reason.cck.org.uk

"In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." The Bible

As a non-believer it is not uncommon to think that the way in which you are likely to become a believer is to see a miracle. So is this a reasonable way to pursue belief in God? Firstly, we need to back up a bit and see why Jesus performed miracles in the bible.

The purpose of miracles in the bible

It is true there are numerous accounts of supernatural healing which Jesus performed in the bible, and this was a key aspect of his claims to be God.  This was a wonderful way of Jesus reaching out and showing that not only was he powerful, but also that he was full of compassion for people.  However, physical healing in the bible is always temporary because ultimately people die! Healing is an indicator that Jesus is alive, is powerful to heal, and has the authority to bring people back into relationship with their heavenly father.

Ultimately healing that Jesus does is a pointer to the next life, where christians will spend eternity in heaven with God. It is here where there will be no more pain, suffering or death (Rev 21:4-5). Supernatural miracles are a foretaste of the complete freedom that there is to come.

Do miracles still happen today?

Despite our sceptical western minds, Christians do believe that miracles still happen today. This comes from our understanding that Jesus is not dead in the grave, but is alive and is still in the business of bringing restoration to people. God’s character has not changed; he hasn’t somehow become lazy or disinterested, but is working things out according to his sovereign plan. The bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), which means that he will continue to do the same things he did during his earthly ministry.

In fact Jesus made an amazing promise to all Christians in John 14:12 when he said ‘I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.’ Jesus does still heal people and he uses Christians as agents of his blessing.

It is our expectation today that God would still do many miracles through Christians by the power of the Holy Spirit, just like those in the early church. For a full account of these testimonies it is worth reading through the book of Acts in the New Testament. It is an absolutely enthralling account of what it means to be a Christian, living by the power of the Holy Spirit!

Are miracles the key to becoming a believer?

We might be surprised to see that in the New Testament (John 15:24, Mark 6:1-6) there are examples of people witnessing Jesus performing miracles, but some still do not become followers of Jesus. This teaches us a crucial principal; we do not live in perfect accordance with our reasoning. Even the apostle Paul admitted this in Romans 7:15 as a Christian.

Romans 3:10 teaches us that we are not naturally drawn to God, but that we all tend to want to want to suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18-25). This is because there is more to becoming a Christian than simply coming to an intellectual realisation of what is true.

The bible teaches us that there is a battle for our hearts going on (Psalm 14:1) and this is why these people decided not to follow Jesus. It wasn’t for lack of evidence of Jesus’ capabilities; it was simply that they were stubborn-hearted. I was exactly the same prior to giving my life to Jesus in my teens, despite the overwhelming evidence for Christianity I refused to give to give my heart over to him.

Quite often miracles happen to people, and due to a stubbornness of heart, we try to explain it away in natural terms. I have often heard people respond to testimonies of healing of very significant things like cancer, by saying ‘It’s just the power of positive thinking’ , ‘maybe you just got lucky’, ‘It’s just a case of mind over matter’ , ‘It’s just a case of the placebo effect’ and a whole host of other clichés. So witnessing a miracle really is no guarantee to becoming a believer. (However, I have linked some video testimonies at the bottom of people recently healed from CCK).

How do I pursue whether Christianity is true then?

Although each person has a different story of how they have come to faith, God is very clear, the evidence is already there for all to see, whether you witness a miracle first hand or not. There are many different arguments which people down the centuries have found persuasive, such as the argument from meaning, the argument from morality, argument from fine-tuning to name but a few.

There is no one way that people come to faith in Christ, but one thing worth considering is reflecting on the very centre piece of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. Sometimes we want a bolt of lightning to hit us from God, but realistically the resurrection is it! This is God screaming out to the world, Jesus is the answer. Dead men do not rise unless God has something to do with it!

The key miracle: The resurrection of Jesus

Throughout the bible we find that God is not against evidence based thinking at all. In Isaiah 1:18 we see God speaking through the prophet Isaiah, ‘Come now, let us reason together’. Similarly, this kind of reasoning continues in the New Testament as well as we can see through Paul’s writing in particular (Acts 17:2-3).

If Jesus did really die and rise again then God has clearly revealed himself in human history. We can know God personally. Why not look into whether this happened or not?

Recent video testimonies of people healed from CCK

Mitra Hajebi’s story:

Mark Edwards story:

It is sadly true that people from different religions have sometimes, naively or otherwise, falsified the truth claims in other religions in order to make a mockery of them. This type of crude propaganda is unloving, unreal, and divisive. In order to be able to assess the validity of each religion, one must be willing to investigate with humility, not only for the sake of learning, but also out of respect for those of other faiths.

The question presupposes, however, that in order for one to judge the truth claims of a religion one must experience that religion. But what is meant by ‘experiencing’ a religion? There are two main categories of experience that I think are being referred to; knowledge of the doctrines of that religion, and a supernatural experience of God.

Knowledge of doctrine

There is much in the knowledge or understanding of different religions that can be tested. Some primary questions might be: Do they cohere with history and human experience? Does the belief system explain human origins? How does it deal with the problem of evil? And so on. These questions are helpful in ascertaining the validity of a world-view.

The three seats

Additionally, such knowledge will provide you with a basic understanding of the three main seats of religion (which will be discussed in further detail below). All religions fall roughly (not exclusively) into three camps in regard to what it means to be either a Muslim, Hindu, Christian and so forth. Firstly, what you do, secondly, what you think, and thirdly what you feel. For example, to be a Muslim you need to believe that Allah is one and has no partners among other things (The Qur’an: Surah 112), and you need to do good, and live in such a way that Allah will grant you paradise in the afterlife.

