It hurts

Questions about suffering are, perhaps, some of the hardest ones a Christian can encounter. Why am I suffering?" "If God really loves me, why does He let me go through this?" "Why me" and "What did I do to deserve this?" There are plenty more questions like this, but you get the idea. Tough questions about a tough subject. Sometimes, the answers aren't what we want to hear and, sometimes, the answers aren't readily apparent and we have to wait for them. Which can make a hard situation even harder. In those cases, we have to rely on friends, family and prayer to get us through. I've done some reading on this subject and come away with a new understanding of suffering. I'll try and relate it here.

I think first we need to see where suffering comes from. A lot of it comes about from our own actions. We have our own will and generally exercise it instead of working in accordance with God's will. When crap we do splashes back on us, I think most people can deal with it. It's not fun, but we realize we did it to ourselves and reluctantly take our medicine. Then, there's the stuff that happens to us because someone else decided to screw up. This is a lot harder to deal with. But, knowing the source, we can usually take steps to mitigate the problem. If not in the present situation, at least in the future. It's when something so seemingly random happens to us that hits the hardest. Two years ago, at the age of 46, I was diagnosed with colon cancer. I was in pretty good shape at the time, ate well and exercised. Colon cancer in someone below the age of 50 is extremely rare, yet I got it. The initial stage of treatment (surgery and recovery) wasn't exactly fun, but I made it through pretty well. The adjunctive chemo therapy (what they give you to make sure they got it all) was another story. I've never felt so miserable in my entire life. You've heard people say they'd have to get better to die? I actually felt that way. There were days when I said to God "If you can't fix this, then take me now. I can't stand it". I wondered more than once why I was going through this. No great answer came to me through the Divine Megaphone. No amazing epiphanies or angels coming down and blessing me. Well, maybe there were angels, they just didn't play harps and have halos. I gained the strength to make it through from the love of my family and friends. Especially from my father. A few years earlier, he'd been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and had his own bouts of chemotherapy, so he knew what I was going through. Somtimes, just his presence was enough. He's not exactly what you'd call tender, but he was there and just what I needed. At the time, I felt my pleas went unanswered and I struggled greatly with why I was even in that predicament. I realized later that my prayers were heard and answered and, as for why? Well, sometimes sh-t just happens. A couple of my pastor friends say it comes from the broken world we live in. I like my answer better. Shorter and more to the point.

As I read, I saw suffering equated with love. The philosopher, Nicholas Wolterstorff said in his book Lament for a Son, "God is love. That is why he suffers. To love our suffering world is to suffer...The one who does not see God's suffering does not see his love. So, suffering is down at the centre of things, deep down where the meaning is. Suffering is the meaning of our world. For love is meaning. And love suffers. The tears of God are the meaning of history." Some point to the existence of suffering as evidence of an uncaring God. I like the words of William Temple, former Archbishop of Canterbury, "There cannot be a God of love," people say, "because if there was, and he looked upon the world, his heart would break." The church points to the Cross and says, "It did break" I already knew these things, of course. But, it's powerful to see them in writing.

One of the new ideas I found in my reading was that suffering is an integral part of our lives. Without it, what would life be like? The British author, Malcolm Muggeridge answer the question this way, "If it were possible to eliminate affliction from our earthly existence by means of some drug or other medical mumbo-jumbo, the results would not be to make life delectable, but to make it too banal and trivial to be endurable." I also believe that suffering is the greatest builder of our character. The Apostle Paul said in Romans 5:3-5 "And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us." I also like what Rob Bell says on the subject "How many people, if you ask them to talk about defining moments in their lives, mention really hard things? People rarely say, ‘Well, I went on vacation…’ These moments in our lives that are the most traumatic, that we would do anything to avoid, end up in retrospect being the moments that shape us." So, maybe suffering isn't that bad. Is it?

Are We Really That Bad?

Ever since I returned to the church, I've been intrigued by certain doctrines. One of those is Calvinism. Now, anyone that knows me knows that I'm not about to go out become a hard-core Presbyterian. My interest is more in the vein of "Where did that idea come from?" One the aspects of Calvinism that I struggle with the most is that of Total Depravity. This is the idea that,due to Adam's fall in the garden (original sin), we are, on our own, unable to love God. Instead, we are drawn by our sinful nature to serve our own ends and desires. The only way we are able to pull ourselves out the muck and mire of that way of life is through God's grace. If you listen to the hard cases describe our condition, it's terrible. Things like "vile, corrupt creatures" and "completely unworthy of God's love", that sort of thing. I've never liked that characterization. If we're God's children and he created us, why would he make us like that? I'm a father, and I would never hamstring a child of mine that way? And, if I see that, why can't God?

