Page 29 of 76

The Lord’s Supper: Splits

February 6, 2017 / Allan Babcock

At the church we planted in New Jersey, small groups met weekly in various homes. Once a month, each shared a covered-dish dinner climaxed by the Lord’s Supper.

That’s what the Corinthians did (though we don’t know how often). According to Dr. Gordon Fee the church gathered in the homes of the rich. Archaeology has shown that the dining room (the triclinium) in those homes would accommodate only a few guests. So most would eat in the entry courtyard (the atrium) which would hold about 30-50,

“It would be sociologically natural for the host to invite those of his/her own class to eat in the triclinium, while the others would eat in the atrium. It is probable that the language ‘one’s own supper’ (11:21) refers to the eating of ‘private meals’ by the wealthy, in which, at the common meal of the Lord’s Supper, they ate either their own portions or perhaps privileged portions that were not made available to the ‘have-nots’” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 534).

Therefore, after Paul’s mild reproof of the women without head-coverings in Worship (11:2-16), he sharpens his rhetoric and addresses the Supper abuse . . .

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good 1 Corinthians 11:17).

Paul’s praised them for maintaining the traditions (11:2), but can’t commend them for their gatherings together which are (literally) “not for the better, but for the worse.”

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it (11:18).

Unlike the division of favorite preachers (1:10-17), these divisions (schismata) occur when they “come together as a church.” So scandalous is their behavior, and yet apparently so credible the informants, “to some extent” Paul believes it.

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk (11:19-21).

Divisions are not unexpected. Jesus warned, “Many will give up their faith at that time; they will betray one another and hate one another” (Matthew 24:10-12). These “differences” distinguish the God-approved, God-tested genuine believers from the false. The distinguishing mark is not their belief system but their behavior in line with the gospel.

The Corinthians supposedly eat the meal and the Lord’s Supper to honor the Lord in the presence of his Spirit. Instead they’re eating their own “private suppers.” By “go ahead with your own private suppers” Paul means they start earlier than the poor in the atrium. They also had larger meals as implied by, “As a result one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.”

The meal is designed to express their oneness in Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body . . . “ (1 Corinthians 10:17). Instead it reveals how separated they really are.

Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter (1 Corinthians 11:22).

Paul’s questions cut. Don’t you have homes in which to eat and drink your lavish meals? Therefore, the second question: Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? Their behavior at the meal should show they value the church as one body in Christ. But by humiliating the poor, they’re showing contempt for God’s church as if it is valueless.

No way can Paul praise them in this!

So the meal represents their unity in Christ. Paul will remind them what the Lord himself said about that next time. For now, what can we take away?

* * * * *

We don’t abuse the poor at the Lord’s Supper. (No chance. We don’t eat a meal!) But we have another means of abuse: a broken relationship with a fellow believer. How often two feuding brothers in Christ eat and drink at the Table as if they’re not! Like the Corinthians, they show contempt for God’s church.

Should we, then, not participate? I’ve got a better way.

The Lord’s Supper is an ideal time for reconciliation. If I’m in conflict with a fellow believer, in private prayer during the Supper I can ask forgiveness for myself and give forgiveness to my brother. Then, after, I can go and ask his forgiveness for my blame in the conflict.

Conflicts in the church are inevitable. Relationships fall into a hard freeze.

But at the Lord’s Table, as we remember his sacrificial love for us, our hearts can soften, conflicts can melt, and we sinners saved by grace can be one again.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (6)

February 4, 2017 / Allan Babcock

In Chapter 6, Timothy Keller takes what he’s written so far and begins to lay out what the Bible teaches about pain and suffering.

I’m broadly summarizing this book because, after reading it, I learn better by writing a general summary. I hope it benefits you too. You may even want to consider buying it.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering by [Keller, Timothy]

https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485807775&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by
+timothy+keller

SUFFERING AS JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT

Suffering exists as God’s judgment against Adam and Eve’s sin. As a result, Genesis 3 describes a world of “spiritual alienation, inner psychological pain, social and interpersonal conflict and cruelty, natural disasters, disease and death” (p. 131).

