Posted on by Abe Austin

Forced to Fit- Part Two

Accepting God as He Is)

Yesterday I shared the observation that our culture raises us with certain preconceptions about what is good and ideal. When we then engage with the idea of God, we find aspects of His revealed character that do not comport with our preconceptions. Either we discard Him, try to make Him fit our own ideals, or sacrifice our own values to embrace His.

If we elect that third option, this will likely see us surrendering to a God that we don’t fully understand or agree with. Based on our unrecognized bias, we might think that God is sexist, or unmerciful, or discriminatory, or antiquated. But if we surrender to Him even so, living according to His word in spite of our uncertainty, in time we will see our secret prejudices for what they are, and be able to let them go.

A Dangerous Justification)

For those that elect the second option, to try and change God, they often justify it by saying that the ancient records of Him were biased by the culture of their time. The irony of this generational snobbery is obvious. If you accuse another person of misrepresenting God according to his bias, how do you know that you are not doing exactly the same?

Another justification might be that the description of God’s standards was appropriate for that time, but there is a precedent for it to be updated now. After all, we do not still perform animal sacrifices or abstain from eating pork, so why couldn’t God update His opinion on certain social constructs today?

However, this argument ignores the fact that all of the aforementioned changes were never instituted by popular vote, only by those who carried divine investiture from God, Himself. Jesus was God incarnate when he approved of his cousin John’s use of baptism, when he corrected the Israelite conception of the sabbath, and when he began the practice of the sacrament. The twelve apostles were divinely appointed by Jesus with his authority, and guided by revelation, when they changed the sabbath to Sunday, opened the gospel to the gentiles, called for an end to animal sacrifice, and approved the eating of previously unclean animals.

It is not the Christian view that we can change any of God’s commands or practices at will. We have not instituted the changes from Mosaic law to Christian values at random, or due to popular preference. Every change that we observe is founded in a heavenly mandate, not in popularity. In contrast, where is the divinely invested steward who declares God’s approval of our modern social ideals? Where is the heavenly vision that roots our “progressivism” in God and not the earth?

Rejection)

This leaves the final possible response to our personal ideals differing from God’s: rejection. We can say, “yes, the God of the Bible is that particular way, and I will never be okay with that, so I will reject Him.” This, at least, is a more honest response than trying to change the divine.

But to the person making this decision I would encourage them to consider the origin of your values. Are they not directly from the society around you? Are they not from the material, fallen world? Ideals based in the world are doomed to the same fate as all the rest of mortality. These ideals will go out of fashion, and those that lived by them will similarly perish and fade. It is the natural endpoint of every worldly path. If you reject the transcendent, transcendence will respect that decision and similarly abandon you. If you wish to have no more reality than materialism and popularity, then you will have no more than them, and you will die with them.

If, on the other hand, you wish to have a hope for life, and renewal, and the transcendent ideal, and ultimate truth, if you wish to belong to those things and be transfigured by them, you should only expect to do so by embracing a message and a perspective that transcends from on high. One that comes from an ancient God, whose long-standing ways you should naturally expect to contradict many of the messages in our modern, constantly changing world. If you reject that God, then you must realize you have rejected your only option for eternal life, and you must accept the nihilistic void in His place.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Forced to Fit- Part One

Prerequisites for the Divine)

We are a culture that approaches God by first establishing a foundation of worldly ideals that we believe in, and then trying to make Him fit them. We reject God or alter Him because He simply doesn’t match our modern presuppositions about what ultimate good is supposed to be.

Some require a God who isn’t patriarchal. Some require a God who doesn’t wage war on His enemies. Some require a God whose sovereignty doesn’t supersede our own authority. Some require a God who can be validated by scientific methods. Some require a God who is socially progressive.

In these cases, feminism or pacifism or individualism or materialism or progressivism are our first God, and for God to be God He must be in alignment with that first ideal, or He must not exist at all. He is forced to fit, or He is discarded.

This is, of course, an inversion of the proper order. When man recognizes that he has a different life philosophy than God he is supposed to change himself to conform with the Almighty, not change the Almighty to conform with him!

