A Sign from God (Maybe)
by Matt Kaufman on 08/25/2009 at 10:45 AM
You heard, perhaps, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held its convention in Minneapolis last week and passed some pro-gay resolutions, including one giving approval to clergy in monogamous, committed same-sex relationships. (My column on the subject here.)
You probably didn't hear that during the debate on the resolutions, something dramatic happened. A tornado popped up suddenly and hit both the convention hall and the ELCA church next door, which was helping to host the convention. No one was hurt, but the buildings were damaged and the cross atop the church steeple was destroyed.
OK, I know what you're thinking and you know what I'm thinking. And we all know what some of the people on the spot must have been thinking. So let's do our thinking out loud.
Was this a sign from God? We need to be really, really careful here. It's bad theology to assume a one-to-one correspondence between these sorts of things and particular human sins: The rain (as Scripture says) falls on the just and the unjust alike, and so do the hardships of life. Yet (as Scripture also says) there are particular times that God brings direct, physical consequences in response to specific sins. It's not the norm. But it's not unheard of either.
Theologian John Piper explores the question here. He points out that Jesus controls the winds. He also points out (in a passage too few people know) that Jesus refuted the idea that people who suffer are worse sinners than others. “Those 18 on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Here's Piper's wrap-up:
Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
I wouldn't use the word "conclusion" -- not because I think Piper's wrong about this tornado, but because I don't know that he's right. That said, there's no doubt we need the turn-from-sin warning Piper lays out. So let's put it this way: God may have chosen an unusually dramatic means to convey it this time. But He certainly conveys it all the time in His Word.
1. Tami said the following at 10:53 AM on Aug 25:
1
Maybe that *was* the point -- not that the tornado was a specific "sign from God" about the proceeding (though who of us can say for sure?), but a prompt to think more about God's activity and intervention in the world.
...because He got us talking and thinking, right?
I think we can marvel that no one was hurt and praise God that there were no human lives damaged or lost.
Something miraculous happened very near where I live recently. Seriously -- the event could have been a tragedy, but no one lost their lives, no one was injured, and there was minimal damage. Thankfully I can point to it and say, "Isn't God good?" rather than be grieving over the events.
God intervenes, all the time.
2. obewan said the following at 11:24 AM on Aug 25:
2
I don't know if I would say they gave them the "green light". What they did, bad as it is, is let each church decide for themselves (if I understand things correctly).
Even at that, almost all of the ELCA churches in Jacksonville interviewed by the press are threatening to defect to one of the more conservative Lutheran bodies that remain. The local paper mentioned some 20 churches that had just taken in all the Episcopals in town who left their churches over the same issue just a year ago.
I don't think many congregations will be willing to vote in a gay pastor, but there will unfortunately be a few that will do it.
One article I read on the subject said that it only passed by ONE thin vote! I sure would not want to be the person who was the "tie breaker" voter! (Or actually 2/3 majority voter)
3. P&P said the following at 11:26 AM on Aug 25:
3
I've been to Minneapolis on a number of occasions and every time I go in August or September there's always a tornado warning and at least one serious thunderstorm. It isnt' G-d, it's the meteorlogical conditions of the upper midwest.
If G-d is controlling the weather in response to gay rights, why didn't a meteor or tsunami hit Boston when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage?
Better yet, did the failure of Prop 8 in California prevent earthquakes?
This kind of superstitious talk is exactly why Christians are not taken seriously any more.
4. Holly said the following at 11:50 AM on Aug 25:
4
I live in the reddest of all red states. I can see four church steeples from my back porch. This is a top contender for the MOST anti-gay state in the union. And we have tornadoes ALL the time. The ratio of Massachusetts tornadoes to ours is about 1 to 1,000.
This is the single most ridiculous piece of superstitious claptrap I've ever read on Boundless.
5. Pak said the following at 12:25 PM on Aug 25:
5
Comment #3 - Maybe because if you want to spread God's word, you should actually follow the scripture and not tailor it to the culture? I believe the false prophets and rabbis earned God's greatest wrath (see Jeremiah). Society today has taken the path that often takes the form of what makes us "feel good" and they look for validation from what many consider to be moral leaders - the church. Now if the church doesn't agree, then they change the views of the church to fit their values, not the other way around.
Also, I'm curious as to why you use a dash when spelling out "God"? It gives the impression that you (to me at least) treat it like we would treat profane words. I apologize if I assume incorrectly.
6. Brx said the following at 12:26 PM on Aug 25:
6
Re: P&P #3;
On the flip side of that token, lack of willingness to consider and contemplate indirect correlation may be why so many think God is silent - if He exists at all.
When a conscience is seared in an area, we no longer contemplate.