But God’s judgment has purpose . . .

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us . . . For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:18,20,21).

Suffering, therefore, is a form of justice. Once suffering climaxes in final judgment creation will be glorious.

SUFFERING AS INJUSTICE AND MERCY

Individual suffering may not be the result of individual sin. Nor are evil and suffering distributed fairly. So much so that Ecclesiastes’ author writes . . .

I saw the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—and they have no comforter.
And I declared that the dead, who had already died,
are happier than the living, who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun (4:1-3).

Job is the classic example of the “blameless” man who suffered. Nevertheless, though humans often can’t see it, the universe has moral order, as the climax of the Book of Job reveals.

SUFFERING AS THE ENEMY OF GOD

When Jesus approached Lazarus’ tomb (John 11:38), he was “deeply moved” (NIV) or was “groaning in himself” (NKJ). Both translations are too weak Keller claims, suggesting the Greek means “to bellow with anger” (p. 137). Calvin explains, “It is death that is the object of his wrath . . . What John does for us in this particular statement is to uncover the heart of Jesus, as he wins for us our salvation. Not in cold unconcern, but in flaming wrath against the foe” (p. 137).

Even though God has decreed suffering as the consequence of sin, he hates it.

SUFFERING, JUSTICE AND WISDOM

Suffering and pain are not distributed proportionately; often the innocent suffer more than the wicked. Thus we are correct to cry out in distress and unfairness. Yet we must remember, because of sin against our Creator, suffering generally is just. Forget that and we fall into self-pity and turn against God.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

“The Bible teaches that God is in complete control of what happens in history and yet he exercises that control in such a way that human beings are responsible for their freely chosen actions and the result of those actions . . . To put if most practically and vividly—if a man robs a bank, that moral evil is fully his responsibility, though it also is part of God’s plan” (p. 140).

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will . . . “ (Ephesians 1:11).

Therefore, suffering isn’t an interruption to God’s plan, but part of it.

GOD’S PLAN AND OUR PLANS

“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). Keller explains, “God plans our plans.” We make our plans, but they ultimately fit into God’s.

So Joseph explains to his evil-acting brothers, “You intended me harm, but God intended it for good, to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

Jesus was crucified “according to the definite plan of God” (Acts 2:23), yet men put him to death and were guilty of lawlessness.

This is more than a ”theological” doctrine to be believed. It provides us with deep assurance, even in desperate times. The psalmist expressed it like this . . .

“I will cry out to God Most High, to God who performs all things for me” (Psalm 57:2, NKJ).

And Paul affirms it this way in “well-worn” Romans 8:28 . . .

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (NIV).

Keller concludes, “At the most practical level, we have the crucial assurance that even wickedness and tragedy, which we know was not part of God’s original design, is nonetheless being woven into a wise plan” (p. 144).

Head Coverings Redux

February 3, 2017 / Allan Babcock

I received a reply from a friend about “Women at Worship” (https://theoldpreacher.com/women-at-worship/). She asked if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was just for the Corinthian situation or is there application for us. I’ll offer what I can.

First, here’s the text . . .

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

In my view, the woman’s head covering was just for the Corinthian situation (as well as the other churches of God), but not directly applicable to us today.

When Paul writes “we have no other practice”, he uses the Greek sunaythaya, which is used of an established practice and so is translated “habit, usage, custom”. In 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul writes, “Some people are still so accustomed to idols . . . ” John uses it in John 18:39–“But you have a custom, that I should release one man for you at the Passover.”

I take it to mean, therefore, that the head covering was a custom for them, not a moral law for everyone. It had significance in that culture, but doesn’t transfer to all cultures. Historically, this is how the church has interpreted it.

Now, about the more troublesome, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” I tend to agree with Dr. Gordon Fee who comments, ” . . . by ‘nature’ Paul meant the natural feelings of their contemporary culture. After all, according to Acts 18:18 (“Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken.”) implies Paul had long hair. If Paul meant “nature” literally, he violated his own teaching.