You can’t argue with experience

There are groups from different religions who claim that they have had a supernatural experience of God, or a transcendental experience of reality. If these religions claim to be exclusive, how can this be correct? Either, all ‘experience’ is physiological; or all are experiencing some aspect of God, an interpretation that might be proposed by a Hindu or a member of the Baha’i faith.
It is important to recognise that the term ‘religious experience’ can mean vastly different things. For some faiths, experiencing God in a personal way contradicts the fundamental teaching of that faith. For example, to say that a Buddhist experiences God in his/her meditations would be shocking since Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) taught that an understanding and compliance with the Four Noble Truths, would lead one to nirvana (total oneness with Brahman: the impersonal Ultimate Reality). Therefore, saying that a Buddhist experiences God contradicts the concept of nirvana.

Islam

There is not enough time to examine the Islamic concept of ‘religious experience’ in detail here, however, we can briefly look at the concept of ‘Tauhid’, the oneness and otherness of A’llah. It has been proposed on numerous occasions that the God of the Bible, and the God of the Qur’an are the same. However, the differences between the two must not be underestimated. Indeed, most Muslims believe that the Bible has been changed by Christians and Jews to suit our divergent beliefs about God (People of the Book (Jews and Christians), why do you deny God’s revelations when you can see that they are true? People of the book, why do you mix truth with falsehood? Why do you hide the truth when you recognise it? The Qur’an: The Family of ‘Imran: 70-71. Also see: The Mystery of Jesus by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, and is the Bible Gods Word? By Ahmed Deedat). In contrast then, the God of the Bible is fundamentally relational, existing in community within the Trinity, an idea that is repugnant in Islam (The Qur’an: Surah 112). This is because the concept of Tauhid reveals A’llah to be great, absolutely transcendent, unknowable, and beyond us. Therefore, the idea that God can be personally known is out of place and does not appear in orthodox Islam.

There is, however, a branch of Islam that does interact with the supernatural: the Sufis. Still, ‘experiencing a personal relationship’ with A’llah in our human bodies and minds does not strictly cohere with the doctrine of Tauhid. It is a perplexing but well-established fact that much of Sufi teaching directly contradicts some of the most fundamental doctrines of orthodox Islam (Geisler, L., Norman. Saleeb, Abdul., Answering Islam: The Crescent in the light of the Cross, 1993, Baker Books.)
As one Muslim author observes: Beyond their speculations concerning God, the necessity of his existence, and his properties, Muslim theologians and philosophers have apparently felt no need to question the possibility and reality of a human experience of God . . . It is difficult to find an appropriate Arabic or Persian expression for ‘experience of God’ without running the risk of encroaching on the absolute transcendence of the God of Islam, of anthropomorphising him’  (Annemarie Schimmel and Adboldjavad Falaturi, We Believe in one God, New York: Seabury Press: 1979)

Christianity

To have a personal understanding and experience of God is not only coherent within Christian orthodoxy, but a necessary component of being a Christian. Often Christians have a dramatic revelation, or experience of God at the time of conversion or soon after. The Bible makes many references to these events especially in Acts 2: 1 –12; these encounters are still happening today. The foundation of ‘being a Christian’ lies in a relationship with God, not exclusively in any of the three seats (mentioned above). Rather, when one meets God in a personal way the result is a dramatic change in what one thinks, feels and does.

In conclusion, to assess the reliability of truth one can do so intellectually to a certain degree. If a religion is claiming to have supernatural referent, then it is worth assessing what this really means. Is the idea coherent within the doctrine of that religion? If it is, then is it a central tenant of that religion? If a religion claims supernatural or transcendental experience, it does not necessarily validate the claims of that religion.

The evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith lies not only in its historic foundation, and understanding of human nature and needs, but in the profound reality that God himself meets with those who accept Jesus. Christianity is, therefore, an experiential religion, not only in doctrine but also in practise.

References/Further reading

• Orr-Ewing, Amy., But is it Real?, Chapter 1, Inter Varsity Press, 2008.
• Geisler, Norman. And Saleeb, Addul., Answering Islam: The Crescent in the light of the Cross, Baker Books, 1997.
• The Qur’an., A New Translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem.
• In Defence of Miracles, Ed. Geivett, Douglas., Habermas, Gary., Inter Varsity Press, 1997.
• Annemarie Schimmel and Adboldjavad Falaturi, We Believe in one God, New York: Seabury Press: 1979

Before looking at the apparent fine tuning of the Universe, it might be useful to first look at what is known as the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument

The cosmological argument sets out to logically infer the existence of God based upon the knowledge that the Universe had a beginning. A form of the argument recently made popular by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This can be stated simply in just a few steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In order for something to bring the Universe into being, it must exist independent of the Universe, i.e. the cause must exist outside of both space and time. This cause must be beginning-less and itself uncaused. Lane Craig also argues that this cause must be personal. We only know of two types of immaterial object as described here, a mind, or abstract objects such as numbers. Numbers cannot directly cause things to happen, therefore the cause must be an intelligent mind.

4. There exists a personal creator of the Universe who is time-less, space-less, beginning-less,  uncaused and enormously powerful.

The rise in popularity of the cosmological argument can partly be attributed to advances in scientific understanding.  Up until around the 1930’s, the majority of physicists believed the Universe to be eternal, and so would have disputed point 2 in the above version of the argument. Over the past 80 years more and more observational evidence has accumulated showing that the Universe did indeed begin to exist at some point in the finite past (~13.7 billion years ago). In order to avoid the conclusion of a creator, some people have recently moved on to dispute point 1, that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The debate is too complicated to detail here however, and does not affect what is perhaps one of the most interesting problems to arise from modern cosmology: Why does the Universe appear to be so ‘finely tuned’ for life?