Grace, peace & humilty
7. IMO said the following at 12:35 PM on Aug 25:
7
"Also, I'm curious as to why you use a dash when spelling out "God"? It gives the impression that you (to me at least) treat it like we would treat profane words. I apologize if I assume incorrectly."
I think P&P is Jewish or is of Jewish background. Am I correct, P&P?
8. Ted Slater said the following at 1:01 PM on Aug 25:
8
P&P (#3), you wrote, "This kind of superstitious talk is exactly why Christians are not taken seriously any more."
Holly (#4), you wrote, "This is the single most ridiculous piece of superstitious claptrap I've ever read on Boundless."
Did either of you read what Matt had written? He actually cautioned against interpreting this in a "superstitious" (your term) way: "We need to be really, really careful here. It's bad theology to assume...."
In his conclusion, he encourages us to look to the Bible for insight into how and why God moves, more than to, for example, the weather.
Seems like a reasonable perspective to me....
9. Katie P. said the following at 1:16 PM on Aug 25:
9
Thanks for this post! This is a very interesting topic, and I really appreciate how the author was careful not to make a black-and-white statement either way, but encouraged readers to take a closer look at how God moves not only in the Bible, but also in the history that has taken place since.
I agree with brx (#6). An unwillingness to even consider that God is capable of directly influencing/controlling events seems to demonstrate a lack of experience with a God who works just as miraculously in 2009 as He did in the early church.
10. Scott said the following at 1:17 PM on Aug 25:
10
I came across this blog post the other day and thought it was a very intelligent response to John Piper's perspective... and it is certainly relevant in this discussion, so give this a read... http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/did-god-send-a-tornado-to-warn-the-elca/
11. mary kate said the following at 1:17 PM on Aug 25:
11
yeah, maybe.
but why homosexuality? (has anyone read greg boyd's 'repenting of religion'?) i'm getting tired of homosexuality being the poster-child for sins. it's like, you can struggle with, or be blatant about any other sin but homosexuality.
what about gluttony? it seems to me that the sin of taking too much (be it food, money, whatever) is talked about waaaay more than being gay is in the bible. and as far as how many people struggle or are affected by each... last time i went out in my midwestern city (about 5 mins ago i got back from the pool), i noticed the effects of gluttony WAAAY more than i noticed the effects of homosexuality. the amount of food americans eat is ridiculous. our excess could feed a lot of the world's starving.
but we don't judge obese people or gluttons. we don't restrict them from joining our churches. "sorry, you can't teach sunday school until you lose that weight." we don't even give 'truth in love' to fat pastors or church staff.
generally, we restrict judgment because we don't know the person's story or struggles. we just love them.
why can't we just love homosexuals? get to know their stories, their struggles? stop doubting the faith of those who proclaim to have it?
maybe this isn't the forum for this. sorry. maybe god was indeed giving a sign to the ELCA.
on a related note, personally, i think the tornado was punishment that stemmed from their youth conference in new orleans a few weeks ago. the 37,000 lutheran high school kids made trying to do pretty much ANYTHING in nola impossible, including ride the elevator to my hotel room on the 36th floor. or swim in the pool after a long day on the habitat job site (the 3000 of them in our hotel turned the pool brown). i kid, i kid :)
12. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 1:37 PM on Aug 25:
12
Let's not sell God's power short. The Holy Spirit is still real and He still works. I am uncomfortable with putting a demon behind every bush (or angel, for that matter) but God still performs miraculous signs from time to time. Just because there is a scientfic explanation behind something (like tornados) doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it as well. He created science (or the natural laws science studies).
I thought the post was well balanced and looked at all the possibilites (even the Divine). I really don't think God uses a Laissez-faire approach to Earth. The fact He still speaks to us through Scripture thousands of years after Christ should be evidence of that.
Until judgement Day I believe God disciplines with the intent of reconcilliation so, if this was indeed a result of His direct involvement, I see it as Him reminding us to come back to Him.
13. mary kate said the following at 1:41 PM on Aug 25:
13
ps sorry if that came off angry. i'm a little frustrated, but i do agree that god still does give us signs today, and that he very well could have been showing his displeasure to the lutherans. i'm not saying i think He did, but i believe it's possible.
14. Dr. Ransom (E. Stephen Burnett) said the following at 1:44 PM on Aug 25:
14
I don't really get the constant equivocation between balanced, non-reactionary posts on Boundless to the real-life reactionary Christians.
Is it that some people here genuinely misunderstand, and equivocate even the balanced message with the bad guys, because bad guys are the only ones they've ever heard saying similar things in their own lives? Perhaps.
But I'm tempted to contend some of you just have little imagination, or grace-based attitudes toward your brothers and sisters in Christ, and/or frankly, the ability to read any wording fairly or accurately. Instead, the reaction is to apply reflexively the usual Christians have Mostly Been Hypocritical Idiots (and Now We Need to Be Much Nicer to People) filter to everything.