Not all commentators agree, taking “nature” literally as the natural world as God made it. However, if Paul is establishing a “moral law” based on literal “nature, logic would then demand women wear some type of head covering in worship today.”

The application, as I see it, is that the woman maintain her hair and dress in a way that distinguishes her from the man. That, of course, will differ from culture to culture and is open to fairly wide interpretation.

Not the most satisfying explanation, I know. And, of course, our interpretation is hindered by the absence of anything related elsewhere in Scripture and our lack of knowledge of all that was going on in Corinth.

Nevertheless, for what my view is worth, I take 1 Corinthian 11:2-16 to address what was customary in that culture. Any application is indirect.

Not many Scriptures are “mysterious” like this one. We can be thankful that Gospel truths are crystal clear . . .

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles . . . ” (1 Corinthians 15:1-7).

Women at Worship

February 2, 2017 / Allan Babcock

I’d be happier if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 wasn’t in the Bible. It’s notoriously difficult to interpret and discusses women’s head-coverings, not a hot-button issue today! But, walking through the entire letter, we can’t detour. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write it for a purpose that transcends the first readers.

THE PROBLEM

As will be evident from the text, women are praying and prophesying in the church without head-coverings. This customary distinction between the sexes is considered disgraceful.

Dr. Gordon Fee surmises: “Probably this is related to their being pneumatikos (“spiritual”) and to their somewhat overrealized eschatology. It seems difficult to understand Paul’s answer unless their spiritualized eschatology also involved some kind of breakdown in the distinction between the sexes. Already they had arrived in the Spirit; they were already acting as those who would be ‘like the angels,’ among whom sexual distinctions no longer existed. As part of their new ‘spirituality’ they were disregarding some very customary distinctions between the sexes that would otherwise have been regarded as disgraceful” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 498).

Paul wants them to wear head-coverings . . .

BECAUSE IT IS SHAMEFUL NOT TO.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head (11:2-6).

After praising the church, he sets out this foundational principle: “ . . . the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”. “Head” here refers to authority. This isn’t a matter of superiority/inferiority but role or function. If a man prays or prophesies with his head (literal) uncovered he dishonors his head (Christ). But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head (literal) uncovered she dishonors her head (the man).

Furthermore, if she has her head uncovered “it is the same as having her head shaved. In Roman society, a shaved head signified an unfaithful wife. So “she should cover her head.”

BECAUSE WOMAN WAS CREATED FROM MAN.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (11:7-12).

God created both male and female in his image (Genesis 5:1,2). But he created woman from man and for man. So, as God-created, man is to honor God. Woman created from and for man is to honor man. The head-covering, therefore, signifies she is honoring man.

“ . . . because of the angels” may mean that angels, as guardians of the created order, are watching women who are disregarding that order.

That Paul isn’t subordinating women to men is clear from the interdependency that exists between them.

BECAUSE IF A WOMAN PRAYS WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED, IT’S IMPROPER.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God (11:13-16).

Here Paul appeals to their reason. By “the very nature of things” he probably means “the way things are” in their culture. Since a woman “by the very nature of things” has long hair “as a covering”, she naturally should not pray or prophesy without a head-covering.

Some are being “contentious”, and Paul refutes their probable claim that “other churches do it.” He tells them wearing head-coverings is the custom in all the churches

WHAT CAN WE TAKE AWAY?

If women are to be subordinate to men, men must be leaders. Blessed is the family (and the church) where the man sings to the Lord with all his heart, who lifts his hands in adoration, who prays aloud his praise, who exercises spiritual gifts. This is especially important today when many divorced women fill our churches.

Sadly, that’s often not the case. If the worship leader calls for only women to sing, then only men, the difference is night-and-day. Women sing out; men hesitate. Where are those strong male voices exalting the King?

I’m not dismissing the important role of women. Where would our churches be without them? Often they are most responsive to the Holy Spirit in worship. Often they are the first to lift their hands or pray aloud. They should complement men’s lead, not replace it.