Fine Tuning

The laws of physics that govern the behaviour of our Universe can only really be understood when parameterised and expressed as mathematical equations. These equations often contain physical constants,  an example can be seen in the well known E=mc2. Here we have as variables E (energy) and m (mass), however c (the speed of light in a vacuum) is a constant. There are over 20 such constants in modern physics, the majority of which have arbitrary values; there is no known reason why they have the values they do. A common hypothesis is that these parameters may be somewhat random. This may not at first seem very interesting, but if some of these constants were significantly different then the Universe would be a very different place.

In his book ‘Just Six Numbers’, Astronomer Royal Martin Rees discusses six constants that are fundamental to the present structure of the Universe. These numbers have to be almost exactly what they are in order for us to exist. Different values for just one or two of these parameters could have led to a universe full of black holes and nothing else, or maybe just a vast cloud of protons and electrons, neither of which would allow for the evolution of life.
The Universe appears to be finely tuned or designed in such a way that it is inhabitable. Why is this the case?

There are two main ways of answering this question:

Multi-verses and the Anthropic Principle

The Anthropic Principle states that the Universe, with all its different laws and constants, must be the way it is for us to exist, and so since we exist, we should not be surprised to observe what we do, no matter how unlikely. If the Universe were different, then we would not be here to see it. 
While this is certainly true, it does not mean that we should not be surprised to be here at all. A very popular way of explaining away the improbability is by speculating that there are many universes (maybe an infinite number), each with a different set of random physical constants. In this model, there will be at least one universe that just happens to be ideally suited for life.

Some theories exist suggesting that the Universe is in fact oscillating in a series of Big-Bangs, where each time it expands, then re-collapses and starts again. These theories can be ruled out based on scientific observations demonstrating that no re-collapse can happen to our Universe. 
 
An alternative has been suggested to allow many universes, even though there appears to be only one. In this theory there are many different universes all existing at the same time (The Multi-verse). Theoretically, this is a nice way of solving the fine tuning problem, since one of these universes is bound to appear like our own. But there is no evidence to support the idea, and even if it were true,  there appears to be no way of ever proving it. This fact alone puts the idea well outside of what can be called science, it is really just speculation. For many people, scientists included, there is another explanation that fits better with what we see around us.

Conclusion

Based on the information that we have looked at, it seems that taken on face value there is a very strong case to be made for the existence of God. There certainly seems to be a design to the universe that we are in, and it seems that unless you have a prior commitment to naturalism, (that God can’t possibly be the answer) the most probable explanation of our existence in this finely tuned universe is that there as an intelligent designer, who created the universe we live in. This goes some way to explain why the apostle Paul was able to say that the existence of God was clear for all to see, (Rom 1:20) so that we can’t claim to have an excuse that God has not provided enough evidence for us.

From here the question becomes not ‘Does God exist?’, but ‘Who is God?’. At this point, it is worth looking at the identity of Jesus Christ. He made some astonishing claims which any thinking person must surely consider, but that is for another article.

Other useful articles: 

What does it mean to become a Christian?

Who made God?

Hasn’t the theory of evolution shown the bible to be false?

How does modern science show there is a God?

Jesus often can be very surprising. Traditionally, he is portrayed as a gentle figure that preaches love and acceptance. While this is correct, as far as it goes, it is not a complete picture of the Jesus described in the New Testament. We must remember that Jesus led thousands of people in a politically volatile land. He experienced considerable resistance from the religious and governmental establishments. As such, Jesus can be compared more accurately to a peaceful revolutionary, rather than a monk-like figure. As such, he often said and did things that might be unexpected, given our traditional Western views of him.

What does the passage say?

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple, whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:22-27).

At first glance this is a shocking statement. However, we must never interpret a section of the Bible in isolation from its immediate context, and by extension its wider context. Firstly, by reference to the wider context of the Bible, Jesus is not saying that it is the duty of his followers to hate their relatives. This would contradict the fifth commandment to love your father and your mother, and Jesus expressly affirms the laws of God recorded in Exodus in the Old Testament form which this commandment came (Matthew 5: 17-20). Secondly, by reference to this passage’s immediate context, we can better understand what Jesus was saying. Reading further on: For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it began to mock him saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’. This passage is a warning to those who are thinking about following Christ; they should first consider how much it might cost them. Acknowledging Jesus as your God and Saviour will demand your complete allegiance. If the claims of our relatives and the claims of Christ come into collision, the claims of the relatives must give way.

Following Christ is both simple and extremely costly. It is easy to accept Jesus as your God theoretically. Practically, however, it is often very hard. It is as the famous preacher Charles Hadden Spurgeon said: ‘Now, what say you to this? Are you willing to give up your own mind to God, and simply to believe what he tells you in his word? Are you willing also to give up self-rule? “We are our own” says one; “we may do as we like. Our tongues are our own, we may say what we like. We are free thinkers and free livers”. Let me tell you that, if you are saved by Christ, you shall find the only true freedom you can enjoy; but there must first be a complete surrender of yourself to your God’ (The C H Spurgeon collection: Comfort and Assurance, Emerald House, p. 116)

What about Jesus?

Did Jesus hate his family then? Not at all. The care that Jesus had for his mother is clear from what he said to John (one of his followers) while in excruciating pain on the cross; that John should look after his (Jesus’) mother Mary (as it is assumed at this stage that Joseph, Mary’s husband, had died (John 19:25-33))

It is also interesting to note that Mary was foretold that Jesus would put his ‘Father’ (God) before anything else in his life (Luke 2:34-36, 2:4-49). As a boy Mary lost Jesus in Jerusalem for three days. Once found, Mary said: ‘Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress’, Jesus replied, ‘Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (Luke 2:48-49) Jesus also makes God the priority before his family in Luke 8:19-21, when a crowd was surrounding Jesus and his mother and brothers were standing outside waiting to see him. Jesus responds to the messenger who informs him that they are waiting for him by saying: ‘My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’

Jesus consistently puts his ‘Father’ (God) before anything else, even his family. However, this by no means meant that Jesus hated his relatives. His devotion for God drove him: more than his affection for his friends, family or his own life.