The same was true for multiple commentators on the Desiring God site in response to this article, such as this bloke, who mechanistically ignored not only almost all of Piper's "don't waste your life" audience but his true messages of living God-glorifying lifestyles, and (of course) accused Christians of having or wanting "McMansions," having too many cars, being greedy, not caring about the poor, blah blah blah, ad nauseam.
Correcting for wrong Christian (or Churchian) excesses, whether real or merely perceived, is not the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
15. Dr. Ransom (E. Stephen Burnett) said the following at 2:12 PM on Aug 25:
15
Mary Kate (no. 11), it is a false dichotomy to imply that only the “let’s love homosexuals” or “let’s not love them” positions are supposedly the only available options to Christians.
The loving thing to do is to call homosexuals to repent, just as a true Christ-follower should do for any sinner, sexual sinners or otherwise.
Again, the starting point seems to be We must correct wrong Christian excesses of the past (whether real or perceived) rather than We must preach the totality of the Gospel.
Is there some secret island nation out there somewhere that everybody has visited except me — in which the only Christians are cultural-fundamentalist pulpit-pounders who only want to stone homosexuals in the streets?
If not, then where do all of these constantly recurring assumptions about all Christians come from?
Yes, I see many wrong approaches to this issue, past and present, in the Church. But recently I have seen that the most pervasive problem is not Christian leaders being mean to homosexuals, but “chronological snob” Christian revisionists who overstress God’s love and skip past lovingly telling anyone of the fact that God will pour out His wrath on sinners.
If you want to show love for someone, you will warn them of the things that will hurt them — or in this case, damn them for eternity.
I hope Christian parents will not follow the opposite false “love” mindset when their children want to play with matches!
I also want to know if it was this imagined island nation on which all Christian preachers completely ignore the “small” sins, including that of gluttony. I haven’t seen only that in Christian circles — I see people making efforts to be like Christ in every life area. Many Christian leaders encourage this in their book, such as CJ Mahaney’s Worldliness, John Piper’s Don't Waste Your Life or Jerry Bridges’ Respectable Sins, which address “small” sins such as selfishness, worldliness, greed, gossip, graceless actions and unforgiving attitudes very well.
And unlike the “Christian” chronological-snob moralists, such authors focus not just on correcting sinful actions, but on the Biblical fact that the human heart as being wholly corrupt before God.
Yes, it’s a sin to overeat, but gluttony is not the sin mentioned in Romans 1 as the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel depraved-mind punishment of a God-rejecting culture.
I say all of this not to be mean, though I know in my comment tone I have stepped up the rhetoric here.
Rather, I want to intensify my language, even in this limited venue, to plead with folks to see that even if they are well-meaning, they are often repeating the words of the overcorrecting, chronological-snob Christians who with their We must change the world main theme — and to heck with the Gospel! — are making their followers into twice the sons of hypocrites that they are.
Their me-first, moralistic message is just as legalistic as all the legalism excesses they claim they’re avoiding. Oh yes, it is a kinder, gentler legalism — but for those who follow it to its logical conclusion, it will lead to just as much despair, or even into Hell, as did the opposite-extreme legalism.
16. mary kate said the following at 2:18 PM on Aug 25:
16
good point, ransom. Love is the answer to everything. there might have been a bit more frustration than love in my post, frustration aimed at Christians in General.
i should balance love for screwed up homosexuals with love for screwed up people who go to church. and screwed up gluttons, too.
17. Irene M. said the following at 2:23 PM on Aug 25:
17
Kaufman, thanks for not drawing any conclusions about the tornado. Sure, God can and does work through physical world, but can we imperfect beings even begin to know God's workings and motivations?
Although, I wonder what the citizens of Lake Wobegon have to say about all this.
18. Adam said the following at 2:31 PM on Aug 25:
18
This subject has fascinated me because of some amazing correlation between anti-Israel events by the US and disasters happening to the US.
For your consideration...
Fact
checking website
A pretty strong rant
"Eye-to-Eye"
a book about the topic
Signs from God? As Matt would say... "Maybe"
19. Myr said the following at 2:40 PM on Aug 25:
19
This story reminds me of something I read once...
http://xkcd.com/552/
If you put your cursor over the cartoon it says:
"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle it's eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."
Whether God sent the tornado to send a message or it just happened naturally without specific intervention *cough*ignoringdiscussionsofGod'spowerandchaostheory*cough*, it's still an amusing event and does provoke discussion and meditation on the matters at hand.
