Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 6 - COPING WITH EVIL II)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimise our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II (this post)
7. How to Read

We've discussed how Scripture suggest that God is more interested in the non-cognitive goals of personhood, expression, and relationship, and deliberately utilises a thoroughly human Bible along with cognitive 'gaps' (biases or 'errors', according to our modernistic perspective) to achieve these aims. 

Many cognitive / experiential 'gaps' can be considered normal or conducive toward relationship. One challenge to this view is that not all 'gaps' easily line up with this supposed aim of God's - some gaps can legitimately be called 'evil' even from a relational perspective. We've been discussing how our relationship copes with these gaps in the form of faith, which again is not primarily cognitive. One strategy faith uses is to wrestle with God's purposes for these gaps, and to provide potential answers which sustain our relationship through these 'evil' gaps. These answers also demonstrate that 'evil' gaps do not ultimately conflict with God's relational aims. 

This discussion has led us to analyse 'progressive revelation' (with its obvious cognitive 'deficiencies') as a specific form of 'evil', recognizing that it still specifically serves God's relational aims, and discussing how faith grapples with Scripture.

We've already covered how the these 'gaps' are required for the expression of faith, which is the most vivid display of the authenticity and health of any relationship. To round off my defence of God's relational aims, we'll explore a couple of other potential 'answers for evil' that faith can grapple with.

Full Expression

First, In a broad sense Evil allows a more complete expression of God's character. God is not merely good, He is ANTI-evil - meaning ultimate evil (real persisting gaps in the expression of God) cannot exist. This very impossibility - God's anti-evil nature - itself needs expressing, and what better way than to give evil the opportunity to assert its own existence, only to be gloriously and satisfyingly overcome by Gods goodness?{1} Sometimes this is obvious and temporally relevant (i.e. God meets our needs when we pray to Him), but other times it is more subtle and eternally focused (i.e. by some of the other purposes for evil, discussed below). 

Progressive revelation likewise allows the more full expression of God's character. The ANTI aspects of God's nature need revealing - including the faults  of the previously biased views, which requires their existence to start with. Harmonious summary statements about God are not enough - certain aspects require a full and mature dealing, which may require a partially biased expression for a time. If these biases also produce evil gaps, it is so that they can be overcome by integration into the whole goodness of God, and so that we can enjoy the full spectrum of views and perspectives on our unified God. And the unity of God's people - under a common spirit-wrought love for Christ, in varying states of cognitive awareness - is meant to demonstrate the impossibility of evil ultimately winning, even if it is given opportunity (through the existence of cognitive bias and disagreement). 

Specific Effects

Second, evil performs its own specific purposes more directly. Some events - which are required in Gods expressive narrative - require evil in order to occur, or require evil to setup the context for another expression of God's character. Examples of these kinds of evil include huge parts of Israel's story (which gives so much meaning to the rest of God's revelation in Scripture), and the murder of God's son (which was ordained before the world was even created). Another big class of specific purposes for evil, is the individual development of our characters as free agents. Some character developments REQUIRE the existence of evil.{2} Gods relational nature wants a large number of different characters in heaven, which require various patterns of mixed experience, including (temporary) evil which is ultimately overcome by God's goodness.

Progressive revelation has direct effects as well, in terms of intended messages, directing historical events, and molding specific characters. Each revelation had an intended message and intended effect, which might change with the historical context. The bias, the truth content, and the omissions all have a necessary role in accurately conveying the message and creating the intended effects. 

Summary

Even 'evil' experiential gaps in God's expression are readily assimilated by God's relational aims. Relationships persist in the form of faith, a valuable self-evident manifestation of the health of any relationship. Faith can sustain itself by grappling with some of God's purposes for evil (such as allowing alternative expressions of God's goodness), and how it fits with his relational aims. Faith can also grapple with God's purposes for the 'evils' of progressive revelation, which (like all 'evil' gaps) allow the goodness of God to take on alternative expressive forms, enhancing relationship rather than posing a challenge to God's relational aims.

• Does it feel wrong to attribute deliberate good original purposes to 'evil'? 
• Do you agree that the it is better if you are given a chance to express your relationship in faith? Does this 'purpose' for evil give you any comfort?
• Are there other purposes for evil you can think of?
• Do you think that having good 'purposes' for evil, is enough to justify its existence? Or the existence of 'gaps' within progressive revelation?

Please comment below! I need feedback to tailor my views and stay faithful to Scripture...

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll attempt to summarise how to approach Scripture, with everything we've already discussed in mind.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a proper approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 
• We'll also reverse course a little, discussing some cognitive 'gaps' that WE impose on Scripture (making progressive revelation seem more full of gaps than it really is, or than ancient readers saw it).

Footnotes:

1 - Some will object that God's goodness can't require even a temporary experience of evil for it to be expressed, as this would make Him dependant on something other than Himself for full expression of His goodness. This view has several problems, one of which is that it defines evil as something that does not originate with God. The Bible's definition of evil, however, includes things that originate from God. Also, this view simplifies the concept of God's expression down to a single mode (where everyone is aiming for an identical relationship, which includes only an abstract understanding of any evil and God's victory over it). I agree that God does not require every person to experience every form of evil and His victory over it, but people will experience varying degrees of isolated goodness vs. its victory over evil in a wide spectrum. This is a beautiful thing in the end, when we consider the natural and desirable variety of relationships God desires.

2 - God can't simply create specific characters from thin air, just like he can't perform other logical contradictions. Strength, experience, maturity, and other aspects in our souls exist precisely BECAUSE of how they are formed. They can't exist in isolation of their development - that doesn't make sense, and to try and fake them would result in poor substitutes, and we would easily and quickly discover that they lack any basis.

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 5 - COPING WITH EVIL I)

So far we've discussed that God uses cognitive biases (which many of us, with out modernistic worldview, would label 'errors') in his progressive revelation as he works toward his ultimate aim of relationship with us. Relationships include inevitable and healthy ‘gaps’ and ‘excesses’  of experience (and cognition). But some of the gaps God allows go beyond this to create 'evil effects' of limiting our experience of God BEYOND these normal and healthy experiences of relationship. In this post I want to talk about how our relationship copes with such messiness. And we'll start to think about why God allows gaps and cognitive 'errors' that he knows will have negative effects.

Love becomes Faith

In the face of these gaps of experience, our relationship takes a form known as faith. We go on seeking and living out the relationship, even while we are temporarily deprived of the experience of the relationship{1,2}. Faith has all the usual characteristics of a relationship. And as a relationship it needs a basis, which include all forms of experience (e.g. Scripture communication, the Holy Spirit's inner witness, The human character of Jesus, our experience of God through other people and events, reason and science, etc). It is not necessarily about any particular accurate cognitive view of the person we're relating to, but it nevertheless engages our whole being (including the process of cognition), and all experiences of the person (including cognitive understanding) will strengthen the relationship. Faith then uses the grounds it has, to bridge the relational gaps we are faced with, persisting when the relational experience is impaired. Faith thus simultaneously co-exists with both the grounds of the relationship AND the ongoing doubt and uncertainty. 