The Law of Love

This question was brought to Jesus: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22: 34-39)

The ‘Law’ is recorded in the Old Testament. It was the standard of living decreed by God for the Jewish nation. Love, says Jesus, is the basis of the law. This is a love both for God and for your ‘neighbour’. One of Jesus’ followers asked who was one’s neighbour. Jesus responded by sharing the parable of the Good Samaritan, a parable that is famous today even to those who have not read the Bible. The parable of the Good Samaritan tells us that our neighbour is any fellow human being.

As such, all Christian ethics is motivated by a love for God and love for your fellow man. What happens, then, when your fellow human being does not want you to act in accordance with your love for God? This is the situation that the passage in question is dealing with. In essence, Christ is making a comparative statement: your love for God must be stronger, by comparison, than your love for your family. There is no doubt that this passage is very direct. The demand that Jesus makes upon his followers here is peculiarly stringent and heart-searching.

Those who have chosen to follow Christ in opposition to the wishes of their families should continue to show love and respect to those family members in accordance with the law of love. Jesus’ call to allegiance, in Luke 14:22-27, is completely met by those who decide, in the face of family rejection, to follow him. Even though this decision may cause offence, offence must never be made if it can be avoided. (Matthew 5:43-48, Romans 13:8)

Why is it necessary?

In some cases it is not necessary. Luckily, many people who become Christians (especially in the West) do not have to decide between their families and Christ. However, everyone who becomes a Christian will have to give up some things. Whether that be sex until marriage, your reputation, or maybe certain friends. The principle behind Jesus’ statement remains: Are you willing to give up the things that are important to you to follow him?

Nevertheless, in many cases, Jesus statement is directly relevant. There are many who have had to give up their relationships with their families to follow Christ. This is more commonly true in the Muslim world, for example. The acceptance of this passage by those who have to suffer the displeasure, or resistance, of their families to follow Christ is undoubtedly very painful. The division and relationship breakdown that can be caused by disagreement on spiritual, or even worldview, issues can run very deep. We cannot minimise the pain and heartbreak that is involved. Yet, Jesus makes it very clear that he will commend those who give up so much for him, and that the pain and rejection involved will by no means go unnoticed or unrecognised in eternity (Matthew 19: 29).

References

1. Ryle, J. C., Expository Thoughts on Luke: Volume 2, 1858
2. The C H Spurgeon collection: Comfort and Assurance, Emerald House, p. 116
3. The Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Chad Brand, E. Clendenen, Paul Copan, J. P. Moreland.

“Judge not, lest ye be judged”

What a beautiful refrain

The studio audience disagrees

Have his lambs all gone astray?

(REM, New Test Leper)

As the above song lyrics illustrate, Matthew 7:1 is a verse which resonates in our culture and is familiar to people outside the Christian church. But what does it mean? Does it, as Leo Tolstoy suggested, mean that law courts should be abolished? Does it forbid criticism or negative evaluation of another person’s beliefs or lifestyle? How should those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ seek to apply this message to their own lives?

The immediate context: Remove the log from your own eye

One unfortunate side-effect of the division of the New Testament into numbered verses in 1551 was that it became easier to isolate individual sentences and phrases from their wider context. I would argue that the “do not judge” of verse 1 should be interpreted in the light of the rest of the passage, especially verses 3-5 in which Jesus criticises those who seek to correct the minor faults of others (“the speck in your brother’s eye”) while remaining oblivious to their own glaring errors (“the log in your own eye”). Jesus denounces this selective criticism as hypocrisy, and argues that the critic should deal with his/her own issues before criticising someone else, so that s/he does not judge by appearances only but with “right judgement” (cf. John 7:24). However, the passage also indicates that the critic who has dealt with the log in his/her own will be able to see clearly (literally: ‘see through’ Greek: diablepeis) in order to help someone else who is offending.

Clues as to what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:1 can be found elsewhere in the gospels. In John 7:24, Jesus tells the crowd not to “judge by appearances but to judge with right judgement.”  Outward appearance does not necessarily conform to reality and any judgment of others which doesn’t take account of this is condemned. In Luke 11:39-52, Jesus opposes the Pharisees and experts in the law (which in itself implies that “do not judge” doesn’t mean, “never criticise anyone else”), saying of these religious leaders that they “load people with burdens hard to bear” but will not themselves lift even a finger to help. In the same way, it could be argued, the type of judgement which Jesus condemns in Matthew 7:1 is that, which seeks to put other people down and assert one’s own perceived moral superiority over them, rather than that which genuinely seeks to help them and others harmed by their actions.

The wider context: Church discipline

It is this concern for the offender, and for those harmed by his/her actions, which lies at the root of the procedure outlined in Scripture for church discipline. It is noteworthy that it is Matthew’s gospel which contains Jesus’ explanation of the procedure to be used by his followers in dealing with those who sin (Matthew 18:15-18), and this lends further support to the idea that it is hypocrisy and the desire to assert one’s perceived superiority to others which is condemned in Matthew 7:1, not the identification of people’s actions as sinful in itself. Of course, Scripture plainly tells us that we have all sinned and have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23) and our attitudes toward others should reflect this.