*smiles and laughs quietly to myself*
20. Jo said the following at 2:46 PM on Aug 25:
20
#3, it is interesting that you relate the tornado in relation to the talking about gay-rights factor in this article, as opposed to relating it to the Church factor. Maybe God did send the tornado, but not because they were talking gay-rights, but because it was in the Church context, and potentially defiling His bride, and so got annoyed. The other contexts you talk about are all purely political with a few loud Christian people on the opposition.
Just a thought
21. endlessnights said the following at 3:21 PM on Aug 25:
21
Hmm @3&4...I dunno what you're on about..God is slow to anger..maybe he was just getting sick of us bending the word to our will...
Personally..I think it could've been God..or it could have been the weather - but didn't God create the systems within which our weather systems operate?...hmmmm......Either way, I agree with Matt..we need to turn back to the Bible, see what the BIBLE says, not PCness, or a desire to be seen as 'loving everyone'...you don't have to give everyone their way to show you (and Jesus) still love them.. Perhaps I'll just ask God when I get to Heaven what happened..was it 'nature'..or did God push the winds a little.
22. NeedACatchyName said the following at 4:00 PM on Aug 25:
22
In response to #19:
Ahem, strictly speaking, correlation requires multiple data points. When you look at correlation, you're looking for a pattern. This tornado was a single incident, and therefore doesn't qualify. Sorry; it's the engineer/stats geek showing through. :)
In response to #4:
My state could also qualify as the reddest of red states, with tons of churches, and it also sees more than its fair share of tornadoes. Hmm...I wonder if we live in the same area. Then again, there are a lot of red states that are tornado prone. In fact, there is a strong correlation (which does not at all imply causation) between a state voting Republican and a high instance of tornadoes. Just check out the following map of tornado prone states. Most of them are traditionally conservative (aka "red") states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tornado_Alley.gif
23. Texas Craig said the following at 5:03 PM on Aug 25:
23
Maybe the people in tornado-prone states keep voting Republican in an effort to appease God, so He will stop sending tornados their way. Perhaps it is their burnt offering! ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't know that we can ever correlate stuff like this with a "message from the Lord." How we could ever correlate them is beyond me, so why even try?
That being said, I think it is good to use just about everything as a prompting to test our hearts and to seek God's guidance. That is how we are to live daily anyway, so if bad weather causes us to do it even more, then so be it. :-)
Dr. Ransom, I agree with your post about having a complete view of the gospel and understanding man's sin nature and not attempting to overcorrect for perceived imbalances in the past. I think the tendency arises because the other issues mentioned (gluttony, greed, etc.) are perhaps not raised as much on this website as are some other issues - particularly related to sexuality.
But, regardless, we in the body of Christ need to take a holistic and consistent view of sin and the gospel, and not minimize or justify any sins - even if we perceive that other, different sins are being minimized by others.
24. Chris said the following at 6:31 PM on Aug 25:
24
Pak writes in #5:
Also, I'm curious as to why you use a dash when spelling out "God"? It gives the impression that you (to me at least) treat it like we would treat profane words. I apologize if I assume incorrectly.
As others have noted, there's a chance P&P is Jewish or something similar.
Jews do not write out God's name because of the possibility of said name later being defaced. For example, you write God's name on a piece of paper. Later, someone cleaning up throws that piece of paper away. God's name has been destroyed (albeit not intentionally).
I suppose in this electronic age, it might not matter. Then again, maybe. What happens when a hard drive these posts are stored on goes belly up? Hmmm....interesting discussion.....
Google Judaism and writing god's name for more information.
25. Chris said the following at 6:39 PM on Aug 25:
25
Motte quotes Piper:
Here's Piper's wrap-up:
Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.
This is obviously illogical. If it's a gentle reminder, what about when nothing happens when another church votes this way? What if the local economy does well because a company decides to build a new plant there? Is God approving of the vote? The proof offered for these types of arguments is often selective, and thus biased, in nature.
You can select any number of events and use them to "prove" God approving or warning for or against something. In statistics, if you add enough dependent variables, you can write an equation that will, with 100% accuracy, predict all past events. Doesn't mean it's worth anything for the future, however.
If you read anything by Ehrman in regards to Jesus, he brings up a very good point. About the time Jesus showed up, many Jewish prophets had to reconcile the fact that evil sinful people seemed to be doing quite well, thankyouverymuch, while the devout were suffering. This obviously goes against the grain of what God promised in his covenant. People would do what was commanded, yet didn't get the whole milk and honey reward.