Paul reproved the Corinthian women for removing their head-coverings. Maybe he should have reproved the Corinthian men for allowing it.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (5)

January 31, 2017 / Allan Babcock

“I don’t want to believe in a God who would let this happen!” That’s the visceral argument against God.

In Chapter 5, Keller discusses “three powerful themes of Christian teaching” that can comfort us in those deep inward feelings when we’re suffering.

Product Details

https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485807775&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by+timothy+keller

First, the doctrines of creation and the fall in Genesis 1-3.

God’s creation was “very good.” But then our first parents mistrusted and disobeyed the Creator and alienated all humanity from him. When Adam and Eve turned from God everything stopped working as it should. God’s judgment against sin fell. But a world of suffering and evil isn’t what God originally intended. Death is not just a normal part of life. Keller writes, “ . . . the good pattern of the life God created here is not completely eradicated, but it now falls far short of its original intent” (p. 114).

Second, the doctrines of the final judgment and world renewal.

Many people claim they can’t believe in a God of judgment. But, if there is no judgment, what about all the injustice that’s been committed and inadequately punished, if at all? Without Judgment Day we have no hope of justice or we must take revenge.

Judgment Day is coming. But what lies beyond especially consoles sufferers. Peter van Inwagen (Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and Research Professor of Philosophy at Duke) writes . . .

At some point for all eternity, there will be no more unmerited suffering: this present darkness, “the age of evil,” will eventually be remembered as a brief flicker at the beginning of human history. Every evil done by the wicked to the innocent will have been avenged, and every tear will have been wiped away (p. 117).

And Keller comments, “We not only get the bodies and lives we had but the bodies and lives we wished for but had never before received. We get a glorious, perfect unimaginably rich life in a new material world” (p. 117).

C.S. Lewis wrote of suffering people who say “no future bliss” can make up for my suffering, “not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory” (p. 118).

And J. R. R. Tolkien envisioned a time when “everything sad is going to come untrue” (p. 118).

Third, the doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement.

In the book of Job, Keller writes, “we have the most difficult and severe truth about suffering—namely, that in the end we cannot question God . . . God confronts Job with his own finitude, his inability to understand God’s counsels and purposes even if they were revealed, and his status as a sinner [leaves] him in no position to demand a comfortable life” (p. 119).

But the incarnation and atonement solve the severity of God’s answer to Job. Sociologist Peter Berger writes . . .

Through Christ the terrible otherness of the Yahweh of the thunderstorms [in Job] is mellowed. At the same time, because the contemplation of Christ’s suffering deepens the conviction of man’s unworthiness . . . Christ’s suffering does not justify God, but man (p. 119).

God himself came down into this dark world and bore the suffering and death for sin we earned. “He [took] the punishment upon himself so that someday he can return and end all evil without having to condemn and punish us . . . What the Muslim denounces as blasphemy the Christian holds precious: God has wounds” (Keller, p. 120,121).

True, we don’t know why God allows suffering and evil to continue, or why it’s so random. But we do know it’s not because God doesn’t love or care about us.

Even if God explained why he allows certain things to happen, our finite minds couldn’t comprehend. Keller illustrates with a three-year-old child who can’t understand the reasons her parents require certain conduct. But she can know her parents’ love and trust them. So we can know our Father’s love and trust him.

But when Jesus came, why didn’t he just destroy suffering and evil? Martin Luther’s teaching explains. He said that human nature is “curved in” on itself. “We are so instinctively and profoundly self-centered that we don’t believe we are” (Keller, p. 123).

Therefore, if Jesus came and destroyed all evil, no humans would have been left. “Jesus died on the cross in our place, taking the punishment our sins deserved, so that someday he can return to earth to end evil without destroying us all” (Keller, p. 124).

These doctrines don’t eradicate suffering. But knowing a suffering world wasn’t God’s original design, knowing that judgment and a renewed world are coming, and knowing Jesus died to fit us for that world offers us comfort when we hurt . . .