There are multiple ways to describe how faith uses its existing relational strength to bridge gaps. It can remember God's universal goodness expression which must pervade even the 'evil' we are facing (treating 'evil' as ultimately a matter of temporal perspective). It can grapple more intimately with what God's good purposes for these gaps might be. Specific answers can even be an experience of God which subsequently strengthens the relationship and faith. Faith can also remember that God’s ultimate solution to evil is an actual change in reality, not just in our minds - and so faith can work concretely to oppose evil, attempting to be the means by which God expresses Himself in these gaps. Faith doesn’t necessarily consciously engage in all these methods – it is a relationship, and so it will express itself in unique strengths and weaknesses. We can tend to react to some legitimate expressions of faith (within us or within others) as if they are actually opposed to faith, and squelch them in favour of our preferred expressions of faith. ‘Submitting to God’s will in suffering’, ‘questioning God’, and ‘fighting suffering’ may sometimes spring from a lack of faith (in which case they need redeeming by a right relationship with God), but often they can simply the unbalanced form a healthy faith naturally takes in the face of evil. We need to encourage our faith to express itself in all these ways in order for the relationship to flourish maximally in the face of evil{3,4}.

'Questioning' and working concretely against the 'gaps' created by the complexities of Scripture can likewise be an expression of faith, just like how faith deals with evil. And we can squelch faith (in ourselves or others) by squelching particular modes of its expression. It is common practice to focus on techniques and strategies that distance us from the reality and weight of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture, making it easier for us to dismiss them without engaging in other full flourishing-faith dealings (e.g. emphasising the harmony of Scripture, and engaging in rhetoric which belittles claims to the complexity of Scripture). These uncomfortable aspects of scripture are real and weighty and deserve a proper dealing{5}. 

God's purposes for Evil

So if faith grapples intimately with the specific good purposes God has for allowing 'evil gaps', what kinds of answers can it come up with? The first purpose to think about, is that evil allows relationships to take the form of faith. This is important because Faith (when understood as above) is the most undeniable demonstration of a relationship possible. Faith demonstrates the authenticity and health of a love relationship because the relationship it is based on persists even if the desired experiences are not there. Our responses to gaps reveal where our heart really lies - the degree of distress at gaps reveals the value of what is now lacking, and the degree of relational resilience DESPITE these gaps reveals the strength of relationship{6}. 

Progressive revelation allows for the demonstration of faith by leaving us with cognitive questions and challenges, with grey zones and apparent conflicts. How we navigate these based on our relationship to the person of Jesus, and not based on a commitment to a set of rigid interpretations of particular aspects of revelation, reveals our faith.

I’ve run out of room for this post, so the other two purposes for evil will have to wait for next post (allowing the full varied expression of God, and directly causing specific historical or character development effects). These are also important for faith to consider as it wrestles with God's purposes for evil and progressive revelation.

Summary

Faith is the form a relationship with God takes when there are experiential gaps in that relationship ('evil'), including the difficult aspects of progressive revelation. A healthy faith will deal with these things in multiple ways - one of which is to wrestle with God's purposes for evil and provide potential answers. One answer is that evil provides opportunity for relationships to take the form of faith, which is important to God.

What do you think of this relational definition of faith? Does it fit with Scripture?

How do you think faith ought to respond to evil and difficult aspects of Scripture / revelation? What do you think of the concept of 'questioning God' in a positive way, as opposed to the Devil's way?

Do you agree with that one purpose for evil is to allow the expression of faith? 

How do you think our faith is meant to interact with God's secret will when it comes to actively opposing 'evil'?

Coming Soon...

• Next post I'll discuss the other two major purposes for evil and progressive revelation. 
• After that I've got a couple of other interesting properties of progressive revelation to talk about, including our modernistic OVER-estimation of the bias that exists in progressive revelation. 
• Then I can finally summarise how I think God actually wants us to approach Scripture, how to practically use it faithfully in our relationship with God while still valuing those aspects we've been discussing that can seem uncomfortable and confusing! And then we can explore some practical implications.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I (this post)
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

Footnotes:

1 - This definition of faith fits well with Scripture. It explains why faith is the 'substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' - it IS the manifestation of a relationship that has real substance, but is nevertheless 'hoped for' and 'not seen'. It explains why God must first call people with experience before faith can arise. It explains why many of the qualities of faith in God (including exclusive rewards like grave and salvation) are also ascribed to individual components of this relationship (like love, humility, wisdom, obedience). It explains why sin (NOT living in a love relationship with God) is naturally opposed to faith, and why faith results in sanctification. It explains why faith is a constant integral part of our relationship with God here on earth, but disappears in heaven (by way of graduation to a form without ‘evil’ experiential gaps). It explains why faithful saints can still powerfully express strong doubts and wrestle with God.

2 - This description of faith still encompasses the more specific 'faith' we can have in particular promises or blessings. Technically according to Scripture we should not 'have faith for’ any particular blessing, but we can have faith in God’s goodness and faithfulness to His promises. This alters our hope / assurance / expectation / confidence regarding specific blessings - they can exist on a spectrum from possible to very likely to absolutely certain, depending on the context and God’s revelation on the matter.

3 - Faith which works to concretely oppose evil may seem at odds with a faith which submits to God's purposes in evil. But this is not necessarily true. Firstly, faith must express itself because it is relational - even if it cognitively understands that God has purposes for evil, our desire for the ultimate solution God promises (a changed reality in the new heaven and earth) MUST express itself in working toward this. Building on this, one of God’s purposes for evil IS to allow faith to express itself in this way - so God's purpose for evil may well include its defeat by the very faith it encourages. God may make it clear to us if He has other ongoing purposes for evil that require its ongoing existence – but many times, God wants both the demonstration of our faith AND the ongoing existence of that evil, in which case He keeps simultaneously encouraging our faith and thwarting faith’s efforts to defeat the evil.

4 - Also worth noting is that these abstract / concrete reactions of faith toward gaps, are also reactions our relationship can have on behalf of others. Our relationship with God is not self-centred, but God-centred - and as such, we seek ongoing experiences for ourselves AND for others. When others relationships are taking the form of faith and wrestling with gaps, we will bear their burdens and help them wrestle in abstract and concrete ways with these gaps.

5 - Some worry that wrestling with and questioning God's revelation is a lack of faith because this is what the devil tried to get Adam and Eve to do – but their ‘bad’ questioning was aimed at pushing the boundaries of God's revelation as far as possible in order to satisfy their own curiosity and independence and desires. Faith’s aim is to pursue a relationship with God. Some also worry about concretely working to oppose the 'evil' of the uncomfortable complexities of progressive revelation - as if this implies a deficiency in God's expression Himself. Faith views it instead as a designed opportunity to exercise itself - obviously valuing God's chosen expression, but seeking a more desirable relational state without as many 'gaps'. It utilises 'secular' disciplines (such as science, archeology, linguistics, history, logic and philosophy) to do so. All our efforts - as with our efforts to oppose generic 'evil' - are sincere but flawed. We rely on God to either work alongside us with His power, or to clarify our limits (as He has done by banning tampering with his revelation), or to simultaneously encourage and thwart our ongoing efforts.