The apostle Paul also has an interesting comment to make about how Christians should behave towards the wider community. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, he argues that the church should judge its own members. (indeed, he himself passes judgement on a serious offender in 5:5) but appears to deny himself the right to judge “outsiders”. This doesn’t mean, of course, that criticism of the wider culture is forbidden, but would imply that Christians should not spend their time railing against the wickedness of the world, but rather in working to establish an alternative society of righteousness and love, which will be a testimony to others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would argue that, looking both at the passage itself and the wider context of the New Testament, that Jesus’ command not to judge in Matthew 7:1 is to be interpreted as a condemnation of hypocrisy and self-righteousness pride rather than a blanket rejection of bringing criticism or rebuke to others. Having said this, any such reproof should be done in love and in a context of accountability with the aim of restoring the offender to loving God and others, and of protecting others from harm (cf. Galatians 6:1). In all of this, it should be remembered that the mission of the Church is the advance of the gospel of Christ, who did not come into the world “to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17)

Further reading

John Stott, (1978) “The message of the Sermon on the Mount” (originally published as “The Christian counter-culture”), Inter-Varsity Press, pp 175-180

As I conclude this series of four articles on the problem of suffering, I want to look at the ways in which God uses suffering in lives of both Christians and non-Christians alike. Over the last 3 articles I have deliberately not dealt much with the emotional side of when we go through pain and suffering in our lives. I have focussed on the philosophical and theological reasons for this happening. But how do we find purpose and comfort in the midst of suffering?

Why does God allow non-Christians to go through suffering?

Have you ever noticed that many people seem to become Christians when they are struggling in life? This is observed in one of my favourite comedies’ I’m Alan Partridge’ when Alan is talking to his Christian PA, Lynne, at a low-point in his career.

Lynne: One can take some strength when you’re at your bleakest moments, if you open yourself up to new…..
Alan: Lynne, I’m not coming to your Baptist church, you always get people when they’re down!

As amusing as this sketch is, it raises a significant question. Why is it that people turn to Jesus when they are suffering? I don’t believe that its merely a psychological crutch as being a Christian is based on real historical events which have happened concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not some sort of half-baked delusion to cheer everyone up for a bit.

The blindness of self-sufficiency

In the West in particular, we live in a very materially wealthy culture. We tend to put alot of trust in money, relationships, possessions, friends, careers or our moral performance, as if they are the things that define who we are and provide us with total satisfaction.  We like to think we are totally self-sufficient and independent, as opposed to being in need. I’m no different in this respect either, I don’t like being in a position where I’m reliant on someone else.  However, the bible informs us that in God’s eyes we are all in need of him in a very great way.  So the question isn’t ‘are we in need of God?’ but more ‘will we recognise it?’ Sometimes God will allow us to go through real tragedy in our lives, in order to recognise our need for him.  If you are going through difficulty right now will you recognise your own need?

Short term benefit?

So often we live as if the 70-80 years (at best) we live in this life are all there is. However, the Bible teaches that we have been made for eternity (Ecc 3:11), the question is where we will spend it? Jesus said: ‘What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?’ (Matt 16:26). To put it bluntly, what is the point of having a short life of 70 years or so with no suffering, if we then spend eternity in hell being punished for our refusal to acknowledge God in our life and to honour him?

In mercy, God sometimes allows us to go through short-term suffering so that we enjoy long-term joy.  He could just let us carry on without ever experiencing any pain, but surely we would question his character if he did this, only to let us wind up in hell. It is surely more loving for God to allow us to go through suffering (even at a very serious level) now if it results in spending eternity in heaven. Interestingly, this is exactly what has happened in Haiti, as people have gone through the very great pains of loss; there have been reports of thousands of people becoming Christians (see here). While we all rightly mourn the tragic loss of lives, it is wonderful to know that in the midst of it, many have found faith in Christ.

Before God, it is quite black and white. We are imperfect people, and in order for us to enter the kingdom of heaven, and to avoid being sent to hell as sinners, we need to trust in Jesus who paid the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) on our behalf. Amazingly, when we trust in Jesus he forgives all the sin that we’ve committed which should separate us from him forever.  We can know him personally (See here for more).

Suffering and being a Christian

Christians are not exempt from suffering either.  Romans 5:3-4, and James 1:2-4 give us a very clear perspective on suffering. When we are going through it, God is lovingly bringing us into maturity as Christians. We can sometimes be in danger of taking God for granted, but he actually has great plans (Jer 29:11-13) for our lives, and wants us to pursue our relationship with him. It is easy to miss what God is doing in these  difficult periods, but look to see what God is doing in your life, and be patient. I have often found that there will be occasions when you have to wait quite some time before it is clear why you have gone through such trials. But you can be sure that whatever the reason, God will use it for good (Romans 8:28).

Conclusion

Although suffering did not begin with him, the God of the bible is well-acquainted with suffering himself, he is not aloof from it. In fact, Jesus went to the cross to experience the worst suffering anyone could ever experience, so that we could have a relationship with God. This is absolutely crucial when we consider how we get through these really difficult times ourselves. We need to draw strength from God, the same God who has been through suffering himself and is able to sympathise (Heb 4:15), as well as provide refuge.

If you are going through difficult circumstances, then consider this quote from CS Lewis:

‘God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world’.

Could it be that God is reaching out to you in your difficulties?

When it comes to pain and suffering, We will not know all of the answers this side of eternity. I still do not know why my Dad died aged 40, when I was 11 years old. Years on though, I can still see how God worked it for good in part; the rest of the answer will not come until I meet God face to face. God does not answer every question we have, but he tells us what we need to know. It is actually very important that we allow there to be some mystery when we consider who God is. If God had to think exactly like us, and answer every question in a way which our finite minds could understand then would he really be God? He is beyond us, the mysteries belong to him (Deut 29:29), but he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, so that you can know him, find meaning in the midst of pain, and know confidently that pain is not here to stay.