26. mary kate said the following at 7:38 PM on Aug 25:
26
ransom,
i missed your #15 post.
points well taken, yes. i'm not sure i agree with homosexuality being 'the bottom of the barrel sin' as you're interpreting romans 1, but no big deal.
i guess i've started to shift toward thinking that the totality of the gospel is love. love is the commandment that is placed above all others. love is thing that jesus told us to do when we asked, ok, but what's the most important thing?
i'm not talking about love that masquerades as 'do whatever you want.' and heck, maybe if i've told my kid multiple times to not play with matches, adn he still gets a hold of some and starts fiddling around, i'll let him burn his finger a little.
i don't want to minimize any sin, i guess i just would like us to consider whether our actions show jesus' love to all people, not just the ones whose sins we've judged are 'ok.' our churches are comfortable places for many different kinds of sinners, but not for homosexuals. we've made it known they aren't welcome there. why?
i'm not about 'changing the world and to heck with gospel.' i want to be about 'i'm called to LOVE others, and to be a representation of god's love, not to judge.' i'm not throwing out the gospel, at all. and yes, for the record, i 100% agree that homosexuality is completely against what god wants for his children.
and i'm not just talking about scary sign-holding uber-right wing evangelicals. i'm talking about most of us here on these boards. do we have gay friends? do we know any gay people at our churches? are we trying to figure out how to share christ's love and the life-changing power of his love with them? or are we just calling them sinners and moving on?
27. Mark W said the following at 8:13 PM on Aug 25:
27
I think you're all really missing the point and what Piper was trying to say (even Matt and Greg Boyd). Unfortunately, the way he wrote the blog post made it easy to do.
If you put it in the context of Piper's ministry, you'll realize that this is his standard response to every natural disaster that ever occurs. Anytime anything bad happens anywhere in the world, Piper draws parallels to Luke 13. He did it with the Asian tsunami. He's done it with 9/11. He did it with the Minneapolis bridge collapse. His point isn't that the tornado was necessarily a sign from God directed entirely and specifically at the ELCA. His point was that, ultimately, every natural disaster is a sign from God to turn and repent. That's what he means when he says:
and
Emphases mine.
For further evidence:
How Shall We Minister to People After the World Trade Tower Terrorism of September 11, 2001? (see point 12)
Tsunami and Repentance
Putting My Daughter to Bed Two Hours After the Bridge Collapsed
And most importantly:
Clarifying the Tornado
Finally, this may be presumptuous on my part, but I'd like to try to succinctly rephrase what Piper was saying in a theological statement that I'm 99.9999% he'd agree with: "Outside of what is concretely revealed in the Bible, we can never know with absolute certainty why God causes/allows specific disasters to happen. But all evil in this world is ultimately God's reaction to sin (in that it stems from the curse). Therefore, whenever we're horrified by the rampant death and destruction in this world, we should pause and reflect on the root cause, and then repent and turn to Christ as our only hope and means of escape from sin and the wrath of God (reflected as a pale shadow in the calamities of this world) that it deserves."
28. kaj said the following at 8:14 PM on Aug 25:
28
Just barely a year ago, the K-12 Christian school I attended as a child suffered a terrible fire, due to an electrical room malfunction. This took place about a week into the school year. The building itself did not burn down, but the interior suffered extensive smoke damage.
I didn't hear anyone saying that this was a "sign from God" that He was displeased with the direction the school was going.
Instead, the community, both the churches who operate this school, and the surrounding cities were thankful that no one was hurt. The fire took place at a time few people were in the building; all escaped safely.
Also, this fire brought out much generosity from surrounding communities. People wrote letters of support to the students. Companies and individuals donated school supplies. Churches not even affiliated with the denomination offered temporary space for classes.
I bring this up to say that the devil can also conjure up storms and disasters, but God could make good things come out of a bad thing.
Do I necessarily agree with the ELCA's decisions? No. (I'm not a Lutheran anyhow). What about other possible doctrinal errors that have been "on the books" for years; why no calamities as a result of those?
29. BDB said the following at 9:14 PM on Aug 25:
29
#3 wrote:
>>Better yet, did the failure of Prop 8 in California prevent earthquakes? <<
It's been pretty quiet, actually, now that I think about it.
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
30. Kevin said the following at 7:06 AM on Aug 26:
30
Last year a tornado hit a scout ranch in western Iowa killing 4 boys.
A sign from God? (Maybe)
Conclusion: The tornado in Little Sioux was a gentle but firm warning to the BSA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of Eagle Scouts. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of religious merit badges. Turn back from allowing girls into Boy Scouts. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing scoutmasters.
So let's put it this way: God may have chosen an unusually dramatic means to convey it this time. But He certainly conveys it all the time in His Word.
31. Nate said the following at 9:41 AM on Aug 26:
31
Chris (#25), speaking as a linguist, there's very little of anything that Bart Ehrman says with regard to Jesus that I take seriously.
32. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:38 AM on Aug 26:
32
Personally, I think debating whether or not A, B, or C disaster is a direct retribution or punishment from God or simply a byproduct of this fallen world is not the best use of one's time.