6 - Obviously this is highly contextual - sometimes faith might be only mildly distressed at financial strife, because what ultimately matters is the relationship with God, which is persisting despite this 'gap', and is probably being experienced in a myriad of other ways. This same faith might be more distressed by more direct reflections of the relationship (e.g. besetting sin, a difficult ethical problem, or a lack of access to Scripture or fellowship). Or the financial hardship may become so pressing that our human minds simply cannot focus to appreciate the other more direct expressions of God, so that the immediate problem BECOMES the most direct relational expression of God that is possible in the circumstances - in this case, although the relationship continues to persist in the form of faith, there will obviously be a greater degree of distress.

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 4 - MORALITY & EVIL)

So far we've discussed the impact of our (extra-Biblical) worldview on our approach to Scripture. We've used progressive revelation as a practice engagement with the tricky complexities of honest Scriptural interpretation, and being willing to challenge our worldview. We've explored the nature of relationships, and discovered the cognition and communication fall short of defining 'relationship' because of their very nature, and not just because we humans can only handle them imperfectly. In addition, it seems as if God - technically capable of using 'perfect' communication and cognition - seems to have deliberately utilised bias in these things in His pursuit of what really matters to Him - a relationship of love.

Morality

A discussion of morality flows naturally from our discussion of communication, because it functions very similarly. Morality refers to the pattern of our behaviour. Like communication, it is inherently cognitive - we consciously decide what to do, and so it is a window into another person's cognition, but also suffers similar interpretation inaccuracies as communication. And just like communication and cognition, morality finds its true purpose in relationship. It is meant to be person-based, not abstract. We are meant to want to be like Christ and to please Christ, based on our flawed cognitive understanding of Him through our relationship. 

Because cognition cannot reach a static full encapsulation of a person, our morality will never be able to fully encapsulate them either. For this reason, some argue that we are meant to disengage our morality from cognition, and just follow the rules God has set down without question or interpretation, because this is the only reliable way to reflect God. I don't think this is the case, because the only way morality can reflect anything, is through people's interpretation of it - and they interpret it by trying to see through to the person that produces it. We reflect God by being a person that people see God in, and by behaving in a way that springs forth from this person. This cannot occur if our morality is disengaged from our cognition - it actually makes the reflection of God's character less accessible, not more accessible. Besides, the very nature of relationships and people means that things like morality and cognition could never capture a person, even if we disregard the link between morality and cognition. Relationships are meant to be dynamic processes that engage with the other person, and so a static cognition and a static morality cannot fully capture this. 

In other words, you cannot legislate the kind of morality God is after through fixed laws. They could never be nuanced enough, and there is always the possibility of life situations bringing together multiple conflicting values and unique considerations for the relationship which could NEVER be exhaustively described. No doubt God has a preferred way to behave in each situation, but we can only know this if we know God through relationship. So instead of prescribed living, there has always been a need for prioritisation, flexibility, and pragmatism BASED upon the right living relationship with God. I'm not advocating a liberal lifestyle - the relationship I'm advocating includes a desire to submit to God, and also a recognition of the complexity of applying God's values to real life situations. 

But God still legislated morality - if this was not for 'prescribed personal morality', then what was it for? We can argue for some specific purposes behind the OT law e.g. Societal coherence, which was difficult to maintain in a largely 'religious' society where God was never-the-less rarely relationally known, and where cognitive understanding of God was incomplete. But a big reason - the one that applies to ongoing legislation even in the NT - ties back to the purpose of communication. God wants us to see a prioritised understanding of His cognition THROUGH the commandments, and then base our morality on the relationship, which will include submission to our cognitive understanding of Him. Our morality will often look 'prescribed', but the different emphasis allows for deviations that please God when situations arise that aren't covered by the legislation with enough contextual relational nuance. 

Because morality is cognitive, it will change with progressive revelation and an evolving cognitive understanding of God. It needs to be emphasised that God does not want us to take the burden upon ourselves to guess / determine the 'next phase' of morality and progressive revelation. Its also worth mentioning here that morality (and to a lesser extent, communication) DOES have non-cognitive influences, which could potentially reflect non-cognitive aspects of the relationship. These are, however, much less precisely expressed and are readily overwhelmed by cognitive influences.

You can see that morality behaves much like communication and cognition - dim but important reflections of the underlying important spiritual love relationship. The intrinsic biases of morality must also be deliberately designed by God as they are natural consequences of deliberately designed cognitive biases. And just like we don't need to properly cognitively understand the God we love, we also don't need to legalistically and un-critically 'submit' to any particular legislation from God in order for the love to be real - but we DO need to engage in the process of submission. 

Evil 'Gaps' in the Relationship

I've talked a lot about what a relationship intuitively means to us, and about how our modernistic mindset can cause us to wrongly perceive many 'normal healthy' aspects as imperfections. But we all know that there ARE real cognitive deviations and gaps in our relationship with God, things that should not be considered healthy. And often it can sure seem as if its the 'healthy aspects' of normal relationships that become the culprits. Using our example of progressive revelation, it is often the intrinsic bias in communication and cognition that leads to problems in our relationship with God - and yet we've discussed them as natural and healthy, and something God has deliberately designed. What is it that makes some 'imperfections' normal and healthy, and others problematic? What is God's purpose behind allowing 'gaps' in the experience of Him through relationship, when He knows they will often cause problems? If modernism is wrong and many gaps are actually healthy and good, can we find another way to talk about the reality of bad gaps, ones that are real deviations from God's ideal relationship?

I think we can :) Lets start with some definitions - these are entirely my own definitions, which I think are supported by Scripture, but they're open to debate in the comment section! 'Good' and 'Evil' are terms which describe the quality of the experience of God through relationship. God is intrinsically 'good', and everything else is 'good' to the degree that it brings about the experience of God. 'Evil' is any lack of 'good' i.e. any gaps in the experience of God's goodness. This makes sense from a more Jewish perspective as well, where 'good' and 'evil' refer to something close to 'function' and 'dysfunction'. If God's fundamental aim is for us to experience Him in a relationship of love, anything which fulfils this function (i.e. our experience of God's character through His expression) is 'good', while anything that does NOT fulfil this function is 'evil'. Evil is intimately linked to sin, because sin harms our experience of God through relationship. Because these things are tied to relationship, you can see that 'good' does NOT refer to an attainable 'full' end outcome, but rather to an ideal uninhibited experience of a process (the ongoing relationship). Even from an eternal perspective, the 'good' all things work toward is an ideal ongoing relationship with God. Likewise 'evil' refers to the inability to have this ideal uninhibited experience of the process of relationship.

Note that both of these terms are dependent on your perspective. From an eternal perspective, we know that ALL things work together for 'good' i.e. are functioning (ultimately) to enhance our experience of God through relationship, even if it is 'evil' from a temporal perspective. And this makes sense, since ultimately all things are in some way an expression of God and Christ, even if you think He is merely 'permitting' their existence. God says that He Himself performs 'evil', where the experience of God in relationship is clouded or confused in a temporal sense - and yet he also says that all His actions are 'good' in an eternal sense. Also, both of these definitions are dependent on our interpreted experience of God from various perspectives, NOT on how well God is actually expressing Himself (I'm sure He is never actually limited in the expression of Himself, even temporally). This is why some 'normal' aspects to relationships, like incomplete cognitive understandings and varied and incomplete expressions of God, can be perceived as 'evil' when occurring in specific contexts. Its not these healthy normal aspects that are the culprit per-se, but the entire context has led to an impaired experience of God, which means the whole situation can rightly be called 'evil'. I believe 'evil' will not exist in heaven, but this is not because I think relationships will fundamentally change - I still think God will express Himself in varied and incomplete ways, and that our cognitive understanding of God will be incomplete and growing. Evil ceases to exist in heaven, because God will express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will experience clearly (in a temporal sense). In this life, 'evil' exists because God chooses to express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will NOT interpret clearly, even though they ultimately work toward enhanced experience of relationship.