A Modern Lens)

Let us note that differences between God’s ideal and our own is inevitable. Even setting aside personal selfishness and flaws, our modern culture has been far removed from the Judeo-Christian ethic for a while now, and we have been immersed in that climate from before we had any understanding at all. Even if we were raised in a traditional, Christian home, it is certain that we have absorbed presuppositions that we are not even aware of, reasons why we feel that we cannot accept God entirely as He has been described to us.

I have never met the person who did not have some baked-in misunderstanding of the Lord, including myself. I have never met the person who did not struggle with some aspect of who God is declared to be. This is a common challenge that we all grapple with in one way or another. Indeed, we could make a case that most of our path of discipleship is simply us coming to terms with God as He is, surrendering our inclination to try and change Him, and choosing to change ourselves instead.

There is a little more that I wish to say on this subject, but I will save it for a second post tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God is the Author and the Ink

Scriptures tell us that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is spoken of as being above us, but also within us:

Acts 7:49- Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

John 17:23- I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

His work is simultaneously large and impressive, and quiet and invisible:

Exodus 19:18- 18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

1 Kings 19:11-12- And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

God is beyond and outside of mortality but also woven all throughout it. We find Him in the stars and galaxies and universe that we reside within, but also in the molecules and atoms and photons that reside within us.

Many have referred to God as the author of our existence. This is certainly true, but it only speaks to half of who He is to us. I would add that He is also the ink upon the page. He takes the empty void and provides the disparity that gives meaning. He forms each letter, each word, and each idea. He is woven through every character and every plot point in the ultimate tale of victory.

God is the author and God is the ink. We are not only written by Him from above, but of Him from below. He makes the story, and He is the story. And we, being characters in that story, are both a part of Him and Him a part of us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Evil in God’s World

A Common Argument)

I have frequently heard the argument that if we have an all-loving God, how are tragedies and disasters a part of this world? I have addressed this issue in part with previous posts, but today I wanted to point out a fundamental flaw in the argument itself.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave this argument in an interview where he said, “Every description of God that I’ve heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around, and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes, and tornadoes, and disease, childhood leukemia, and I see all of this and I say I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”

I find it interesting that Tyson’s public persona is entirely based around having a scientific mind, yet his argument is entirely unscientific. He jumps to a conclusion that is not at all supported by the premises. Here are the premises that he establishes:

  1. God is all-powerful
  2. God is all-good
  3. ???
  4. There is great tragedy in this world

And from these he draws the conclusion that the last premise is incompatible with the first two. But as it stands, the statements of God’s character and the state of the world live in isolation from one another. There is a crucial premise missing, one that would establish what the relationship between God and the world even is!

This is the fundamental flaw in all of these criticisms. They speak of the nature of God, and the nature of the world, but never establish what one of those has to do with the other. It is quite a leap to say that if God is all-good that He is required to enforce only good things on the Earth of today. Where did that notion come from? Why can’t God be all-good and not puppeteering everything that plays out in humanity?

The Perfect Earth)

One thing that Tyson did not explicitly say, but which I believe is implied in his argument, is that the missing link between God’s goodness and the state of the earth is that God created the earth. If God is perfect, and the original author of our existence, then why isn’t that existence perfect also?

But even introducing this to the argument doesn’t make it any better. Because if one is going to question why a perfect God did not create a perfect world, the obvious answer is, “well, according to our records…He actually did.” In the first chapters of Genesis, we read that God created a world where everything was “good.” There was no death, no sickness, none of the great tragedies that so distress us today. Thus, the expectation actually fit the reality at the moment of creation. God did give us exactly the sort of world that we would have expected Him, too.

But states can change. And man, not God, chose to introduce sin into this world, corrupted its perfection, and gave birth to the fallen earth that we see all around us. This is all made clear in the first three chapters of the Christian canon, so it doesn’t make sense to state that the Christian conception of God does not account for the disparity between His goodness and the world’s evil.