The problem as many have pointed out is unless there is a direct, obvious cause-and-effect from someone's sinful behavior (e.g. being promiscuous and contracting an STD), there is no way to be sure if something is a divine punishment or not. It's all speculation.
Furthermore, you have to consider that not everyone who engages in sinful behavior receives such punishement. Using the promiscuous example from last paragraph, a lot of people engage in sexual immorality and seem to come away unscathed.
Finally, the same faulty reasoning can be used to say that if something good happens to someone, it is because God is happy with them. That definitely is not the case.
Am I saying that God is not active in the world letting the clock run after He wound it up? Definitely not. Am I saying that there aren't miracles being performed? Nope. Do I believe that God still gives divine punishment and blessings? Yes. I'm simply saying that it's virtually impossible for us to tell the difference, and that guessing that this one is "probably a punishment God" while another isn't is unhelpful and unwise.
"Correcting for wrong Christian (or Churchian) excesses, whether real or merely perceived, is not the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything."
No, the answer is 42. Always 42!
33. Chris said the following at 10:47 AM on Aug 26:
33
Mike Theemling writes:
No, the answer is 42. Always 42!
I'm sorry. What was the question?
34. Kelo said the following at 11:43 AM on Aug 26:
34
And then there's this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090821/ap_on_re_us/us_crist_hurricanes
35. BDB said the following at 1:10 PM on Aug 26:
35
Chris (#33) wrote:
>>I'm sorry. What was the question?<<
We were so close to knowing that.
More tea?
36. Cassandra said the following at 4:01 PM on Aug 26:
36
Chris #33 I'm sorry. What was the question?
The question is what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and the answer is 42.
The punchline of Douglas Adam's The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
37. Chris said the following at 9:37 PM on Aug 26:
37
Cassandra writes (#36):
Chris #33 I'm sorry. What was the question?
The question is what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and the answer is 42.
You miss the joke. The original computer found the answer, but no one knew the question.
38. Chris said the following at 9:39 PM on Aug 26:
38
BDB writes:
Chris (#33) wrote:
>>I'm sorry. What was the question?<<
We were so close to knowing that.
More tea?
I've disagreed with BDB on a few things, but this almost made me spit my beer out. Thanks for the laugh.
39. BDB said the following at 12:52 AM on Aug 27:
39
Chris (#38) wrote:
>>but this almost made me spit my beer out. Thanks for the laugh.<<
I and your keyboard thank you.
40. Cassandra said the following at 9:48 AM on Aug 27:
40
The question is what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and the answer is 42.
You miss the joke. The original computer found the answer, but no one knew the question.
I know... I realized that as I was getting ready for work this morning... DOH! It's been a while since I read the book. :)
41. Dr. Ransom (E. Stephen Burnett) said the following at 1:56 PM on Aug 27:
41
Well — seems I started a subtopic about Hitchhiker’s Guide and the answer to the Ultimate Question (which no one knows, unfortunately, lending the real answer, 42, a bit of unfortunate vagueness). Sorry about that. ...
I’ll get back to Mary Kate (no. 16 and 26). And I hope this is helpful — because I’m not just trying to prove a point here in order to win an internet debate. We both agree on a lot of things, but as before I want to encourage you (as I myself was encouraged by others in books and sermons years ago) to delve deeper.
I just wanted to say — that’s a great point, and I wished I’d said it in the previous posts. More recently I’ve become appalled by the very unloving, un-Christlike attitude exhibited by “enlightened” Christians, who are supposedly free of and reject legalism, who legalistically slam those whom they believe are still in legalism (proving they haven’t gotten themselves as clear of legalism as they legalistically claim!).
Now, they may be right that KJV-Only advocates, alcohol-is-the-devil’s-drink, play-poker-and-go-to-hell type of Christians are legalistic. But if such stringent people are Christians — and even if they are not — should we not also try to be loving and grace-minded to them too?
However, my main point was not “love is the answer,” but that “the totality of the Gospel is the answer, including both the love and God’s-wrath-will-bring-Hell parts.” And “correcting for wrong Christian (or Churchian) excesses, whether real or merely perceived, is not the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.”
Lest that start yet another round of Douglas Adams references, I’ll keep going, if you don’t mind, Mary Kate. (It gets a little long, I admit.)
I get that because Romans 1 is one of the key chapters in the Bible outlining how sinful, rebellious humankind has no excuse before God, and the plain reading seems to show that one of the worst results of mankind’s rebellion is “unnatural” relations and passions. It’s difficult stuff, but one can’t get to the best news ever told without hearing the worst news ever told. Paul outlines a sequence of what happens to unbelievers, who ignore what He has revealed to them:
I hope that clarifies my view a bit more: it just seems interesting that Paul goes first to describing how God punishes sinful rebels with the further sin of “unnatural” passions, and then — as if “by the way, they also do this” the apostle throws on all the other sins (which doesn’t even include gluttony, though that’s another sin too).