Scriptural 'gaps'

Its obvious at this point that Progressive Revelation ties into our discussion of 'evil'. From many perspectives it enhances our relational experience of God, and is clearly 'good'. But from some perspectives progressive revelation can also be called 'evil'. You've probably felt this already yourself, when considering the implication that God has deliberately introduced bias into our cognitive understanding AND into our morality . As I've discussed earlier, much cognitive bias is a normal part of healthy relationships, but in some contexts it can also function as an 'inhibition' of our experience of God through relationship, especially when we can sense the spirit-wrought ache in our hearts for a more accurate cognitive understanding. It is thus sometimes a temporal 'evil' designed by God as part of the 'good' of progressive revelation. The 'good' of progressive revelation becomes more obvious as the revelation accumulates to produce a more accurate picture, and as we learn things from God that would not make as much relational sense if not for the previous 'unbalanced' cognition, and as we realise the limited role cognition and communication can play in relationship anyway. We should experience these unbalanced views of God as part of the ongoing expression of our relational God - simultaneously acknowledging the 'evil' this can encourage / allow from our temporal perspective AND the 'good' from other perspectives.

Summary

Reality is not as idealistic as I've been suggesting in the series so far. 'Evil' refers to NON-healthy gaps in our experience of God through relationship. But its not a simple division between gaps which are 'evil', and gaps which are normal and 'good' (i.e. the nature of relationships and cognition and morality). These descriptions depend on your perspective, and since there are usually multiple appropriate perspectives, there is usually a mix of recognising 'good' and 'evil' in these gaps. And some apparently 'evil' aspects may in other contexts be considered normal and 'good' aspects to healthy relationships, and continue to exist in some form in heaven. Importantly, all forms of 'evil' are ultimately 'good' and serve to enhance our ultimate experience of God, because permitting their existence is still itself an expression of God, and He is ultimately good (which is why He works all things work together for good). Progressive revelation demonstrates this nicely, as this variously biased revelation - with all its 'problems' - is still 'God-breathed' and good and trustworthy as part of the expression of His character. 

Do you agree that morality should be relationship-based, and thus more flexible / pragmatic than mere legislation? 

Do you agree with my relational-experiential definition of 'evil' and 'good'? 

What do you think of the assertion that 'evil' is ultimately good (from an eternal perspective), and an expression of God? 

Would life or Scriptural interpretation be easier / better if things could be definitively  divided into 'good' and 'evil' categories, instead of being both from different perspectives?

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll explore how relationships deal with the 'evil' gaps we've just discussed - through 'faith'. This will open up some more possibilities to discuss, regarding what God is doing by deliberately creating / allowing these gaps (especially those we find in Scripture).  
• After that, I will have (almost) finished my defence of the bias God has created within Scripture :) And I can work toward positively addressing how God wants us to approach His Scriptures, given its divine inspiration, purpose, and 'gaps' / biases. 
• Then we'll  explore this in more detail over some of the phases of progressive revelation. 
• And then onto the practical implications of a  proper vs improper approach to Scripture.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil (this post)
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems – Part 3

In Search of a Coherent Narrative 

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems 

Part 4: Calvinism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems 

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Introduction

Previously I discussed how the concept of man’s Freewill does not hold a monopoly on scripture. I also discussed how foreknowledge seems to fail to explain how God’s predestination is a response to man’s Freewill choice of Him. This additional discussion looks more closely at the very concept of Freewill, not so much from a scriptural perspective but from philosophical perspective. This post asks how Freewill is actually meant to work, and explores some potentially negative consequences that is associated with Freewill thought. I realise books could be written on these subjects, but here, I aim to at least provide an exploration of some ideas in order to provoke thought around these subjects.

Cause and Effect

Arminian thought regarding Freewill cannot be explained. I believe it cannot be explained because it does not provide an answer to the important concepts of cause and effect. Cause and effect is the direct relation between a cause and the effect that it brings. Let me explain using the scenario of salvation. If we choose God over absence from Him, cause and effect would ask “what caused us to choose or not to choose God?”. Freewill thought would state that WE chose to or not to. However, in reality I do not think that it is that simple. Observing nature provides us with an understanding of cause and effect within creation. Quite simply, we are to a great extent products of our environment. I was raised in a New Zealand European family who are strong Christians. Guess what happened to me? Yes, I took on largely their language, culture, values and even their faith. My upbringing dictated to a great degree who I would become. Others absorb their surroundings also, such as a person in an Arab state may likely grow up to be a Muslim. Proverbs strongly hints towards a similar conclusion where the impact that our surroundings can have on us, actually determines the path we walk. It states that when you “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” When observing reality, it seems to suggest that our context that we live in drastically dictates where we will grow up, how we will act, and what we will believe. Thus, I believe we can fairly ask, “What causes me or anyone else to accept God or not to accept Him?”

A Dichotomy

When observing the concept of cause and effect and its relation to Freewill, it leads to a dichotomy about the nature of our Freewill. Either our decisions have direct causes, or they have ‘random’ causes. In Arminianist thought, people must have ultimately (in the end) an EQUAL choice between salvation or absence from God. If it is not equal then it implies that our circumstances, our experiences, and our nature would be the deciding influences to tip the balance on what we ultimately decide. Some Arminianists say that our surroundings do have an influence, but that we still have a choice to override that influence. However, if something does influence me then it must definitely have an effect on me. Can I really be held responsible for responding to an influence that had an effect on me, especially if that effect had no opposing influence to pull me in the other direction? If it were really true that we had a free choice to choose against influences, then reality would reflect that. As demonstrated earlier and clearly seen in reality, influences heavily determine the outcome of individuals in society - the way we think, the god (or lack of) we believe in, and even the prevalence of generational or societal sin! If we deny that influences determine outcomes then we must look at the alternative, which would mean something even more drastically unsettling. If we have a perfectly equal choice with no influencing factors, then what is it within us that makes any particular choice? What would cause me to choose to be saved, but the person across the road to choose not to be? I cannot say that it is because I wanted to be saved more, because that would be a predisposition of mine, or created by an outside influence. The only other disturbing option is that the decision would be completely random. If the decision is completely random, then there is no basis to discuss the importance of making any choices whatsoever. So any particular decision either has a cause (or a largely determining factor) or is completely random.

In my opinion, according to cause and effect, God ultimately created my circumstances, and He created my predisposition. I do not see any way that our Freewill can fit into this picture. I will speak more on the implications of this in my final post.

The same problems with the concept of Freewill can be applied to God. If God had choices before Him and randomly chose one, He would be an inconsistent and untrustworthy God. He definitely would not be the same yesterday, today and forever as it claims in the scriptures (Hebrews 13:8). In scripture, if God does something, it seems to always be for a reason, and that reason does not seem to be random. Either He makes random decisions (Which isn't Biblical or logical) OR He has some predisposition inherent in Him that causes Him to decide one way or the other. God would not be the God of the Bible if something existed outside of Him (Randomness or other) that would largely determine Him to do one action or another. Therefore, He must have a fixed nature that determines His actions.

