The ‘Biggest’ Problem—“How could a good God allow suffering?”

One of the most powerful objections to God is the reality of suffering. It is usually stated something like this: Suffering shows that either God is not powerful enough to end evil and suffering or He is not good enough to care about ending evil and suffering. This objection is weighty to most and appears hard to handle, but Keller points out a central flaw in this thinking and then goes beyond it to emphasize how Christianity offers hope to those in the midst of suffering (and may not be immediately interested in the philosophy!) The basic flaw When a person says that evil and suffering seem pointless what that person is really saying is that evil and suffering seem pointless to me. Keller writes it this way, “if evil appears pointless to me, then it is pointless.” The problem is one of perspective and insight. “Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean that there can’t be one.” There are many illustrations of this. The story of Joseph in the Bible is one. All sorts of bad things happened to him. And in the end we see that if all those bad years wouldn’t have happened, Joseph wouldn’t have been prepared to do all the good he did in the end. Move beyond the Bible and many people today have similar stories. Looking back there are many admissions that the greatest strength for life was often developed during the deepest times of suffering. There are reasons people don’t see from within a period of suffering. The skeptics who complain against God because of this problem don't have a suitable answer. They want what is right and just. But what is good? How does anyone determine what is evil? Without God they have no basis for deciding what is right and good and just or evil and unjust. It’s mere opinion. And yet saying that suffering may have a reason we don’t understand but that God does, doesn’t always help a person who is suffering. They want to know why? They want to know that the suffering isn’t in vain. Resources and hope to handle suffering The reality of Christ becoming man and suffering death on the cross and being raised again on the third day helps us. The death of Jesus was far worse than we can ever imagine for his death was not merely physical, but spiritual as well. The cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is the culmination of suffering that is far worse than anything you or I will experience. One woman told Keller that his philosophical answers didn't get God off the hook. The message of Christianity is that Jesus got on the hook, in our place. An innocent man suffering the worst possible. But why? The cross doesn't show us all the reasons, but is shows us one that cannont be true. Suffering isn’t because he doesn’t love us. The message of Christianity is that God loves people so much that Jesus died for us. Even if we don’t understand how or why God is doing something, we can understand that it isn’t that He doesn’t love us. (Too many double negatives—He does love us!!!!) Nor is suffering in vain. The resurrection gives hope to suffering. For when Jesus rose again, he gave signal to a future renewal. Not a paradise where the present sufferings are made up for. But a new earth and a new heaven. Keller puts it this way, “The future is not just a consolation for the life you never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted." For anyone who suffers, the Christian answer is, "Look at Jesus. I probably don't understand or empathize nearly enough. How could I? But Jesus does. He knows suffering. Look to Him for hope and for help."

Chapter One Remix--the Privatization of Relgion

I thought I might put up a bit more detailed analysis of Keller’s reaction to the third approach many people today take towards religion—the attempt at privatization. There are others who have pointed this tendency out (Zacharias and Guinness for example) but Keller helps in seeking to understand the thinking behind this common approach and then exposes it’s own weakness. Why do they try to make religion private? Keller begins with examples of people who say that in the public arena, discussion of moral positions should be allowed only from a secular, nonreligious grounding. He also notes that the answer for those who complain that such a position is discriminatory against religion is that such a policy is merely pragmatic—it keeps the divisive nature of religious debate out of public policy. An answer Keller offers a Stephen L Carter quote that shows that “it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any kind of moral reasoning at all.” He begins by asking, “What is religion?” It isn’t just belief in God (check out Zen Buddhism which is religious but doesn’t believe in God). And it isn’t just belief in the supernatural (because that doesn’t fit the Hindus). So what is religion? Here’s a working definition: “It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.” That means that any ordered way of thinking that has opinions about anything that is moral (that ought to be done) is really religious. Keller calls it “implicit religion”. He also calls it a “worldview” or the result of a “master narrative, [which is] an account about the meaning of life along with recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.” Moral thinking is framed by religion, whether it be specific and easily recognizable, or implicit. Whether it is grand philosophy or just ‘what works’, Keller maintains that “any picture of happy human life…is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life” Those who think religion should be privatized argue that religion based beliefs are conversation stoppers, but the reality is, that just about any foundational idea of what life is about or how a person should live is basically impossible to explain and defend to those who don’t share them. “Survival of the fittest” It is here that Keller inserts an imaginary dialogue between two women about “safety nets for the poor.” Ms A and Ms B go back and forth, and can not connect, because they share different views about life and by applying those views to the discussion they pretty much can’t agree on anything. "Safety net for the poor?" "Why not let the survival of the fittest take care of things, if they make it they make it, don’t interfere." If you read the entire conversation you can see how frustrating it is, even in a non-religious setting, because foundational beliefs really affect what anyone and everyone thinks about what is right or wrong in any and every setting. The proponents of ‘privatization’ say that religion is too controversial. Others point out that “secular grounds for moral positions are just as controversial as religious grounds and that a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious.” Keller’s point—the best arguments for keeping religion out of the public arena come from a view that says religion is controversial. But in reality, any moral position is controversial (and probably religious as well). So it is impossible to privatize religion. Questions: Is Keller right in his understanding of implicit religion? Is it possible to discuss/argue moral issues free from the controversy usually laid at the feet of religion—“your ideas are based on beliefs I don’t necessarily share”--?