There will come a day when all pain and suffering will be banished for ever, when every tear will be dried, when we will not know in part anymore, but will know fully. Until then, God asks us to trust him, as the one who showed us his compassion for us when he sent his son to a bloody death so that we might be free.

Further Articles:

Does the existence of evil and suffering in our world prove there is no God?
If there is a good God why does suffering happen?
How can a loving God allow natural disasters like Haiti to happen?

Other Resources:

Why is there Evil? – Andrew Wilson

In recent weeks we have seen the utter devastation that has come about in Haiti with nearly 230,000 people having been estimated to have died as a result of an earthquake. When you consider the million people who have been left homeless and destitute as well, it causes deep emotion and a very real sense of concern to rise up in us. We are left asking again why such a terrible disaster could happen, and perhaps why God could allow such a disaster to happen? Many have been quick to speak up and give their opinion. The ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins have seen this as further evidence that God does not exist, that it is just ‘the blind happenings of nature’. However, as we saw in the first article there are major problems with this perspective.  Just because you can give a geological explanation for an event does not mean that there is no law giver behind these events. This is a basic philosophical category mistake.

On the other hand, others such as Pat Robertson have been quick to suggest that it is God’s specific judgement on Haiti for their involvement with voodoo and the occult. However, respected theologian Dr. Albert Mohler rightly questions this premise:

“Why did no earthquake shake Nazi Germany? Why did no tsunami swallow up the killing fields of Cambodia? Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy far more evangelical churches than casinos? Why do so many murderous dictators live to old age while many missionaries die young?”

It is far too simplistic to claim that God has specifically judged one nation for wrong doing, but not others. It is true that God will judge everyone in the future (Rev 20:11-15), but for now we are wise not to speculate about God’s specific judgement on nations. In the Bible, we do see occasions of God judging nations and people for their sin, but God gives a messenger to explain these events before they even happen (Genesis 19:12-13).

Why do natural disasters happen?

The reason that we see such disasters take place is first and foremost because we live in a world which is spoiled by sin.  As I stated in my previous article, the world was in a state of perfection until Adam and Eve chose to sin against God (Gen 3:6-7), and there were consequences to this rebellion (Gen 3:17-18). Ever since the ground was cursed in response to the sin of Adam and Eve, these same natural disasters have been present. In Romans 8:18-22, Paul explains that this will remain the case until God redeems everything.

Those who agree that the world is billions of years old may find the chronology of this inconsistent with what scientific records seem to suggest. Surely there was pain, struggle and suffering in the natural order before Adam and Eve the first man and woman?

Intelligent Design scientist William Dembski agrees and has responded to this question by saying that he believes it is entirely possible that when the ‘curse’ took place in Genesis 3, it affected the world retroactively. His reasoning fits with the way that the cross of Jesus affected human history.

God’s acts transcend time in their impact

Jesus gave his life up and brought about salvation for the men and women of faith that lived in the Old Testament age. We find this clearly taught in Romans 4, when Paul is talking about how Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4:1-3) and not by works. Similarly, despite the fact that the Israelites sacrificed animals on the day of atonement it was not the acts themselves which brought about salvation, but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:3-5).  The salvation which God gave through Jesus Christ was transhistorical; it saved those who had faith in God’s salvation plan before the birth of Christ, as well as those who lived at the time and in the future.

Dembski argues that if you use this same logic it is possible for another act of God, [the cursing of the earth], to affect the created order in a transhistorical way too. In other words, if the salvation offered through Jesus can go backwards and forwards in history to save those living in 2010 and those living in 2010 BC, it is entirely possible for this to be true of the ‘the fall’ as well. Consequently, any pain, suffering and death which may have taken place prior to Adam and Eve could have still resulted from their sin, and God’s resultant cursing of the earth. I would want to state that this is one theory though, and would be wary of drawing too many conclusions from this.

God’s providence

In the previous article I made the point that our moral behaviour as people would be even worse if it were not for God’s common grace. This is true in a similar way for the earth that we live in. Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of sin are death, so we could easily have expected that God would have destroyed the earth in response to our rebellion against him, but he hasn’t because of his sheer grace and mercy. Luke 8:22-25 sees Jesus commanding the wind and sea, demonstrating God’s control over the forces of nature and whilst we see many natural disasters happening around us, God’s grace will have undoubtedly stopped many others from occurring.

Conclusion

In the final article of this series we will look at how God uses suffering and difficulty in the here and now for good. For now, we can say that we see the world in the mess that it is because of sin. God was completely justified in cursing the earth in response to human sinfulness.

The sin should have led to death for all of us, but God has shown mercy and grace to us by restraining the physical destruction which happens. God can still use these very tragic events for good as we will see in our final article in this series, but we can have hope for the future, when God will complete his redemption. God is making all things new (Rev 21:5), and those who place their trust in Christ will not be experiencing pain and misery forever. There will be a day when Christ comes again, and every tear will be dried (Rev 7:17).

In the meantime Christians are called to show compassion to people who have experienced loss, to reach out with the love of Christ, both my providing for people practically (James 1:27) as well as introducing people to the one who will heal their pain ultimately.

In the first article I was looking at if it was possible for a good all-powerful God to allow suffering to exist within our world, or whether the very existence of suffering proved that there is in fact no God at all. I came to the conclusion that in order to define suffering and evil in a meaningful way, the existence of God was necessary. In this article, we will look at the causes of suffering in our world, particularly focussing on the issue of ‘personal evil’. What I mean by this is the kind of suffering that comes about as a result of individuals or groups making decisions that have an impact on others. This includes a very broad range of things from mass evil such as the Holocaust, and 9/11 to everyday decisions.