Dangers of Freewill Thought

The concept of Freewill also creates other concerns when relating to people and creating discourses about society. The concern is that Freewill may cause us to lack compassion for those who reflect their external environment. I realise that we do have individuals natures that can cause each of us to act differently in different situations, however when looking at reality there is a strong correlation between our circumstances and the type of people we become. Freewill thought, on the other hand, limits the degree to which our external environments can be looked at as a potential cause. For example, if a child is born into a low income, abusive family with no work ethics etc, how would he be judged in Freewill thought if that child grew up to become just like his or her parents? The child would be seen as choosing ‘Freely’ his lifestyle, and therefore judged with limited compassion. With a true commitment to Freewill, I believe it is not possible to have full compassion on that grown-child’s disposition while being consistent with Freewill thought. Under Freewill thought, instead of compassion or understanding, the tendency can be to focus on, treat and judge a person on the symptoms of their behaviour, rather than addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour.

Unless we acknowledge the power that external circumstances have over our choices, it not only extremely limits our ability to have compassion on people, but it restricts the belief in the power to assist change. I believe that as one can take on the characteristics of their environment, so we can create new environments where there is hope for change. However, this is not as possible in Freewill thought. We would be merely wishing that people would change their “free” mind from each moment to the next. In fact, what good have we done if we have merely for the moment convinced someone to “freely” choose God? No real change has been done in their life because they then may freely choose to reject Him at any given moment. Believing that influences truly can have an effect provides a more positive outlook to changing the characters of people towards becoming more Christ-like.

Heaven? 

What happens in heaven - do we have Freewill to choose God or not to choose Him? If we do not have Freewill in heaven, then we are back to being mere ‘robots’, which Arminianism appears to characteristically oppose like a vampire to garlic. Some Arminians say that the glory of God will be so great that we will not want anything other than God. However, all that is saying is that we have a predisposition to enjoy the glory of God rather than having a “real” choice – thus taking our Freewill away.

Death of Innocents

One last thought about Freewill, is that of the death of the unborn or young child. If the way to God is only generated by a Freewill cognitive choice on our part, then this makes it nigh impossible for children to cognitively choose salvation. One could say that children either automatically go to heaven or hell, but these conclusions take away the purpose of “choice”/Freewill in the first place. Arminian thought would normally state that it is impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal; therefore, children going to heaven would mean a reneging of this value. Unless of course they believe in another age or realm after death, by which children can have a choice, which most Arminians probably deny. Maybe children just die and no longer exist for eternity? Who knows, but the Arminian narrative does not provide answers consistent with their narrative on this point.

Man’s Freewill does not Absolve God’s Responsibility for the Existence of Sin

On a brief note: Freewill does not get God off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for the existence of evil (as I briefly mentioned in the previous post). Some people in defence of a Freewill state within humankind say that because people can ‘freely’ choose to commit evil, any evil that happens in the world is because of humankind. However, I believe that I can demonstrate that God has at least some responsibility for evil in this world. For example, if I were to throw someone into a pool of sharks and then hope the sharks would overlook that person, and that person then gets eaten, I would consider myself responsible for that outcome. God is involved in equivalent situations that actually happen in reality. He lets children be born into likely to be or currently abusive environments. Thus, the motive to believe in Freewill as a means to absolve God of ‘guilt’ is put into question.

Final Remarks

Many Arminians accept paradox when it comes to our Freewill coinciding with God as our Creator. This is a noble act. Many things cannot yet be explained, but if we want to explain how our relationship with God works, then these topics need to be addressed. Arminians do mean well. I do not think that all Arminians believe in Freewill in order to belittle God’s sovereignty per se, but instead aim to take the responsibility of sin onto our shoulders. Another up for Arminianism is that it clings to much of scripture, by enabling the potential for all people to be saved - something which Calvinism denies, as we shall see in the next post. However, when looked at closely, Arminianism is grossly unexplained, and can have the potential to oppress those who reflect their environments.

Next post we look at Calvinism and the issues that it has as a scriptural narrative.

Calvinism's Scriptural and Philosophical Problems Part 4

Mental Illness

I have an interest in mental illness and how it relates to God, free will / sovereignty, biological disease, sin, and the 'normal' experience of life.

These posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) by Brad Hambrick are very insightful! All he writes is a list of questions that get you thinking.

I like the following questions in particular. Any thoughts from people?

1. In the modern psychological proverb, “The genes load the gun, and the environment pulls the trigger,” where is the person? Why do we think of genetic influences as if they negate the role of the will or personal choice? Substance abuse can have a clear genetic predisposition, but every addiction program – even those most committed to a disease model – appeal to the will as a key component to sobriety.
2. Can we have a “weak” brain—one given to problematic emotions or difficulty discerning reality—and a “strong” soul—one with a deep and genuine love for God? If we say “yes” to this question in areas like intelligence (e.g., low IQ and strong faith), would there be any reason to say “no” about those things described as mental illness?
3. How much should we expect conversion and normal sanctification (spiritual maturity) to impact mental illness? Outside of medical interventions, most secular treatments for mental illness focus on healthy-thinking, healthy-choices, and healthy-relationships; so how much should Christians expect sound-doctrine, righteous-living, and biblical-community to impact their struggle with mental illness?
4. Would we want to eradicate all anxiety and depression if we were medically capable of doing so? What would we lose, that was good about life and relationships, if these unpleasant emotions were eradicated from human experience? Would that be heaven-on-earth or have unintended consequences that are greater than our current dilemma?
5. Can we have a collective disease? Is mental illness always personal or can it be cultural? Cultural changes necessarily add to or detract from the kind of stresses that influence mental illness. How should we understand this influence and when might an “epidemic” require a collective solution as much as personal choices?
6. Are we trying to medically create an idyllic sanguine personality? Is “normal” becoming too emotionally narrow? If not in the medical establishment, then are societal norms pushing people in this direction and the service-oriented medical profession trying to accommodate its well-intended, but misguided clientele?
7. How do we best assess when the relief of medication would decrease the motivation to change versus when that same relief would increase the possibility of change? Pain can both motivate and overwhelm; is this simply about personal thresholds or should mental anguish be evaluated by a different set of criteria?

HUMAN NATURE

Post number 4 (following 'God's nature - obscured'):

I haven’t written a post in this series for a while. In the meantime I’ve been having some great discussions on two relevant topics - which I’ll quickly mention here. At some point I may modify my earlier posts to reflect these subtle changes in my thoughts :)

Firstly I’ve been challenged to recognise the value and limitations of both modernism and post-modernism. The value of modernism is in its drive to know everything, including the details of reality. But it is limited by pride and an excessive focus on ‘reductionism’. The value of post-modernism is in recognising the flaws of modernism, becoming aware of the integral nature of bias and worldview and subjectivity in ‘knowledge’, and becoming aware of system synthesis knowledge (above and beyond reductionistic knowledge). But it is limited by its rejection of absolute truth and inability to challenge the bias it recognises to change. One day I will write a proper article on this, but until then I hope my posts reflect a balanced approach to knowledge pursuit :)

Secondly I’ve been researching the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’, and I’ve recognised the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’ is not so much about a ‘non-physical’ aspect to reality (they definitely did NOT believe this was true!), but IS more about an ‘eternal’ aspect to reality. Referring to ‘spirits’ is not really defining what they are, but it is defining their nature and function - i.e. eternal. Exactly how our souls are eternal is up for debate - maybe there IS a separate ‘thing’ called a spirit, but that is definitely not clear in Scripture.