It may be true that some Christians overemphasize homosexuality and ignore other sins — such as tolerating false doctrine, legalism, unforgiving attitudes, chronic anger, etc., not to mention the human sinful nature! But let us not throw Scriptural language and imperatives out with the extremes taken by some. Christians on both “grace” and “truth” sides have been doing that for years in reaction to the other extreme, and I wish the pendulum swings would stop.
I like Harry Potter, but its “love is the greatest thing in the world” emphasis, reflecting similar trends in culture, is a half-truth. May I encourage reflection that according to Christ the greatest commandment is not just generic “love” but “you shall love the Lord your God” (Luke 10:27)?
Thank God it seems that unlike some, on the Boundless blog and elsewhere, you don’t want to swing too far into “God is love” and lose “God is holiness.” But to many people who say “the main point is love” lose out on God’s Law and command for repentance in the process.
My encouragement is to be discerning and watch carefully our language — it can slowly over time affect our beliefs and it is vital to keep those straight.
What helped me was reading books, such as Desiring God, that go deeper than the often subtle idea that love is the greatest goal on God’s agenda. Rather, His greatest purpose is glorifying Himself. That is done through the Law, through Grace, even by allowing sin in the world. And God’s love, too, is a means to that end — of glorifying Himself.
(Lest that seem somehow selfish of God, God is God and therefore He, unlike us, can desire to magnify His Name above all else; to replace that with another goal, such loving people or valuing them above Himself, would make Him an idolater.)
Some Christians would think “my, how unloving of you.” :-) But I think that’s the way God operates sometimes: letting our suffering proclaim His glory and power (such as Paul’s famous “thorn in the flesh” of 2 Corinthians 12).
Christianity that sees cheap grace or “antinomianism,” i.e. God is love, so do what you want, can sometimes lead to people overcorrecting into legalism: God is holy, so watch what you do, and here’s a list. But that extreme leads Christians to overcorrect into cheap Grace and too much God-is-love. Neither either/or extreme needs to lead to another either/or extreme. The Bible presents the both/and Gospel, right down the middle, not just God Who is all- (or mostly) love or all-wrath, but a God Who wants to glorify Himself above all other goals.
Again, is this happening in that imagined cultural-fundamentalist-Christian island nation? I just haven’t seen that going on as much in the churches I know. Now, they aren’t falling all over themselves, like some churches are, to get anybody they can to come in. But if a homosexual person came to my church, people might be nervous (if he was advertising himself in his dress or something), yet they would be friendly. Nobody would throw him out.
But then again, such a person should not be made to feel comfortable in a Christ-centered church. No unrepentant sinner should. Perhaps he should feel comfortable around Christians, such as in friendships, but not in a church — a local representative of Christ’s body.
A long time ago I wrote the below in a certain bit of private correspondence:
I like to paraphrase the Trix cereal slogan: “Silly rabbit! Church is for Christians!” :-)
Does that mean we have bouncers to stop people at the doors of churches, to make sure they are Christians before they come in? No, but non-Christians who visit a church, ought to find the true God and true Gospel among us, both grace and truth, neither rudeness as in some churches nor whole-hearted tolerance of their sinful lifestyles, and worse, sinful nature (as is the unfortunately more common case in more churches today).
I remain convinced that this can be done firmly, without compromise of God’s Word, yet also with Grace. Jesus Himself was “full of grace and truth” (John 1). It’s a paradox, but if He can pull it off, so can we His people — but only with His help, and only with His Gospel in mind.
If we are loving people for real, proclaiming the Gospel, this will involve judging. It is impossible to avoid judging (and wrong to let unbelievers or quasi-Christians intimidate with the claim that “don’t judge” is Biblical). Without judging, false doctrine will fester in the body. Nothing is wrong with judging, if it is done without hypocrisy (Matthew 7) and with Godly grace.
Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to avoid judging. The only Scripture that comes close is in 1 Corinthians 5, but that is where Paul places higher priority on judging those inside the church than those outside who don’t care. In that chapter, judging was vital to dealing with someone who claimed to be a believer yet was in unrepentant sexual sin. Paul urged them to discipline the man and purge him from the fellowship — only that might lead him to repentance, and if he wouldn’t repent, then it may be the case that he wasn’t a true believer.
This is why — despite the incidental “sermon” I keep trying to write above (as a lay Christian) — ultimately we agree, Mary Kate. :-) Again, my encouragement is to go deeper, and see that we need more than just “God is love” to get through to people. Sometimes that does require judging (though I agree with you that all Christians, myself included, keep botching this because we’re flawed).