The necessity of free will

So if God is all-powerful, why does he allow suffering to happen on an individual level? The first point to highlight is that God has given us dignity as humans through giving us free will. This free will is necessary, as without it we are sub-human and do not have a capacity to experience love.  We would merely be robots.  I have been married for 9 months to my wife Jac, and we love each other very much. Imagine though that I had met her and forced her to be in a relationship with me, this would not be love at all, but coercion. God has given us the same dignity of responding to him. He does not coerce us into relationship with him.

Some people will ask ‘if God knew that we would sin, why did he choose to give us free will in the first place?’ The issue here is that relational love could not exist without free will. God could have built a world with androids in it, but he chose something more glorious, a world with relational love, and there are potential consequences to that. God decided that it would be more glorious and praiseworthy to have a human race with love, even at the risk of his own children turning their backs on him, than an enormous bunch of robots who are simply programmed to have to respond to him.

The effects of sin

The reality is that God made men and women in the beginning to experience a relationship with him. If we look in the Genesis narrative we see that there was total harmony (Genesis 1:31), but then Adam and Eve chose to disobey God (Gen 3:6-7) and everything changed.  We have continued as a human race in much the same way. As human beings we certainly have a dignity about us, which enables us to do some very positive things: we are able to be creative with technology, draw wonderful art, make fantastic music, advance scientifically and many more things. This comes from being image-bearers of God who is also creative, but sadly we also exhibit the signs of rebellion.

It doesn’t take much to see this in action in other people such as Hitler and Stalin who were responsible for millions of deaths. Each of these dictators clearly misused their free will in order to gain power, and we rightly label their deeds as morally wrong. However, this rebellion is present in our lives more subtly as Jesus pointed out when he said in Mark 7:21-23:

‘For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.’

Each of us has probably also been responsible for the suffering that someone has experienced in their own life. The pain experienced may range from the relatively trivial to the very severe, but it is worth recognising that as humans we are not faultless. Romans 3:23 indicates that we have fallen short of the standard set out by God. We all stand guilty of misusing the free will given to us by God, and we all stand in need of a redeemer.

Why doesn’t God intervene?

One of the things that we tend to ask when evil happens to us is why God doesn’t intervene in situations? My fourth article will be devoted primarily to the purpose that comes out of suffering which God sovereignly allows, but for now I will make a couple of points.

There is an underlying assumption in this question that God never intervenes in any situation. How can we know this though?

God does intervene; if he didn’t there would be alot more suffering than there is. God does restrain the amount of evil that happens in the world. This is part of his common grace to us, if he handed us over to our desires of rebellion completely then the world would be even worse than it is.

Common Grace

This means that there are actually many wars and evil deeds which are prevented from happening. Through common grace God gives anyone the ability to forgive someone instead of holding a grudge (which we would be pre-disposed to do otherwise) which ceases the chain of bitterness and unforgiveness. How often do we see friendships and family relationships break down over something very small, which is not forgiven and escalates until the two parties no longer speak. Without God’s common grace given to all, this would be experienced on every occasion.

However, God does not always intervene in these situations, and this is because he is able to use such situations for good. I’m sure we can all think of things that have not gone our way in life, but we have come out stronger as a result. We will look at this in more detail in a couple of articles time. There will be other occasions where we can’ t see the good that comes from it, and we end up seeing it later on in life, but also times where we won’t be able to see it in this life. This is when we will need to trust God, based on what he has revealed of himself elsewhere. We can be confident even in mystery that God will use it, after all his thoughts and ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), given his perspective (unlike ours) is eternal.

For anyone who watches the news on a regular basis it seems like our world has a considerable amount wrong with it; pain and suffering seem to surround us on every side. Broadly speaking we find the roots of suffering in two places; due to the choices of fellow human beings, and natural disasters like that recently experienced in Haiti. We will have much to say on both of these in subsequent articles, but for now I intend to tackle the issue at hand. Does the very existence of suffering lead us to atheism; that is to conclude that there is in fact no God in control of this world that we inhabit?

Whether it has come from an emotional or intellectual source, I’m sure that anyone who has ever given any consideration to world events has felt a strong sense that ‘the world is not as it should be’. It somehow seems out of sync with a world that a loving God could have made. This is entirely normal and leads us to question how this could be.

18th century philosopher David Hume spoke for many when he summarised this argument:

‘Is he 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?’

This sounds very convincing on face value doesn’t it? However, it makes a  considerable assumption in the process; that we are able to determine what good and evil are, quite independently of God.

The problem of defining good and evil

Former atheist CS Lewis realised the difficulties with this line of enquiry:

‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies…consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

In short, if we take God out of the equation then the idea of ‘evil’ becomes meaningless. Hume’s question falls apart.  If we assume that there is no God then there is no standard by which we can say that anything is objectively wrong. All we have is subjective preferences (for more on objective moral values click here).  As I mentioned earlier though, if we’re honest we all know that internal tug deep within us, that tells us ‘this is not how it should be’. ‘The world should be just, it should be fair’, and ‘people should not have to suffer’.

If we take God out of the equation then we have to accept that pain, suffering and evil are inevitable and are just part of our world, an inevitable by-product as part of naturalistic evolution. There is no reason why we should feel any sense that things OUGHT to be a particular way at all. We are just mistaken if we think that, it is just our senses messing with us.

Richard Dawkins summarises this rather depressing and hopeless viewpoint:

‘….some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’

Is that all our lives are though? Pitiless indifference and purposeless? It seems to me we don’t live that way (for more on the origins of meaning, click here), we live as if there is purpose to our existence. As humans we even try to look for purpose in the midst of suffering. Why does it happen? This is something we will look at in the next article.