With that in mind, lets talk a little about human nature, in preparation for discussing how God’s nature interacts with ours. This post (along with the next) will be unashamedly deterministic ;) I'll deal with the issue of human responsibility in post number 6. 

Remember I'm very keen for your input (and disagreements)!

Human Nature

Humans are created uniquely in the image of God, a pinnacle in the creative expression of His character. 

This means we are conscious ‘spirits’, but are created primarily to interact with the temporal fleshly realm. Our souls are thus dualistic in nature - having both spiritual and fleshly aspects and purposes.

Being spiritual means two things. Firstly, we have the potential for spiritual senses - altering our perceptions of reality/pleasure, moulding our character, giving spiritual aspects to our wills/desires/emotions, etc.

Secondly, even when our body dies, we are eternal, meaning our souls and characters are contiguous throughout life and death.

Total Depravity

Although God’s character is potentially perceivable spiritually, our fleshly perception is infinitely more influential on our characters than our spiritual perception. This is because we were created to experience and interact primarily with this realm.

Thus ANY evil in the fleshly realm inevitably results in a perception of evil which cannot be combated by mere human ‘spiritual’ perception of God’s goodness. This means that, if any evil exists in the fleshly realm, every single human is destined to fall.

Total Depravity states that all of humanity can ONLY fall and develop sinful characters (collectively known as the ‘sin nature’ of humanity) in the face of life with evil, and that faith is thus impossible. 

This was demonstrated by Adam’s Fall, but not CAUSED by Adam’s fall. The curse did not  involve forcing Adam’s offspring to have a different ‘fallen’ nature to what Adam originally had. It merely involved a further propagation of evil, which demonstrates we all have the same nature as Adam. This is why God can judge us ahead of time ‘in Adam’, because Adam was a true representative of us.

For humanity to sanctify and develop holiness and faith, God must do something - either supply full total fleshly saturation of His character (eliminates evil, and thus the possibility of faith in the face of evil), OR powerful spiritual perception of His character (beyond our spirit’s natural capabilities).

Limited Atonement

God requires the existence of evil (and thus human total depravity), and His justice subsequently demands that this evil and sin be dealt with (which is why all men are judged in Adam). 

God’s justice is itself a necessary expression of God’s love - possibly the most necessary aspect, because without it the very importance of God’s character to our pleasure is thrown into question. Since God is infinitely important to the universe, sin is infinitely terrible, and only an infinitely terrible display can demonstrate this. Infinite suffering of humanity, or finite suffering of an infinitely important person, is required. 

But His love not only desires justice, but ultimately for all mankind to delight in His goodness. How can these things be reconciled?

God Himself - the most infinitely important person in existence - came to demonstrate the seriousness of sin on our behalf, by suffering and dying - the atonement. 

The atonement allows God to forgo the removal and punishment of any evil/sin that He sees fit - and so demonstrate other aspects of His love - without compromising His justice. 

The atonement is as expansive as God can have it. We know God desires it for the whole world. It is offered to the whole world. It is sufficient for the whole world. And the whole world is required to accept and love it.

But the atonement is none-the-less ‘limited’ in that it only actually keeps a select few people from Hell. Since God can mould all characters as He sees fit, this must be a deliberate act on God’s part, known as election or predestination. 

Unconditional Election

The election has two huge implications. It means that God deliberately separates humanity into two groups, including a select group of specific people to be in Hell, AS PART of His entire aim in all that He does - His expression of Himself, in relation to other beings (I’ll discuss this more later). 

And if Hell is inescapable once there, it means that this expression is in fact targeted at a select group of specific people in heaven, and NOT at all of creation. 

How does this election work? Scriptures teach that God does not elect based on any intrinsic merit. It also teaches that EVERY aspect of our souls (including faith) has merit attached. 

Thus election cannot be based on foreknowledge of our existing/inevitable faith or sanctification. But it must be based on something, since God is far from random! 

God has chosen a particular collection of people to develop a particular set of characters, via particular processes, in relationship to the complexities of the rest of His creation (including other people) - SO THAT the end result is the greatest possible expression of Himself to as many people as possible.

Summary

1. Humans have a dual nature - spiritual, but focused primarily on the temporal fleshly world
2. This means that evil in the fleshly world inevitably leads to humanity falling - Total Depravity
3. We are judged in Adam because Adam is our perfect representative - we would have all behaved as Adam did
4. The atonement demonstrates God’s justice, freeing Him from demonstrating it in other ways (e.g. removing or punishing evil immediately)
5. The atonement is evidentially limited, which must be a deliberate decision on God’s behalf - meaning some are elected, others are not.
6. The election is unconditional, and yet our faith is ascribed merit in Scripture, meaning the election cannot be based on ‘foreknowledge’ of inevitable faith.
7. The election is not random, but is ultimately based on God's drive to use complex processes to maximise the display of His character to as many people as possible.

The Series

1. The Soul
2. God's nature
3. God's nature - obscured
4. Human nature (this post)
5. More to come...

GOD’S NATURE - OBSCURED

Next I want to discuss the apparent obscuring of God’s nature in reality, and God’s relation to this - his justice, and victory over/through evil. Much of this discussion will continue throughout the series, so this is just a simple introduction. Also Hell is notably absent from this discussion - I will address this later too.

Remember I’m really keen to hear philosophical or scriptural challenges, or even simple lack of clarity. Please comment :)

Sin & Evil

In contrast to holiness, divergence from God’s character is known as sin - this is not a description of specific acts, rather a state of character.

Anything which encourages development of sin character (called ‘falling’ or ‘hardening of heart’) is evil. This includes trials (perceived lack of expression of God’s character), and temptations (perceived alternative offers of pleasure). Sin always wills for evil to be expressed.

Since the best expression of God’s character is the ultimate result of all things God creates/allows, God only allows evil/sin to exist because they ultimately serve as part of that best expression. Thus evil is never truly/ultimately evil - it is only temporary. This also means that sinful characters will never find as full ultimate expression as holy characters, minimising possible pleasure.

Justice

God’s relational nature compels Him to express his character in a very particular way - by demonstrating how other relational beings do / should relate to Him and the rest of reality. This is known as God’s justice.

Part of his justice is demonstrating the natures of other relational beings. These are themselves part of the expression of God’s character (and so need demonstrating anyway), but particularly in a relational sense to uphold God’s justice. Also, no other being has foreknowledge like God, so without demonstrating some of these fundamental realities, they would never be known, and the expression of God’s character (and justice) would be reduced.

Part of His justice is treating His character as of infinite importance  - as the ultimate purpose AND good for all things. Evil and sin cannot merely be overlooked because they ultimately work for good - although that would still demonstrate God’s character in the end, it would fail to demonstrate the full importance of His character (especially in a relational sense).

