite) classify myself as a Christian fundamentalist. However, I don’t think the fundamentalists I know really understand what it means to be a literalist. If we are literalists, then we need to realize a few things, like the fact that God has spoken in other ways besides for His written Word (the Bible is not our only source for knowing about our God). Most fundies I know would say, “No way! God's ultimate plan of redemption is in the Bible and therefore there is no need for Him to speak anywhere else.” Well, there is a few problems with this kind of strict Bible-only view of God’s revelation. Let’s use the Bible as our starting point to show why this view murders honest biblical interpretation.

In Rom 1:19–20, when Paul is convincing the Romans why idolatry and worshiping Graeco-Roman gods is wrong, he does not appeal to Scripture, but to creation: “For what can be known about God is plain … because God has shown it to [everyone]. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [idolaters] are without excuse” (ESV). When anyone makes a choice to not follow the true God, Yahweh, as He is revealed through His Son, they are without excuse, not because He revealed Himself in the Bible, but because He revealed Himself in creation.

Oh, but the serial killing of this belief about how God speaks continues on—just look at how many times Acts 17 has been brushed over, or excused. Paul during his sermon at the Areopagus (commonly known as Mars Hill) quotes the Greek poet-philosophers Epimenides of Crete and Aratus (Acts 17:28) to explain the true God, Yahweh, and His plan of redemption through His Son. He also claims that the inscription to an unknown god on one of their altars is a reference to Yahweh (Acts 17:23). Paul synchronizes (on a very simple level) the religious beliefs of the Areopagus philosophers (and the Greeks in general) with Christianity. For Paul, God has revealed Himself in many different ways.

The above examples show that most fundies are actually not literalists. Because if they were, they would have a lot broader understanding of how God reveals Himself.

So, am I a biblical literalist? In the sense that I interpret the Bible based on what it actually says, Yes! But, am I a fundamentalist? Not in the sense of affirming a set of principles outside the Bible that deny things like God’s revelation happening in creation and other literature as well. But I am a fundamentalist in the sense that I affirm the basic set of principles God has commanded me in the Bible. The Bible is fundamental to Christian life and teaching, but as the above examples show, most fundies interpret the Bible within their set tradition and in doing so often don’t allow for it to be read literally. Please make the serial killing of honest biblical interpretation stop.

What type of fundamentalist are you? Will you let the Bible speak for itself? Any thoughts?

Thoreau on The Infinite in Everything

John Barry — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:21:09 -0800

Sometimes finding the infinite in everything can mean simply seeing what is right in front of us -- for its simplicity and beauty. Henry David Thoreau, when he looked at Walden Pond, realized this:

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

What can we learn from Thoreau's words? What are the essential facts of life? Was Paul onto the same idea as Thoreau in Romans 1:18-20? How can you discover now, so that at the end of your life you don't realize that you have not lived? Please let me know what you think.

Culture & Natures

Nick Bogardus — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:44:15 -0800

I was reading the interestingly-titled and well-written "Why Are There Never Enough Parking Spaces at the Prostate Clinic" by Carl Trueman at Reformation 21 and a sentence in his last paragraph had an important conviction/reminder for me as a Christian who somewhat of a cultural commentator.

Trueman says, "Alternatively, I could try to move out of my own little world, start thinking less in cultural and more in biblical terms. I could become less obsessed with particularities and more concerned with universals. I could engage less with the accidents of culture and more with the substance of nature." [emphasis mine]

That is something I wanted to bring up, especially among all of the cultural conversation on this site. We can get so busy scanning our culture like iTunes' "cover view" feature or flippantly analyzing every cultural flash in the pan and completely miss the point as Christians. As Christians our lives are lived in view of eternity, in view of the one and only God who creates and sustains and who has revealed Himself to us in the Bible and continues to do so every day. These facts carry with it some fundamental truths that we, in all of our contextualizing bluster, can skim right over: God has a nature and we have a nature. That is exactly where the greatest Christian missiologist/apologist/evangelist started his Gospel presentation in the last half of the first chapter of Romans.

As we look at our culture, are our spirits provoked (ESV), distressed (NIV), or troubled (HCSB) as Paul's was (Acts 17:16) when we look at the idols that are created, bred, and worshipped all around us? When we offer insights or diagnosis, are they done so through the lens that Paul uses in Acts 17 and Romans 1 where he begins his analysis with a view of who God is and how we've looked to other gods, other saviors? I think that having that Biblical view of the world is our true north and keeps us looking to, thinking in light of, and living faithfully in the eternal framework we believe that we are in. More so, it keeps us directing the gaze of those who hear us upwards and outwards, instead of downwards and within as our Western culture demands.

If we miss that, we're just contributing to the noise. If we miss that, we won't understand our need for Jesus - and therefore others won't either - and our cultural analysis will be a dire misdiagnosis. If we miss that, all of our talk of culture and contextualization is about as consequential as Wayne's World.