Exclusivity, But No Superiority

Chapter One of The Reason for God, by Tim Keller The claim any religion makes of being exclusively true flies in the face of many people today. As Keller introduces the problem by telling his own experience as part of a panel which included a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam. Their conversation was polite and respectful. “Each speaker affirmed that there were several significant, irreconcilable differences between the major faiths. A case in point was the person of Jesus. We all agreed on the statement, ‘If Christians are right about Jesus being God, then Muslims and Jews fail in a serious way to love God as God really is, but if Jews and Muslims are right that Jesus is not God but rather a teacher or a prophet, then Christians fail to love God as God really is.’” The panelists were satisfied with the statement, the audience wasn’t. Many argued “it was intolerant to say one faith has a better grasp of the truth than others.” After acknowledging that differing religions claiming to be even ‘more right’ than others is a cause of interpersonal divisiveness, Keller uses the rest of the chapter to discuss the most common attempts to handle the divisiveness of religion. Some want to outlaw religion, others want to condemn religion and still others want to privatize religion. Keller provides examples of each attempt, analyzes them and then offers an answer from either a historical, a cultural or a philosophical viewpoint. For those who want to outlaw religion he reminds us that in the 20th century the worst examples of violence and intolerance were practiced by those who thought religion was violent and intolerant. He also points out the growth of all major religions worldwide, a phenomena unlikely to change. Religion is not going away. Those who want a ‘universal’ religion (all religions are basically the same) make their own absolute religious faith statements when they begin to describe the basics that fit all other religions. Those who think each religion sees only a part of the whole seem to speak from the position that they see more than any who practice a religion. Those who say it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right and others are wrong show the same arrogance in their own claim. And those who insist that beliefs are mostly culturally determined must think that their beliefs about other beliefs aren’t! (Or are they being inconsistent?) Keller likewise discusses those who seek to keep religion private and use only secular thinking in the public square. Keller pushes back with the reality that even those who are ‘secular’ have their own implicit religion, that is their own “set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans should spend their time doing.” Whoever claims to be ‘secular’ exercises his own ‘faith’ in his own approach to life. The conversation he portrays between Ms. A and Ms. B show how unsettling it can be. While the examples and arguments are very helpful in understanding how some people think and how we might interact with them, I am astonished at Keller’s last section, “Christianity can save the world”. He had already said that religion can be divisive. He pointed out how it happens. I feel I’m right. That means you aren’t. Pretty soon I feel superior to you, and either become arrogant or haughty. We all see that happen way too much. So how can Christianity help? “Christianity has within itself remarkable power to explain and expunge the divisive tendencies within the human heart.” What is he talking about? First, that all people are created in the image of God. So Keller says, “Christians [should] expect non-believers to be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them.” And then, because sin has touched all people, “Christians expect believers to be worse in practice than their orthodox beliefs should make them. His conclusion—“So there will be plenty of ground for respectful cooperation.” Right here I offer apologies for not stating either the image of God or the fallenness of man so aptly. Since love believes the best of others, and my experience reveals my own failures, I should look to the good others do, and be wary of my own evil. And on top of that, Christianity is all about grace—Christ doing for us what we could never do for ourselves. Therefore I have no grounds for superiority. Do I belong to God? It is only because of His grace, mercy and love (nothing, absolutely nothing in me to earn or deserve it!) Why me and not someone else—God alone knows. What He tells me is that it isn’t because I am better or worse than others, it has to do with His love, will and purposes. So how should I live? Joyful that God has made known the truth to me. Humble that He loves me in spite of myself, eager to see the good in others, and hopeful that as they see good in me (and here my reason why) they too will find life in Jesus. What do you think? Of Keller’s arguments? Or my response?