Part of His justice is demonstrating a contrast between good any other possible experience (i.e. evil), and between holiness and sin. This includes describing and demonstrating the differential outcomes of each character type - in terms of natural consequences, and punishment/reward (thus upholding the importance of His character). God’s justice ascribes merit to individual soul-states - to sin/holy characters, and to subsequent wills, desires, and emotions.

Necessity of Evil & Sin

God’s desire and ability to mould a variety of holy characters, coupled with the nature of soulishness, means that a variety of specific experiences in specific contexts are required to produce the necessary sanctification process. And some (? all) of these sanctification processes theoretically require directional switches (repentance - rather than simple unidirectional sanctification).

In addition to this, conscious faith toward God’s own character is necessary to God’s plan. It demonstrates the depth of God’s grace more clearly than faith-less ‘sanctification’, because it is focussed on Him, and allows more pleasure (in Him). 

But those attitudes of faith only have any real substance WHEN they exist in the face of imperfect realisation or experience. In other words, only if a semblance of holiness persists in the face of some experience of evil. Ultimately, faith requires a mix of good and evil, where the perception of good slightly outweighs the perception of evil (possibly involving prior learning and spiritual senses).

We can see from these things that there is a good argument to be made for the necessity of evil, FOR the best expression of God’s character, despite the fact that (by definition) it temporarily obscures at least some aspects of that very character.

The variety of sanctification processes God requires need the existence of evil/sin. Faith needs evil/sin. Demonstrating the contrast between His character and otherwise, requires the existence of evil/sin. 

And finally - both of which are discussed later - Demonstrating humanity’s nature of Total Depravity requires evil/sin, and the existence of Hell (also necessary for different reasons) requires evil/sin.

Note that the necessity of Evil/Sin for ultimate good, means that it is entirely possible for God to ordain and create sin and evil, without Himself being sinful, and without evil being the ultimate result.

Thus the context in which we live our lives - a mixture of God’s goodness (needed for any holiness to be possible, and the continued expression of God’s character) AND evil (needed as discussed above). God’s deliberate allowance of evil in the fleshly world is known as the curse, and it includes human death.

God uses processes

We can also make an observation about God’s methods. He does not instantaneously create what He desires, but uses processes. 

This is partly because He desires some of the actual processes themselves (as they display aspects of His character better, or demonstrate aspects of creation which need to be displayed).

It is also partly because He is constrained to use them by other desires - i.e. the complexity of creation, the nature of our souls, the necessity of temporary evil (i.e. must progress from the stage of its existence to the stage of its removal).

Conclusion

1. Evil (trials and temptations) is any lack of expression of God’s character, which encourages the development of sinful characters (divergence from God’s character).
2. Evil is something God continues to allow in creation, meaning it MUST somehow be part of the best expression of His character. Thus evil never exists in an ultimate sense (only temporarily).
3. God’s justice compels Him to demonstrate the natures of all beings, and the contrast and natural consequences of evil/good and holiness/sin.
4. God’s justice compels Him to treat His character as of infinite importance, meaning he cannot overlook them (even though they work for good in the end), and meaning He ascribes merit (for reward/punishment) to various soul states.
5. Evil is necessary for the variety of sanctification processes, for faith, and for aspects of God’s justice.
6. Since Evil is ultimately ‘good’, God can ordain it without being sinful, and without evil having even the slightest victory in the end.
7. God uses processes rather than instantaneous power - partly because the processes themselves display His character best, partly because of the complexity of creation and the nature of souls, and partly because of the need for temporary evil.

The Series

1. THE SOUL
2. GOD'S NATURE
3. GOD'S NATURE - OBSCURED (this post)
4. HUMAN NATURE
5. More to come...

What did God mean by calling His creation "good"?

Lately I have been pondering about the meaning of "good" when God said that what He had made was "good" in Genesis chapter 1. In the past we have discussed in Bible studies that the definition of good and evil in Hebrew is often thought of in a concept of function and dysfunction (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html).

Lamentations 3:38 talks about how God issues good and evil or in other words "function" and "dysfunction". This view of good and evil gives a new picture. It is not that God is morally "evil" in His actions but in order to bring about full functionality in creation sometimes dysfunction is necessary. At this point in time I think about God flooding the earth in Noah's day - it was an act of dysfunction. It was not ultimately God's intended end or ultimate outcome to cause death, but it was necessary to do in order to reach His intended and ultimate outcome for His creation (justice and salvation).

Coming back to the title of this post, I have been wrestling with God's definition of "good". How can something that is "good" become evil? If it is good or functional, then where is there room for it becoming bad or dysfunctional? If something is good would it not be completely resilient to evil? These questions came from an understanding that when God made everything good, it meant that it was perfect in a present complete sense.

But these questions have brought me to a new understanding of what is "good" in His sight. I believe that "good" to God is like a painting that He has begun and delights in the intended outcome or conclusion. When God created the world I don't think that He was surprised that mankind fell. I don't think that Christ was plan B. He was before the foundation of the world and was intended for sacrifice and salvation from the foundation of the world (John 1, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20). The gift of Christ and therefore the fall of man is plan A.

So if Christ was God's intended outcome, in order to reconcile man to Himself, then Adam and Eve in their "perfect" state were not perfect at all in God's eyes in a complete finished sense. It is interesting to note that Paul said that Adam was of the dust and Christ is of heaven; first comes the natural and then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). Adam was not complete without Christ, even before Adam "fell".

So why did God intend or allow dysfunction (the fall) in His overall "good" functional picture? I wonder whether in order for mankind to experience the fullness of love, grace and sacrifice, then a negative or dysfunction is necessary. In order to know the difference between functional (God's best intended complete outcome) and dysfunctional then we as mankind need to experience both. Thus the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil" is necessary in order to appreciate what is truly functional. Adam was of the dust, and before the fall he was not yet aware of dysfunction, nor was he aware of the aspects of complete function. This complete function was the act and demonstration of love and sacrifice modelled by Christ. It is important to note that currently, mankind as a whole are able to experience aspects of function, such as love etc, alongside dysfunction. But mankind have not yet experienced God's full intended functional end-outcome, where dysfunction does not exist.

What is this end-outcome? To become like Christ Himself, valuing what He values. To die in order to have life more abundantly, and to experience dysfunction in order to become and appreciate complete functionality.

I will leave you with this verse from Romans 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory, which shall be revealed in us" - KJV (Some versions say "to" instead of "in", but I believe it means "in" or both).

Isn't it cool that the glory will be revealed "in" US?! God is moulding and developing us into His masterpiece and suffering is a part of it! (Romans 5:3-4)

Response to Homosexuality

http://weknowawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/homesexuality-sin.jpeg

YES

I know this is a sensitive and weighty issue. With all the humility, love, and sincerity I have (which I know is insufficient), I affirm that homosexuality is sinful, and government should not recognize ‘homosexual marriage’ in its legislation. I find this poster emotionally intimidating because we subconsciously feel that if we assent to the 'logical' conclusions, we must also assent to the emotion behind the poster.

I want to ensure people deal with the real issues in this whole debate – partly by dismantling the abundance of straw men in this poster, and partly by highlighting true conflict where it exists. My main hope (and prayer) is that the Holy Spirit will work with my words – not to be logical, but to address the emotion and spirit, so that people will see Christ’s glory as surprisingly beautiful.