If one does not believe in the biblical explanation, so be it, but don’t claim that there isn’t any explanation. Indeed, this is one of the unique and compelling aspects of Christianity, that it not only acknowledges the dual nature of our existence but also provides one of the clearest, most explicit explanations of that division’s origin.

Of course, one might still be troubled by the disparity between the professed perfection of the Christian God and the suffering in the world, and one might feel that if God really is all-powerful, then He ought to be able to reclaim that fallen world. And to that I say, brother, have I got some good news for you!

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Breadth of All Good

God is all good, but does that make Him all-merciful or all-just? He must be both, or else He would only be half-good. It should therefore come as no surprise that we see examples of both forgiveness and retribution in the Bible. Sometimes God shows mercy, perfectly. Sometimes He demands justice, perfectly.

When we stand before God’s throne in the next life, and He assigns us a judgment either to our damnation or exaltation, it will be a judgment that is perfect. In that day we will know that His decision is right, and we will not have any basis to say that He was too lenient or too strict.

There are even cases in the Bible where God showed an openness to both justice and mercy, as they were each apparently an appropriate outcome for the situation. Thus, we have the extending of Hezekiah’s life, the sparing of the Israelites after they made the golden calf, and the redemption of Nineveh. God was apparently inclined to have things go another way, but in His all-goodness could allow for a different path. Probably many of us are in that same middle area, where both God’s mercy and His justice could rightfully claim us. It is to our advantage to use this time to our advantage, to try and secure the side of God’s goodness that we desire.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Blessed Curse

Only those that are most dedicated to evil are destroyed by God. For all the rest of us, even when He curses us, it is a curse designed to teach and even save us. The very tribulation that we think will ruin us, ends up being the vehicle for our salvation. It feels like a death, but it holds the seed of life. Thus, by His grace, even God’s curses are blessings.

Posted on by Abe Austin

If God Can Do Anything

Because I believe that God can do anything, I believe that He can make any desired miracle come true for me! But even more impressive, because He can do anything, He can also make things work out without the miracle. Indeed, it requires less faith to believe that God can change the world to match my heart, than to believe that God can change my heart to survive in spite of the world.

Believe in the bigger God. Believe in the God who can make you whole, with or without the thing you most desire.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – The Forest Through the Trees

This study has been an interesting journey. I had to dive into the arguments, the reasons, and the details to discover that the answer to my questions was not in any of those. I want to say a few more words about where I am settled today, and this will conclude my study.

Yesterday I spoke about this problem of getting stuck on the details, trying to use rational logic to argue about was originally an emotional reaction. I don’t expect that I will ever stop feeling sad and troubled whenever I think of the children that might have been slain by the Israelite soldiers via a command from God.

I can acknowledge that my conception of God is probably mistaken, and that some part of what is written may have been lost in translation before I read it, and that I don’t fully understand the context of Canaan at the time, and I certainly don’t understand the transition from this life to the afterlife. Thus, I might only feel troubled due to the limitations in my understanding, but so deep are my limitations that I don’t expect to fully overcome them in this life, and so I expect to always feel troubled.

But that doesn’t break my faith and trust in God, because this troubling is but one part in the rich tapestry of experiences that I have had with him. If anyone ever comes to me with questions on these passages, I will probably talk with him about it for a while, but at the end I expect I will say something to the effect of, “it doesn’t do to fixate on the tree at the expense of the forest.” I would advise this person to keep reading his Bible, to read all of it, and to then step back and consider the entire picture. Paul’s famous words to the Corinthians comes to mind.

1 Corinthians 3:12- For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

As I read all of the chapters in the Bible, and not just fixate on one or two, my consciousness lifts above the isolated details, and I become aware of an over-encompassing spirit that is in and through it all. And I must confess that that spirit is undeniably one of goodness, one that loves and cares for the people of this earth, one that stives over thousands of years to reclaim a fallen people, one that is worthy of devotion and discipleship. I should not lose sight of the good in that overarching spirit by obsessing over the small part that I don’t understand.