. . .until the day when we won’t, anymore.

Do It for God’s Glory

January 30, 2017 / Allan Babcock

I grew up in a church that forbade members from smoking, drinking, dancing and going to movies. A good-motive, but a wrong-headed exercise–blanket rules for personal-conscience matters.

That all may seem largely irrelevant now. But, in fact, the principles Paul sets out challenge every generation.

FIRST PRINCIPLE

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:23,24).

The issue is eating market place meat which had been offered to idols before being sold to the public. The Corinthians arrogantly claim the right to do anything, because such matters don’t affect one’s relationship with God through Christ. Rather than debate, Paul introduces a concern they’ve overlooked: “not everything is beneficial . . . not everything is constructive”.

Here, then, is his first principle: “No man should seek their own good, but the good of others.” Your conscience may free you to eat “idol meat”, but does it hurt your brother’s conscience? Might it lead him into sin or cause him to fall away? What will contribute to his good, his benefit? What will build him up?

EATING AT HOME

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (1 Corinthians 10:25,26).

A Christian is free to eat market meat because it’s the Lord’s meat, like everything in creation. So the Corinthians needn’t ask if it’s been offered to an idol. But . . .

EATING AT A NEIGHBOR’S

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours (1 Corinthians 10:27-29a).

You’re free to eat whatever an unbeliever serves—unless someone says, “This has been offered in sacrifice.” Assume that “someone” who’s raised the issue is convicted by his conscience not to eat such meat. That changes everything: ” . . . do not eat it . . . ” Don’t seek your own good but his.

SECOND PRINCIPLE

For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:29b-31).

This passage is notoriously difficult to interpret. Here’s my “educated guess”. Because the Corinthians have questioned it (chapter 9), Paul suddenly argues for his freedom. He’s free to eat and free not to.

That bring us to the second principle Paul sets out: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

C. K. Barrett comments: “I do not act to the glory of God if I give to an idol some of the honor due to God alone; nor if I cause scandal or ill-feeling in the church, or cause a fellow-Christian to fall from his faith” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

Putting it positively, to seek the good of the other in personal conscience matters is “for the glory of God.” But when Paul adds the phrase, “whatever you do” he’s reaching far beyond personal conscience matters. John Piper once wrote an article, “How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-drink-orange-juice-to-the-glory-of-god). Whatever we do! Whatever we do should show God’s glory and give God glory.

THE EXAMPLE

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:32-11:1).

Paul urges the Corinthians to not use their freedom in a way that causes others to fall from the faith. He offers himself as an example of a man who is “not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved”. Then he makes the daring exhortation, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”. (Christ supremely sought not his own good but the good of many in his life and in his death.) A daring call, because Paul invites the Corinthians to model their ways after his.

* * * * *

We can easily apply this to contemporary personal conscience issues, like drinking alcohol for instance. Yes, I’m free to drink (no drunkenness!), but not if it causes someone else to “stumble” in the faith.

We can also apply this more broadly with probing questions . . .

. . . Do I seek the good of others, or selfishly seek my own?

. . . Do I do whatever I do for God’s glory?

. . . Do I dare invite others to “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”?

Christ died to free us from our sins. Christ died to free us from keeping rules to be righteous. Christ also died to free us to seek others’ good, to live for God’s glory, and to encourage fellow believers to follow our Christ-following example.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (4)

January 26, 2017 / Allan Babcock

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus provocatively asked, “Is [God] willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (p. 85).

This is called “the argument against God from evil”. It was often raised to disprove God’s existence. Now a weaker claim is made: “suffering is not proof but evidence that makes the existence of God less probable, although not impossible” (p. 89). In any case, the problem of evil and suffering in the world drives many to question–and in some cases, outright reject–God’s existence.

Why does God allow evil? Attempted answers are called “theodicies”. One theodicy is “soul-making”. “This view says that the evils of life can be justified if we recognize that the world was primarily created to be a place where people find God and grow spiritually into all they were designed to be” (p. 89). This “answer” has two weaknesses. One, many people with “bad souls” get little adversity while many with “good souls” get a lot. Two, this view doesn’t explain why little children, infants or even animals suffer.