This is a relatively quick post, so it will be full of words and I will have missed a lot of pertinent verses. By all means research it yourself! And comment/question at the end!

If you don’t want to read the whole thing, skip to point 7) and the conclusion :)

1) The Bible defines marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, for life.

This is easy to defend from Scripture (Gen 2:24, Mar 10:1-12), and the purposes God designed marriage for: the raising of Godly children (Mal 2:15), and the demonstration of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:21-32). Also nature, and the history and tradition of most of humanity for most of history, testify that this is a reasonable point of view.

Polygamy (and rape) are against God’s design for marriage (1Ti 3:2, 1Co 7:2, Deut 17:17). God commanded marriage in the instances of rape or female slaves/prisoners of war, to protect women in an environment of male leadership (which He knew sinful men would abuse). It was enforcing the natural/traditional order for the good of those involved.

2) Jesus uttered many words relevant to same-sex relationships.

Its not hard to figure out Jesus’ point of view on it. He taught God's view of marriage (Mat 19:5-6), how to apply the Old Testament today (Mat 5:17, Mat 12:8, Joh 4:23-24, Mat 23:23), the importance of humility and selflessness, and ultimately finding more purpose and pleasure in God than sex (or any other earthly pleasure – Luk 18:22, Mat 19:29).

Under these principles, even the following are sinful to God: lust (Mat 5:28), adultery/fornication, polygamy, selfishness in 'traditional/natural' marriage, idolizing your spouse higher than God and His purposes. He raised the standard so high that we all need his grace - even pious 'naturally/traditionally' married people.

3) There is clear guidance in the New Testament (especially from Jesus) on how to apply the OT views of homosexuality to our lives today.

The specifics laws in the OT fulfilled several functions: to keep Israel safe and separated from surrounding nations (God's mission has shifted - for now - to be global), to point toward Christ (Heb 10:1 – we now aim to reflect Christ more directly), and to teach the character of God (intended to direct us to God rather than being a rigid legalistic program). Even the less relevant of these purposes are useful to show us what God is like. And it is easy (especially with the help of the NT) to tell which functions the various laws served.

One aspect to God's character described in the OT is that He is very holy, and jealous about his holiness. He defines good, not us (1Pe 1:16, Psa 16:2, Jas 1:17, Mat 19:16-17). Anything which clouds or muddies or opposes that 'good', is by definition bad for us and God - evil. So there really are no 'grey' zones. Natural/traditional marriage is clearly described for multiple reasons as being 'good' (Pro 18:22, Pro 19:24, Gen 2:18, 1Co 7:9) – anything which confuses this (including homosexuality) is ‘evil’.

4) Its fairly obvious what Paul’s view of homosexuality was.

Paul deliberately focuses not on the lack of commitment in a relationship, but on a lack of adherence and submission to God's character (Rom 1).

The Biblical understanding of sexual complementariansm is extremely protective of women, and challenges husbands to be the most humble, gracious, serving, sensitive, protective men on the planet (Eph 5:25). Marriage is meant to demonstrate two roles - the role of Christ (in loving leadership) and the Church (in loving submission). Both are challenging, sacrificial, and rewarding to do as Christ intends – and easy to abuse or refuse.

5) There is, in fact, an undeniable natural order of things.

The world has not evolved beyond the need for God's purposes. Especially one He thought was important enough to ingrain in our very DNA – male and female design. The only time God overrules his general purposes, is when he calls some (few) people do it out of necessity (not want!) for the sake of focusing on other areas of God’s mission. That’s why God allows people to remain single (1Co 7:34-35).

The fact that some animals commit homosexuality does not make it any more natural. They are usually showing signs of mental disturbance, and are obviously aberrant. There is also a clear natural selection disadvantage. Nothing natural about it. Besides, even truly 'natural' behaviors (such as many male animals eating their young) are grotesque when applied to humans. When you consider humans without a clear gender (e.g. with chromosomal abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia), applying the term 'homosexual' to them is nonsensical anyway. I'm only discussing committed homosexual relationships, as opposed to traditional/natural marriage.

History teaches us that accepting homosexuality as a way of ‘moving forward’ and defining ‘civilized society’, is probably a bad idea. All civilizations in history, no matter how glorious, have fallen into pride and moral and financial strife just prior to their dramatic (often shameful) decline. The hallmark feature of such decline has always been an excessive and increasing focus on experimenting outside traditional/natural sexual behavior. The Bible also predicts this progression (Rom 1).

6) God is the most tolerant and loving being in the universe.

We all deserve punishment for our sins, but God is being patient and continues to show common grace to all, which is meant to draw us to repentance and trust in Him (Rom 2:4). Don't trample Him underfoot by defending the sin He died to save us from. If we fail to understand God’s ways in fullness, at least trust that He knows what’s best for us, others, and Himself. Ultimately you will only find lasting delight in the display of God’s character to you and through you.

7) The Bible does not deny homosexuals the ability to choose.

There is a difference between allowing, and condoning or defending. Government may not have the right to force morality (unless it is harming others) – we have a responsibility to let people choose. But we also have a responsibility to encourage the best (God’s character on display in traditional/natural marriage), and to NOT condone anything which muddies, confuses, or opposes this.

Legal backing cannot be given to a nonsensical entity. Marriage has a meaning – two men cannot be married to each other, just like two bachelors cannot be married to each other. Gays are welcome to marry - find one member of the opposite sex and commit yourself to them for life in love and faithfulness. There are several stories of people with continuing homosexual tendencies (some of which were at one point openly 'gay'), living well in a loving, Christ-honouring, natural/traditional marriage.

People can add legal backing to marriage if they like, but ultimately marriage is spiritual – God designed it from the beginning, and He defines, defends, and rejoices in it. The basis for opposing gays living sinfully together, is not that society or the legal system – or even Christians – think its sinful. Its that God thinks its sinful.

Finally, some notes about the emotion behind the poster.

Maybe some Christians are self-righteous, hateful, unsympathetic, and prideful. But the Bible encourages humility, grace, bearing eachother’s burdens, and respect. We are all sinners before God – we are all sexually broken in some way, and fail to delight in, pursue, or express the character of God as we ought (and need, for our satisfaction).

I don’t know where homosexual people come, what their experience of delight and struggle is, how they tick, or how broken they are. And I don’t pretend to. God alone knows that, and He cares. I just know my own struggles. But one thing I know – we will all only find true delight in God and His glory.

God alone knows ultimate outcomes, how characters will change, and what areas in life we will discover ourselves to be completely wrong about. He along has the ability to know what is ‘good’ for us. He made us so that we would find ultimate purpose and meaning and satisfaction and life and power, when we delight in the full display of His character to and through us. Marriage does this when performed God’s way – part of which means being traditional/natural.

Ultimately, homosexuality only matters because it is a sign of how we treasure Christ. To pridefully integrate homosexuality into your very identity, instead of agreeing with God about it, is evidence of (at best) a serious distraction from this, or (at worst) heartfelt prideful hatred toward Christ. Both of which condemn you like all sin outside of Christ, but both of which Christ can forgive and overcome if you will let Him!

I want God to enable Christians to come alongside homosexuals as fellow strugglers in the battle against sin and for our perfect delight in God’s glory. May we battle together with humility and love and uncompromising devotion to God.