Once, I spent a good deal of time happy about being a Wesleyan and Arminian because I thought they were diametrically opposed to Calvinism. Or so I thought. Then, I did a little reading. It turns out old Jacobus (Arminius, that is. Founder of the doctrine Wesleyanism built on) was a student of Calvin's hand-picked successor, Theodore Beza. If that wasn't bad enough, Arminius even agreed with Calvin about total depravity. In fact, the first tenet of Arminianism states that we are naturally unable to make any effort to move toward God. That kind of shook me and I began think I wasn't such great admirer of Arminius after all. The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me, so I spoke to my pastor about it. When I explained my reluctance to embrace original sin, she said to think of it this way: since the Fall, our condition is one that's predisposed to sin. I can buy that. I can also buy that I can't give up sin without help. I don't believe that we're totally unable to do so because we're tainted as a result of Adam's fall. I realize the hard-cores would call me a Pelagian (a 5th century priest who built a theory of salvation based on works and morality), I'll take it a step farther. I think prevenient grace, that grace that helps us see we need God's help, doesn't so much engage our free will and allow us to accept God's justifying grace as it helps the better parts of our nature to overcome those parts that want to continue wallowing in sin. Maybe that's radical and maybe it's not. It is how I see the situation.

To answer the question in the title, I'm reminded of something Rob Bell said in the "Dust" video from NOOMA, "God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me." If that's true, I can't all that bad, can I?

Theology Lite?

I've noticed that certain popular "spiritual" programs, books, etc. have a few things in common. One, they don't require a lot of serious thought. Case in point, Sunday school lessons based on television shows of the past. There's the Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, Bonanza, the list goes on. Don't get me wrong, these were great shows and there were lessons galore in them. Unfortunately, I don't see them as great theological teaching material and, as a rule, they're not. They tend to be pretty fluffy. There's very little challenge to step outside your comfort zone while watching Andy and Barney deal with Aunt Bee's kerosene cucumbers. In fact, that's pretty the definition of my comfort zone. Give me a recliner and some cookies and I'd never leave the church. In his blog "Jesus, The Radical Pastor", John Frye writes about "The Fortune Cookie Bible" saying "Pithy, little positive sayings that perk up your life and create a little, fun curiosity, that’s what fortune cookies do. And that’s all that many Christians want from their Bibles." Whenever I mention some new subject of study I'm engaging in, I have an acquaintance that always responds with "Oh, I don't understand all that. I just listen to my pastor so he can explain it". I don't understand how someone can so blithely abdicate all responsibility for their spiritual education like that. Digging into something new and pulling the meat out is one the reasons I go to church. Fluffy lessons just irritate me. And, I'm to way rebellious to blindly follow anyone.

Another common denominator in these things is the "feel good" factor. Joel Osteen is a big name these days and he preaches something called "prosperity gospel". Prosperity Theology (or gospel) believes that God bestows material prosperity on those whom he favors. They base this on certain passages in the Bible which are, at best, misunderstood or, at worst, quoted out of context to lull followers into sending them money. Because, you see, the way you become prosperous under this system is through a seed faith offering. That's right, you send the preacher some money and he'll pray for you and God will bless you and you'll have wealth and health and happiness. From what I can see, the only person getting prosperous here is the dude on TV or the radio, getting gullible folks to send him money. But, that's not all. In addition to a message that runs counter to everything I've ever read in the Gospels, there is a ton of self-esteem building on Osteen's website. It's all about what a wonderful person you are and how you can feel better about yourself, yadda yadda yadda. This is a fantastically me-centered "theology" (I use the term loosely) and, unless I've been misunderstanding it, Christianity is focused outward, not inward. But, I can see why this stuff is popular. Who wouldn't like being told God was going to send them a ton of money and they were just the most wonderful thing ever? Yes, Jesus did say that if God would take care of the flowers and the animals, He would certainly take care of you (Matthew 6:26). But, He also told the rich young man to sell everything he had, give the money to the poor and follow Him (Matthew 19:20-21). How many people plan on receiving this promised blessing only to give it away?

Last, I'll talk about lists. We all love lists. Some are good, like Wesley's 3 rules or the ones that help structure your work day or study time. Others, not so much. For years, I've wanted a checklist for being a good Christian. You know, feed the hungry? Check. shelter the homeless? Check. That kind of thing. Except, I don't want to be that hard. I'd rather it be things like reading my Bible or starting a new study. If I have to help people, I'd like it to be people I at least don't mind being around. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Being a good Christian is about stepping outside the box and doing stuff you may not necessarily want to do. But, you know what? Every time I do, I kinda like the result.