A second attempted answer is “the free will” theodicy. Keller defines it: “God created us not to be robots or animals of instinct but free rational agents with the ability to choose and therefore to love. But if God was able to make us choose the good freely, then he had to make us capable of also choosing evil. So our free will can be abused and that is the reason for evil” (p. 90,91). This theodicy also has weaknesses. For one, it may explain evil that people do (moral evil) but doesn’t explain disasters and disease (natural evil). For another, why couldn’t the all-powerful, sovereign God create humans capable of love but not such horrendous, suffering-causing evil?

Another (among many others) is the “punishment” theodicy. It holds that because humanity rebelled against God in the beginning, all suffering is punishment for sin. The randomness of suffering, however, makes this theodicy simplistic.

Theodicies such as these may help, but all fall short of satisfactorily explaining evil. Keller writes, “It is very hard to insist that any of them show convincingly how God would be fully justified in permitting all the evil we see in the world . . . Surely one of the messages [of the book of Job] . . . is that it is both futile and inappropriate to assume that any human mind could comprehend all the reasons God might have for any instance of pain and sorrow, let alone for all evil” (p.95).

Therefore, instead of trying to explain why God allows suffering, Christians recently have mounted a defense against the idea that the existence of evil doesn’t mean God must not exist. Keller: “If God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil, then there is no contradiction between his existence and that of evil. So in order for his case not to fail, the skeptic would have to reply that God could not possibly have any such reasons. But it is very hard to prove that” (p. 97). And since God is omniscient, why couldn’t he have good reasons to allow even the worst suffering, reasons we can’t think of?

In a world of complex and far-reaching cause-and-effect, human knowledge is too limited to trace out all reasons and causes for suffering. Keller illustrates with “the butterfly effect”. Scientists have learned that large systems—like weather—can be influenced by the tiniest changes. “The classic example is the claim that a butterfly’s fluttering in China would be magnified through a ripple effect so as to determine the path of a hurricane in the South Pacific.”

What, Keller wonders, if every event in time had similar ripple effects. If so, “ . . . . how . . . could any human being look at the tragic, seemingly ‘senseless’ death of a young person and have any idea of what the effects in history will be?” (p. 100,101). We are simply not positioned to judge whether a particular evil is pointless and unnecessary.

The dynamic of all this intellectual reasoning fades in the face of what Keller calls the “visceral argument from evil.” “Visceral” refers to deep inward feelings rather than the ideas of the intellect. In his book, Night, Eli Weisel confesses how the fires of the furnaces in the Nazi death camp destroyed his faith in God. “Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever . . . Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dusts” (p. 102).

Of course, not everyone who endures horrendous evil rejects God. Keller argues that those who do reject God assume “that God, if he exists, has failed to do the right thing, that he has violated a moral standard”. But, if God doesn’t exist, from where comes such strong moral feelings?

Some might claim those moral feelings are the genetic product of evolution. Keller replies, “While that explanation may account for mere feelings, it can’t account for moral obligation. What right have you to tell people they are obligated to stop certain behaviors if their feelings tell them those [behaviors] are right . . . ? (p. 104).

C.S. Lewis wrote, “In a word, unless we allow ultimate reality to be moral, we cannot morally condemn [something as evil]” (p. 105), The moral God is the source of moral feeling and obligation!

In the throes of suffering we might shake our fist at the heavens and deny God’s existence. But Keller concludes Chapter 4 this way: “So abandoning belief in God doesn’t help with the problem of suffering at all and, as we will see, it removes many resources for facing it” (p. 107).

Each chapter in Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485462207&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by+timothy
+keller) concludes with an appropriate “Life Story. This one is “Mary’s.”

Throughout her young adult years, Mary suffered beating, sexual abuse, severe health problems, a schizophrenic child and financial ruin. Her words are an inspiring climax to a chapter about “the argument against God from evil” and offer a wise, humble response to evil . . .