A call to honesty and humilty (A Reason for God-Introduction)

The introduction of Keller’s book is a reflection of his personal background of working with doubt to clarify his own faith and his interpersonal work to help others examine their own lives and beliefs. A key idea is that the more honest a person is about faith the more clarity there will be about his own faith and the more humility there will be concerning the faith of others. Keller’s hook to capture one’s attention is that “the enemies are both right.” By that he means that the world is “getting both more religious and less religious at the same time.” As he cites statistics and studies to make his point he moves offers several suggestions. On one hand he suggests that both camps recognize their own strong positions in culture and resist any over the top hype that really is defensiveness. Instead he urges everyone to examine their own doubts and faith. For the believer such examination can be helpful preparation for the times when life seems exceedingly more difficult or unfair than expected or for when one comes into contact with a skeptic who is smart. And by examining the doubts and faith of skeptics, the believer opens the door for conversations that include answers that are more plausible to the skeptic. Keller challenges the skeptic to “look for a type of faith hidden in their own reasoning.” He does just this in the first half of the book as he seeks to answer the most common objections he hears to Christianity. This is one of the most helpful aspects of this book and makes it a resource that will serve many Christians. He listens to the objections and through many conversations has come to understand what ‘faiths’ lie behind those objections. Very helpful stuff indeed! I found Keller’s analysis of his personal journey of faith helpful. He identified three “barriers” he has had to work through and in. The first was the intellectual one—is it true? Why? How do I know? The second barrier he calls the interior or personal barrier. I think he means not merely the experiential aspect of sensing and knowing God’s presence, but the actual workings out of a real faith in a real person. He says it would take a different book to flesh this out. I suspect he is thinking of the always present work Jesus does through His grace and mercy. His point—it can’t be merely intellectual. The third barrier is the one that led him to ministry. It is the social barrier. He found himself wondering why the moral relativists were so insistent on social justice and why many (most?) orthodox Christians appeared so blasé about deep social and societal wrongs. Helping to create such a community has been part of the impetus for his work in New York City. This book is part of the fruit of that work. Keller wants to answer questions in ways nonreligious people can hear the answers. He wants to help believers to understand faith more clearly and hold it more humbly. What do you think? (By the way, if you want to listen to the sermons that relate to the first seven chapters you can go here to download them.)

A Reason for God

Next week I'll begin blogging my responses to the new book by Tim Keller, The Reason for God. I am excited about doing this for several reasons. First of all, I have given this book to my five sons with the desire to share our thoughts together around a common topic. Sometimes when we are all together there is so much going on that we don't get the opportunity to talk about one thing all together. I am hoping this blog will provide that opportunity. (If you are not one of my five sons, I want to invite you to join in as well. You can get the book at Borders, or online. Amazon has it pretty cheap. My plan is to do a chapter a week. I have already read the book once, am familiar with most of its topics, and have feasted on the teaching of Tim Keller on and off again for 15 years. I will try to reply to posts on the blog, but it won't necessarily be real quick.) The other reason I want to do this book is because of the perspective of ministry Keller talks about and does. He lives in New York City, which is an entirely different world than I know about. And his intent from the first day he went to NYC was to work to build a church that would reach the people who live there. He has been successful. More than 5000 people attend four different services at Redeemer Presbyterian Church and Redeemer has assisted in the planting of hundreds of other churches, most of which are in the city. Keller has always tried to be clear about the message of Jesus without using language which keeps sceptics away. He interacts with their ideas and questions in a winsome and helpful manner. A prayer of mine is that I could learn from him and help others move towards faith in Jesus. On a biographical note, Keller is my age. I have more hair than he does and more children. When he was moving to NYC to plant the church, the women's ministry of our church in Waterloo, Illinios helped fund the project. That was money well given!!!!! Next week, I'll begin the book--so read the introduction if you are able! (If you want a to read a review of the book you can try here.) grace always

Why?

I am starting this blog for a few reasons. First, I want a forum to discuss a book with my sons. That book is by Tim Keller, The Reason for God. Its a great resource, newly published, that will help people who wonder about God. I've been looking forward to it for a long time. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York City and I read and listen to just about anything I can that comes from him. He helps me see Jesus and live in His grace. Second, I need to do what I am calling remix. I find myself thinking about lessons I have taught and questions that came afterward and coming up with new ways to understand and express what seems important to others, to me, and hopefully to God. So sometimes I'll do a remix entry out of a Sunday School class or sermon--just a few more thoughts, or answers to questions. Third, I can use this blog as a way to get some information to some people in a way that is non intrusive for them. They can get it if and when they want. For example, as I prepare lessons for a men's mountain climbing trip this summer I can float ideas, get feedback, and hopefully learn to do a better job. There could be other uses, but they will appear when they do. Any questions?

Thunderstruck

Astonished is not strong enough. It comes from a Latin word that means "out of thunder". I remember thunderstorms that shook our house and threatened to bring huge limbs crashing upon our roof. I slept upstairs, but sometimes I didn't sleep. On occasion the thunder cracked at the same time the room flashed. I pondered the first floor. Once I was fishing in Wyoming when a storm came over us and we could hear the thunder echo off the not so distant mountains. Crack boom. Never so close to make us really afraid, though we should have been. Thunderstruck is not as bad as hit by lightning. We don't know how close we were or weren't. Those times when the intensity of the storm opens the eyes and ears at the same time are intense. But they are not as shocking as grace. Grace is overwhelming. I don't deserve it. But the Lord God gives grace. And I am astonished.