Sola Scriptura

I suppose a definition of the title of this entry is a good place to start. Sola Scriptura is Latin for "by Scripture alone" and means that the Bible is the only source and authority of the Christian faith. I'd never heard the term until I started reading about faith. Looking at it, I realize that most, if not all, Protestant churches hold this doctrine to be true in some degree. That degree seems to depend on whether you believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible. Inerrancy means that the Bible is totally accurate and free from any error. Infallibility means it is free from errors when it comes to faith and it's practices with some contradictions on history, science, etc. That's probably a totally inadequate description of both positions, but it shows the difference. Good enough for government work, anyway. Most descriptions I've so far seem to come from the inerrancy crowd and they tend to have that all-or-nothing tenor common to much from the Fundamentalist camp. I think a look at the history of Sola Scriptura would be beneficial.

The idea of Scripture as the basis for everything in Christianity goes back to the Reformation. Prior to Luther's 95 Theses, the Church (as in Catholic) had some practices that some people had problems with. Such as the purchase of papal indulges, the devotion to Mary and the intercession of the saints to name a few. Martin Luther, a German priest, felt so strongly that these practices had no basis in the Bible that he protested to the Archbishop, which was (possibly) posted on the door of the church at Wittemburg. Of course, Luther's work was the opening act of the Reformation, wherever is was first read. When the church threatened him with excommunication and death, he replied "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” I never really thought of Luther as a firebrand until now. And, he bucked the status quo. I kind of like this guy.

Sola Scriptura doesn't seem to leave much room for tolerance of other ideas. Which is one more reason I'm glad I'm a Methodist. Being Wesleyans, we're more Prima Scriptura folks. Prima Scriptura asserts the primacy of the Scriptures as the authority on all things Christian. Wesleyan being the precise, methodical (methodical, Methodist..., get it?) fellow that he was had a methodology for interpreting the Scriptures. It's called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. As the Book of Discipline says ""Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation." To be fair, Sola Scriptura doesn't say that the Bible is the only thing you should read. Their meaning can illuminated by other sources, such as councils, tradition, reason, experience, etc. But, it rejects any secondary authority that doesn't conform to the Scriptures.

The problem with Sola Scriptura for me is whose interpretation of the Scripture is to be viewed as authoritative? Because, everyone interprets the Bible when they read it. If, and this is a big if, you do follow the Bible implicitly, it's still an interpretation; just a literal one. That's kind of hard to do though, because the Bible is at about 2000 years old (dating from the latest writings), was written in foreign languages (most no longer spoken in the form written), for a culture markedly different than our own. Reading the Bible with 21st century Western eyes is, in my humble opinion, an asinine undertaking. One that's guaranteed to turn out wrong and cause no end of trouble. Oh wait, it's already doing that. If you question that statement, talk to some people who've been on the receiving end of it. Gay people, Muslims and unbelievers all have a negative view of Christianity precisely because of people misinterpreting the Bible. It promotes exclusion. Which is, ironically, unbiblical. I've got to wonder what Jesus would say were he to come back and see what's happening to his message.

All Knowing?

First of all, I want to apologize for not writing anything recently. I blame it on a combination of writer's block and ADD. That's a condition more suited to my practice of posting quotes in my Facebook status, believe you me. Or anything else that's short, sweet and doesn't require much effort on my part. I can't promise it won't happen again, but I can promise I won't be gone long. When it comes to my faith issues, something keeps pulling me back. Wonder what that could be?

The other day, I was talking with my pastor about various things and we happened on to the subject of whether God knows everything or if he knows all the possible outcomes. I lean toward the latter while she believes the former to be true. As we were talking about this, I felt I was doing a miserable job of voicing my thoughts on the matter. And, as usual, I figured out what I wanted to say about an hour later. Now, I can only tell you my side of this, since I didn't think of any of it while I was talking with her and I don't really know how she'd respond to this particular view. What I was trying to say is that if God knows everything, are my actions truly my own or are they preordained and I'm just a puppet dancing on a string?

Why is this important? It's tied up in the different ideas about salvation. I'm not going to get into a in depth comparison of Calvinism vs Arminianism here. That's a whole post by itself. Possibly multiple posts. Short version is that the Calvinists believe that God has detailed foreknowledge of everything that happens (or that's how I understand it, anyway). In fact, that he planned everything out in advance and (here's the part that ties into what I'm talking about) that he knows who will accept his grace and salvation. Not everyone will do this, only the Elect. Who the Elect is was decided by God before any of His acts of creation. The Arminian idea is that grace and salvation are available to all and it's up to the individual to decide whether he accepts the gift. Perhaps it's vanity, but I like the idea that I have some say in what happens in my life.

I've probably butchered both ideas of how salvation and grace works, but it's the best I can do right now. I said from the beginning this was a work in progress and that's where I am right now. I'll keep working it out, though.