“What I discovered about heartaches and problems, especially the ones that are way beyond what we can handle, is that maybe those are the problems [God] does permit precisely because we cannot handle them or the pain and anxiety they cause. But He can. I think He wants us to realize that trusting Him to handle these situations is actually a gift. His gift of peace to us in the midst of the craziness. Problems don’t disappear and life continues, but He replaces the sting of those heartaches with hope . . . ” (p. 108,109).

O God, to us who suffer so deeply that we sometimes doubt your existence and for whom the intellectual reasons don’t remove the visceral pain, give Mary’s realization that trusting You to handle the situation is actually Your gift of peace and hope. We are not intellectual giants, Father. We’re just Your hurting children who need Your gracious gift. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Idol Food (2)

January 25, 2017 / Allan Babcock

“I’ve got to go to church this Sunday; I did some bad stuff lately.” That’s “Christian Magic”. As if going to church makes up for sin.

The Corinthians believed in Christian Magic (they didn’t call it that), especially when it came to the Lord’s Supper. Somehow the Lord’s Supper would protect them from any harm eating idol-food in a pagan temple.

1 Corinthians 10:1-22 concludes Paul’s reply to the church regarding “food offered to idols” (begun in 8:1). Here he absolutely bans eating idol-food in pagan temples.

ISRAEL’S EXAMPLE

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness (10:1-5).

Lots to speculate about here. But this much is clear: Paul warns the Corinthians of dreadful consequences if they, like old Israel, persist in idolatry.

The church and Israel share similar blessings. The Christian life begins with baptism, so Israel, delivered from Egyptian slavery, underwent a kind of baptism in the Red Sea. The Lord is present among the church by the Spirit; so he was present among Israel in the cloud. The church is cared for by Christ; Christ provided for Israel in the wilderness.

“Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” Why?

IDOLATRY WARNING

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it (10:6-13).

Why bodies in the wilderness? Idolatry. Paul quotes Exodus 32:6b where Israel ate in the presence of the golden calf. “ . . . got up to indulge in revelry”–a nice way of saying sex-play-worship. So Paul admonishes the Corinthians, “We should not commit sexual immorality”.

All these things, Paul explains, “ . . . occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did . . . These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .” See those bodies in the wilderness? Take heed!

IDOLATRY BAN AND WHY

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he (10:14-22)?

Paul’s command is absolute: “ . . . flee from idolatry.” Escape. Run away. Since they pride themselves on their knowledge, he appeals to their reason for obeying his command.

The Lord’s Supper isn’t just a religious ceremony. It’s a “participation” (Greek, koinonia—fellowship) in the blood and body of Christ. By the Spirit, God is present. As fellow believers, they celebrate their common life in Christ. How can they think it okay to fellowship with Christ at the sacred meal, then fellowship at the table of idols?

True, an idol is nothing. “But the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons . . . ” So, eat idol-food in idol temples, and you fellowship with demons. Demons? Satan’s minions that oppress? An idol may be nothing, but lurking behind them are spirits meant to do you evil.

But their harm isn’t the worst. The Lord’s jealousy is. “Will you continue to eat at both the Lord’s Supper and the table of demons and so kindle the Lord’s jealousy, as Israel did in the desert?”

IDOLATRY TAKE-AWAY

Well . . . no idol-food in pagan temples for us! But how about “Christian Magic”? Or, as bad, a “ceremony view” of the Lord’s Supper?

When I led the Lord’s Supper, I’d often remind everyone, “This is ordinary bread and juice. Nothing special about it.” No “power” comes from chewing the bread-cube and swallowing the juice-thimble.

Yet the Lord’s Supper is far more than ceremony. It’s where we commune with the crucified Christ. How? By the Holy Spirit. With his help, I envision myself at the Last Supper. I hear Jesus say, “This is my body. This is my blood.” I see myself at the cross. Jesus agonizes in pain. I hear him cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” I can almost feel him breathe his last. And I remember . . . I remember he’s bearing my sin. He’s loving me. I can almost smell death–the cost of giving me life.