Conclusion:

Although at this stage we have not looked at why God may allow suffering, one thing is clear: the existence of evil in our world does not prove the absence of God, it merely makes us question why he allows such suffering. It only needs to be possible for God to have a good reason for allowing suffering and evil (even one that we may never know) for this argument to be defeated.

Tim Keller cites that it is almost universally accepted in academic philosophy circles that the argument from evil is not a good argument for atheism. It seems that one of the key reasons for this is that the very definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is so tied up with the need for a divine yardstick that the question becomes incoherent without God.  As a human race we feel a strong inner sense that the world ‘ought’ not to be this way,  that seems to transcend mere preference. This if anything seems to provide a stronger argument for God’s existence than his non-existence. Far from the universe being purposeless and indifferent, in a christian worldview it is possible to find great purpose even in pain and suffering, which we will look at in the next article.

In the final part of this trilogy of articles we will be considering what it means to be ‘a helper’ and whether all that we have discussed in the previous two articles is relevant today, or should this be adapted for cultural reasons?

To view the previous two articles on this subject please click here.

Specific role for women: Helper

When God created woman it is recorded that God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for (or corresponding to) him’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew (the language the Old Testament is translated from) for ‘helper’ is ‘ezer kenegdo’ in Genesis 2:18 could literally be translated as ‘a helper as corresponding to/opposite him’ from ‘ezer’ (help), ‘ke-‘ (as, like), ‘neged’ (opposite, corresponding to), ‘-o’ (him). ‘A helper opposite and corresponding’ to Adam is a good translation.

Therefore Eve was not inferior to Adam. The fact that the word ‘help’ (ezer) is often used to refer to an action of God is interesting, and illustrates the fact that both male and female roles derive from God. For example:

‘And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (Third member of the Trinity)’ (John 14:16-17)

The job title given to women is also used to describe a characteristic of God. It is critical to understand this, to be a helper is to do as God does; the role should be held in high esteem. Feminist theologian Phyllis Trible expounds this idea in her article Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies (See footnote below). Women are to ‘come along side’, engage with the life of the church and support a broad range of activities within the church, as mentioned in the first article.

But surely culture has changed now?

Many parts of the Bible were written within a cultural context in which women were considered second-class citizens. Some have argued, from this basis, that the Bible’s views on men and women correspond to the culture in which it was written, rather than be part of God’s revelation. The argument follows that we have now evolved into an increasingly tolerant and equal society, and therefore we should ignore those sections of the Bible that teach about the differences between the sexes. This argument has had great influence in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

Firstly, does the Bible really assert inequality between the sexes? It is true that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, but in contrast, the Biblical view of men and women was highly innovative in its day because of its inherent respect for women (John 4:1-26, Galatians 3:28). The Bible clashed with the culture of its day on these issues; it did not reflect it.

It is also true that the Bible is often descriptive, instead of prescriptive. For example, the Bible records events that involve slavery and war. The fact that the Bible records these happenings does not mean that the Bible endorses those things, but rather that they were common occurrences in those times (and now). Therefore, for some evils, it is true that the Bible mentions them and treats them as existent; however, they exist because of a result of human choice. As such, before humanity chose to reject God, evil did not exist. We find, in comparison to war and slavery, that the complementary nature (and thus differences) between the sexes were part of God’s creational standard at the beginning. In other words, the differences between men and women are good, and were not a product of human choice or culture. It is only a distortion of these roles as enforced by centuries of heavy-handed patriarchy that has encouraged us to throw the baby out with the bath water; to reject our differences and equate the concept of gender distinctions with sexism. This is also supported by the Bible; when discussing the role of women in the church, Paul appeals to creation rather than culture (1 Timothy 2 11-14).

Does this mean that men have a superior role than women in the church?

To place different value and worth on one role above another; to elevate one as being ‘better’ than the other, is to make a critical, and potentially dangerous, mistake. This is an understandable result of interpreting the Bible through the lens of our western secular thinking. However, it does not take into consideration the fact that equality does not necessitate men and women being identical and indistinguishable. The emphasis in biblical teaching is on the equality of men and women, and their equal standing before God. The functions given them by God, though important, are of a lesser concern, and are based on love and mutual servanthood. A man who is an elder, or even a married man, may be considered, and correctly so, to have an authority not open to women, but biblical relationships are build on our mutual equality, and therefore that authority should be a means by which to honour women, not to rule them. Likewise, the exercise of authority within the church should not produce power struggle, or hierarchy that benefits only those who are in eldership; but rather, a social structure that is designed to better care for all members of the Church. This follows Jesus’ view of leadership, namely a commission to serve others and not to be served.

Further reading supporting the view represented in this article:

1. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., (Editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Crossway books,1991

2. Audio Talk: ‘Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?’, Amy Orr-Ewing: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/isnt-the-bible-sexist-and-out-of-date.htm

3. James, Sharon., An Overview of Feminist Theology: http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

4. One of the main websites containing many articles supporting Complementarianism: http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

5. Peterman, Eric., Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism: http://www.valleybiblefellowship.org/papers/galatians%203,28%20and%20evangelical%20egalitarianism.htm

6. Heck, D, V., The Philosophy of Women’s Ministry in the Local Church: http://www.grace4u.org/Topical/WomeninMinisty.htm

For articles on Egalitarianism:

1. One of the main websites that contains many articles supporting egalitarianism: http://www.cbeinternational.org/

2. Pierce, Ronald., Clarity, Charity and Confrontation in the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/322pierce.html

3. Moore, Russell., After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5209O.pdf

Feminist theology:

1. Young, Sally., Is Judith Butler’s approach to gender politics an improvement on previous form of feminism?: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-b-e1htm

2. Fiorenza, Elisabeth., ABSTRACT: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sf1.html and http://www.theology.ie/theologians/schuessler.htm

3. Trible, Phyllis., Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1281