I'm trying to skim a book this week as part of a potential writing project on the side this summer. The book is Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, an edited collection with John Piper and Justin Taylor as authors. Today I skimmed the first chapter by John Piper himself: "Suffering and the Sovereignty of God: Ten Aspects of God's Sovereignty Over Suffering and Satan's Hand in It."
I agree theologically with almost everything Piper says in this chapter--it's more his understanding behind what he says that I disagree with. Here are his ten points in my words:
1. Satan's rule over the world is delegated.
2. God is sovereign over Satan's angels and demons.
3. God is sovereign over Satan's hand in persecution.
4. God is sovereign over Satan's taking of life.
5. God is sovereign over Satan's hand in natural disasters.
6. God is sovereign over Satan causing sickness.
7. God is sovereign over Satan's use of animals and plants.
8. God is sovereign over Satan's causing of temptation.
9. God is sovereign over Satan's ability to blind our understanding.
10. God is sovereign over the spiritual bondage Satan causes.
So I agree theologically with these comments, as well as with Piper's opening gambit: "God himself is the supreme value" (17).
Where do I disagree? I disagree with what stands behind this comment: "In the academic classroom and in the apologetics discussion, the agency of Satan in our suffering may lift a little the burden of God's sovereignty for some; but for others... there is more security and more relief and more hope and more support and more glorious truth in... looking... to Go for the cause..." (23).
In other words, God is telling Satan what to do. On the contrary, I believe that if this is the case, then Christianity becomes incoherent. No meaningful understanding of God as love is compatible with him directly ordering Satan to do all the things above. Only if God has given authority to creation to do less than his perfect will can the concept of God as love be coherent.
This comment brings me to a second disagreement with Piper. Piper insinuates that intentional agency is involved with everything that happens, both in terms of moral agents like Satan and humans and in terms of plants, animals and the creation. He thus has no room in his worldview for a creation that operates according to certain "laws" that generate events of pain and suffering apart from someone's will--in his case Satan.
I contend, by contrast, that Satan himself may or may not be directly responsible for all the pain and suffering that happens in the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Ken,
Isn't the issue one of personability, instead of "love"?
Love is a personal word, because everyone understands and experiences love differently. So, when someone says, "love thy neighbor, as theyself", it isn't understood unless there is some effective way to express that...this is where the "personal" gets practical, because what we would want others to do to us, is NOT what they necessarily "read" as "loving".
A person's understanding of love has many dimensions. And this is why it is reasonable to say that "God" is a projection of our own wishes, needs, desires, and culture....one can see clearly the divisions that exist in our own country between the "social gospel" and the 'evangelical gospel"...
If one wants to allow a liberal society where individual can determine their own understandings of "faith", and their life, then, one cannot define what "faith" means. One can only protect the liberty of all individuals when it comes to conscience....This is the very reason why scientists argue that science is the best way to "make society"....as religion has many ways to suggest "faith"...
Let me connect the dots...
Causes that directly go back to "god" are not necessarily accepted in today's world, are they? "Satan" is the name that is useful, instead of personal accountability.
"Causes" are one way the theist argues for "God", the other is "design".
"Moral government" would suggest that the design of the universe is "set up" such that accountablity is necessary for balancing power and addressing the "real issues" that "corrupt" the world..."love" is not the way the world is 'set up", but "design" believers do think that "order" is...
I do agree that there are differing understandings of love and that cultural elements are strongly involved. I do not believe, however, that there is any meaningful sense of the following statement: "God so loved millions of Japanese (that he caused not to believe in him) that he killed them off with a tsunami and sent them to hell for all eternity."
Piper's theology, in effect, considers this statement to be coherent.
Agreed!
The issue, then, is whether there is a supernatural realm...anyone can justify suffering if "God is just"...as they can write off another's suffering to the "mystery of God"....and science isn't tolerant either when it comes to equalizing the "pot" of limited resources...
Equality or elitism is another dilemma that makes for complexities in the world...as private property rights will always affirm elitism, according to the redistributioners....
And those redistributioners are the very ones that become "the elite", though they cry for equality!!
I'd much prefer to be able to have a government that is accountable and can't be corrupted by "good ole boy systems" that cover over the self-interested investments of "the rulers"...
I believe some of those who have lost their faith have done so because the only model of God they knew was Piper's. In my own struggles, it is only an Arminian understanding of God that has any shot at being coherent.
I'm contemplating writing a quick book this summer on Evil and Suffering, something like Yancey's Where is God When it Hurts. Frankly, there was nothing that made any sense to me when I wrestled with this back in the 90s. I wish the book I have in mind had existed.
You just suggest that "character development" is the solver of suffering, as "God" uses the sufferings that we experience to "train" humans...that is still belief in an overintending "God"...and what about "spiritual abuse"....
Personalibity is about identity, and self-consciously chosen values about one's understanding of "life" and all that is...one can't systemize such a "mental concept"...but there are those that think that stimulating the brain is all that is necessary...and all of us will be pawns to those that have that capacity/knowledge...
And since the social psychologists and behaviorists affirm man's social nature, it would be "easy" to have a co-operative effort with "the Church" to "form" individuals to the intended "outcome"'outcome based education..
For me, part of the answer is that there is not always a purpose for suffering. Sometimes the laws of physics and the freedom of the creation result in car crashes without any intended significance on God's part. It is not evil. It is just suffering. The question then becomes why God allows the world to be like this, not why God caused my to get in a car crash.
Ken,
It just "is"...acceptance of what "is" is part of maturing..it is grappling with a real world and not some fantasy or "ungrounded hope" or vision. And what 'is" doesn't have to be complicated by "metaphysical realities"...I find this a lot more palatable, than theologizing around the "issues"...the issues are the problems that face our nation and world today...
Rational choice, or the admittance of self interest is a "need" to further prosperity/human flourishing and negotiation of differences...and not all of us will choose the economic to define our lives...some of us will put other values, first.
Sovereignty is the individual's right to determine his own life and not anyone else's...
But, just as people don't choose to prioritize their values the same way, does not give the right to another to demand another's compliance to their value...is life, liberty or human flourishing, the most important value to be pursued? That is a matter of opinion, interests and commitment..
Scientists would value physical life, or survival, because they are observers of nature and value the natural world.
Politicians, and philosophers value liberty, because without liberty, there is little to be valued about life.
Artists of all kinds value beauty, which makes for a life of aesthetic value and makes for a more "beautiful" life!
Post a Comment