So, in conclusion, yes, I am still troubled by the command for the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of the Canaanites, but I am not going to fixate on that troubling to the severance of my connection to the overwhelming spirit of good I find in God’s word. Because I know that God is good, I am sure that when I finally understand all the parts that I do not now, that I will be at peace and in awe of it all.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Mind vs Heart

I have spent the past several days reviewing the common defenses that are made for God having commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations. I found some of the arguments more compelling than others. However, even the ones that had strong points were not so convincing that I lost all discomfort for these passages. I find what remains for me is a sense that God was justified to have commanded these actions, but I still wish He wouldn’t have. The more that I delve into the details, the more I realize that the problem isn’t in the details.

I think this is a common mistake when raising and addressing issues related to God. We are dealing with a matter of spiritual unrest and are trying to resolve it in intellectual terms. We too often assume that our feelings are invalid if we cannot express it as a logical argument. Therefore, the critic will experience negative feelings towards these verses and will give logical arguments against them. The defender of these verses will respond in kind by providing logical rebuttals. Even if those rebuttals are sound, they will do nothing to convince the critic, because the logic wasn’t where the problem began. It isn’t the critic’s mind that needs to be converted, it is the heart.

Thus, my response to all of the defenses that we have covered thus far is, “yes, you have some good points, and maybe it all makes sense in my head…but I still just feel sad about it.” In my next post I will try to take a different approach to addressing these concerns. I think it is time we took the matter to a higher level of consciousness. I wish to make an appeal, not the to mind, but to the Spirit. We will see how that goes tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #3

I have been examining God’s command to slay the entire population of a nation, and in my last post I responded to the defenses that suggested such an action was justified, and that God has the moral right to do such a thing. I concluded that such an argument makes sense to me when viewing the destruction of a wicked nation as a whole, but when zooming in to the level of individual children being destroyed, it is still uncomfortable.

Today we will look at another category of defense for these verses, which argues that the destruction of these innocents may actually have been an act of mercy. Here are two examples of that line of reasoning.

  1. From the eternal perspective, death is simply an awakening from a painful dream into glory.
  2. When a nation becomes truly depraved, their own children suffer most. Some of these children were already being killed in pagan sacrifices, and those that lived were fixed on a path of corruption. Cutting this misery short was an act of mercy.

This line of argument is taking a common principle of life and extending it to the extreme. We all know that there are things that are unpleasant, that no one wants to go through, and which under normal circumstances would be wrong to subject another person to; yet we also know that there are exceptions to this principle when it prevents the person from experiencing greater harm, or when it is a step towards greater joy.

For example, under normal circumstances it is wrong to shove another person, and wrong to advise a person to cause themselves pain. But what if you are shoving the person out of the way of a charging horse? Or what if you are encouraging someone to go through painful physical therapy so that they can walk again. Because your underlying intention is good, and because the intended outcome is good, it actually becomes an act of kindness and love to shove and to encourage painful exercise.

An important realization here is that at first thought we might think it is fundamentally wrong to cause someone pain, but clearly that isn’t the case. If all I hear is that someone caused another to feel pain, I still don’t actually know whether that person did something good or bad. Causing pain is not objectively wrong. The intent to harm is.

But does this reasoning extend all the way to death? It is more challenging for us to see the ultimately good consequence that might follow death, because for us death is the end. We do not see anyone receive any positive consequence that comes after having passed through it. Of course, we’ve all been told that there is the potential for experiencing a terrific good after death, but that is something we can only imagine for now. The degree to which death disquiets us is a metric for just how real heaven is in our minds.

Summary)

If these things are true, then it is understandable why from God’s perspective His consignment to death might be an act of great mercy, but why it seems cruel from ours. Our view of the exchange is being halted in the middle, just long enough to see the hard part of the bargain, and none of the good return.

A stronger testimony of the afterlife might improve my outlook on these passages, but I still have a lingering concern. Even if God has great enough rewards to make up for any type of death, why not subject the innocent to the most peaceful demise imaginable? Why not make all the infants die peacefully in their sleep, as opposed to by the sword? I’ll keep these questions in mind as I continue with this analysis.