How can I get involved with any kind of “idol” after that?

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (3)

January 24, 2017 / Allan Babcock

The secular worldview “dominates the elite institutions of Western society, [but] it is largely ignored by actual sufferers.”

Thus Timothy Keller begins Chapter Three of his excellent book (https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485184626&sr=8-1 keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by
+timothy+keller).

The December 2012 Newtown school shootings are a sad, but glaring, example of Keller’s point. Every family who lost a child held a religious service.

Some atheists admit religion provides a needed sense of community in the face of horrific suffering. But Keller counters, “Community among persons is forged only when there is something more important than one’s own interests to which all share a higher allegiance” (p. 66). Religious faith provides that “higher allegiance.”

“The Great Agnostic, Robert Green Ingersoll, standing at the graveside of a friend’s child, consoled, “They who stand with breaking hearts around this little grave, need have no fear. The larger and noble faith in all that is, and is to be, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only perfect rest . . . The dead do not suffer” (p. 67).

Keller answers: “It makes little sense to point to a state in which we are stripped of all love and everything that gives meaning in life—and tell people they need not fear it” (p. 67). So much for Ingersoll’s consolation!

Victor Frankl, a Jewish psychiatrist who survived Nazi death camps, saw how some of his fellow prisoners were able to endure the horror, while others couldn’t. Frankl said the difference came down to “meaning.” Keller comments: “to ‘live for meaning’ means not that you try to get something out of life but that life expects something from us. In other words, you have meaning only when there is something in life more than your own personal freedom and happiness, something for which you are glad to sacrifice your happiness” (p. 70,71).

The only happiness secularism offers is here and now. If we can’t find it here, we’ll never have it.

Secularism wasn’t king at America’s start. We lived for God’s glory. Then, claims Andrew Delbanco in The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope, 19th century Americans substituted the nation for God’s kingdom. God became more remote and less majestic. Later in the 20^th century, instant gratification became “the hallmark of the good life” (p. 75,76). Victor Frankl’s observation is profound: “ . . . people who . . . have nothing to die for . . . therefore have nothing to live for when life takes away their freedom” (p. 77). When personal happiness is our only meaning, “suffering can lead very quickly to suicide,” warned Frankl (p. 77).

We Christians realize human suffering came because the creatures turned away from the Creator. So it was through suffering that Jesus Christ came to rescue us for himself. “And now it is how we suffer,” explains Keller, “that comprises one of the main ways we become great and Christ-like, holy and happy, and a crucial way we show the world the love and glory of our Savior” (p. 77,78).

Of course, we do all we can, like the secularists, to care for sufferers and lessen suffering. But this line from The Lord of the Rings, by J. R. R. Tolkien rings clearly true: “Always after a defeat and respite, [evil] takes another shape and grows again” (p. 80). Suffering in this life will never be eradicated.

Secularism provides no solution. It has no foundation for its views. It offers no hope for everything we cherish about life.

Our only real hope lies in the words of the psalmist: “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit” (Psalm 34:18).

I’ve reached 73 faster than I could ever run. Wheelchair-bound, I recall being a child, parenting our children, pastoring for four decades, beach-walking with Lois and so much more. With grateful joy, but also profound sadness, I reminisce. I’ll never do it again. Today I suffer the pains of aging and illness.

The secularist says, “Be happy with what you’ve had. Enjoy the memories. Soon suffering will end in the ‘perfect rest’ of death.” But my heart refuses to be satisfied with that. It cries for something more. Something grounded, not in a wish or a philosophy, but in this historical, incredible truth: Christ came and suffered for my sins, so I might be restored to my Creator. Then, on the third day, he rose bodily from the grave. The perfect, acceptable sacrifice for my sins and the powerful, life-giving resurrection for my death. “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19).

A hole in ground to “rest”–that’s the best secularism can offer. The resurrected Christ offers life “immeasurably more than all we can ask or imagine” (Ephesians 3:20).