Well, I don’t see anyone on the Boundless board saying that’s the best method. Who’s doing that?
Though I know the type of Christian who just “calls them sinners and moves on” is still around and still a danger, I don’t see them nearly as often as some think. I’ve begun to consider that most of those Legalistic Pulpit-Pounders, in arguments about evangelism and the church, are little more than straw bogeymen that keep on being brought out (especially by “emergent church” postmodern types) who insist that we don’t want to be like them, do we? And from there it’s just a few quick steps to “deeds, not creeds!” — that is, a compromised Gospel, soft legalism, devoid of God’s grace and truth.
Might it be the case that without knowing it, and with good intentions, you’re equivocating any mention of the sin of homosexuality mentioned here with the Christian-legalist straw bogeyman? :-)
Finally, again I encourage not making the center of our Christianity “we must correct the ills of previous Christians.” They got some stuff right, other stuff wrong. We can thank them for one, question them for another, and move on. Let us do our best to embrace, delight in and study the totality of the Gospel, and of Jesus — the Jesus Who died to set us free not just from bad choices, but His own Father’s just wrath — Who is God and man, love and wrath, full of Grace and truth.
42. Dr. Ransom (E. Stephen Burnett) said the following at 2:42 PM on Aug 27:
42
And just to add a bit of frivolousness -- if no other comments are in the queue in advance of this one, it will be comment no. 42. :-D
43. BDB said the following at 8:04 PM on Aug 27:
43
#42 - Touchè
44. BDB said the following at 8:13 PM on Aug 27:
44
I was thinking about how Hitchhiker's Guide is kind of appropriate for this post: the Infinite Improbability Drive. The tornado hitting that particular building in such a close time proximity is highly improbable.
I think it is unfortunate when natonal leaders refer to things like hurricane Katrina as specific punishment.
Natural Disasters (and acts of God) definitely test people's mettle. A corrupt government will respond poorly to such an event, as each corrupt person tries to enrich themselves instead of doing the right thing. I do think that cities reap what they sow in terms of corruption and poor management.
45. Texas Craig said the following at 12:01 AM on Aug 28:
45
Dr. Ransom (#41):
You mention that God's primary goal is for glorifying Himself. I have not read Desiring God, so I do not know if Piper takes the same view I do of this thought.
God is holy and perfect. Therefore, the more the universe displays God's glory, the more it is "good." Thus, the reason God desires His own glorification is because the more He is glorified, the more everything around Him reflects His goodness and, thus, is good itself. Accordingly, God's desire for His own glory is also really a demonstration of His love for creation, and His desire for it to experience a state of goodness. Thus, God's desire for His glorification is not really "selfish" but actually an even greater demonstration of His benevolence toward creation.
This thought is best displayed in God's design for His church. I am a "free willie," as you would say. :-) Therefore, I believe that we make a decision to follow Christ. But, once we make that decision, God has predestined that we would be conformed to the image of His son. Thus, God sends His spirit to live in our hearts and transform us into the image of Christ more and more each day. In so doing, God is being glorified, but we also are the beneficiaries of His glorification, because our transformation, day by day, is also a tremendous blessing to us as well. I certainly can attest that the peace and joy I have in my life as I struggle less and less with materialism, anger, pride, etc., is a gift I would give all I had for (like the man in the parable Jesus told in Matthew 13).
Love really is what it is all about. But, we must understand that love does include judgment and is not wishy-washy or simply tolerant of sin. Love confronts sin directly, but also gently. Just as God demonstrated His love for us when we were sinners (and still His enemies), so are we called to love those who are our enemies and who dishonor God with their lives. By this all men shall know we are Christ's disciples, that we have love for one another. Love is the answer, because God is love. Love is what we are commanded to. By demonstrating love, we are glorifying God. But, we must have a biblical understanding of what love is. 1 Corinthinas 13 shows us a lot of what it is, as do other passages in scripture. But, as much as we can safely say that "love" is what we are called to, so we must recognize that it is biblical love, and not the common cultural understanding of love, that we are talking about. Therefore, the only way we can learn to love as God commands is to study and learn scripture, because that is how we understand what love is.
With that, I will sign off. :-)
Peace and grace!
46. Zusanne said the following at 2:25 PM on Aug 31:
46
Dr. Ransom:
Thank you for BOTH of your posts :) Well said!
And, as far as the balance between love and God's holiness--shouldn't we reflect God's love to everyone? And shouldn't we also reflect His holiness through our behavior? My unsaved co-workers--including those who were gay--never doubted my friendship, but they did ask me about my lifestyle--you know, the casual conversation between co-workers who have become friendly over the course of time. I never "preached" to them (as in sign waving, head bashing, etc.), but we had rather frank conversations about pretty much anything.