G.A.M.E.

A lot of people struggle over what theologians call the "problem of evil." In fact, they offer solutions to such a problem - that God can be good, all powerful, and evil still somehow exist. These solutions are called theodicies.

William P. Young’s popular book The Shack, in fact, was an entertaining attempt at explaining why and how God might allow for evil to exist without compromising his power or goodness. With that said, I know that there are a lot of explanations, and honestly, I think that it’s a question that more Christians should struggle over. Providing pat answers for complex theological questions doesn’t do them justice.

I thought I’d share a few articles I’ve found on the problem of evil to help you struggle through the issue:

Wikipedia Definition of the "Problem of Evil"

In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem is most often discussed in the context of the personal god of the Abrahamic religions, but is also relevant to polytheistic traditions involving many gods. The problem of evil is one of the most powerful objections to traditional theism. Most theists respond that a perfect being may still allow some evil, asserting that it will enable certain greater goods, such as free will, which can not be achieved without allowing some evils.

Logical Problem of Evil by Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it.

Leibniz on the Problem of Evil

Without question, the problem of evil vexed Leibniz as much as any philosophical problem during his career… We will examine to two main species of the problem of evil which Leibniz addresses. The first, "the underachiver problem," is the one raised by the critic who argues that the evil in our world indicates that God cannot be as knowledgeable, powerful, or good, as traditional monotheists have claimed. The second, "the holiness problem," is one raised by a critic who argues that God’s intimate causal entanglements with the world make God the cause of evil. God is thereby implicated in the evil at the expense of his holiness.

Evil and Omnipotence by J.L. Mackie

The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been thoroughly criticised by the philosophers. But the the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.

Alvin Plantinga and the Free-Will Defense

Plantinga is known for his use of the "free will defense" to the logical problem of evil, particularly as expressed by J. L. Mackie. Plantinga’s makes a distinction between a defense and a theodicy. A theodicy tries to justify God’s permitting evil by explaining why God allows evil, whereas a defense tries to give a logically possible reason God could have for allowing evil. Plantinga’s defense does not claim that God permits evil for the sake of free will but that it is logically possible that he allows evil for the purpose of free will. That is, he does not attempt to show what God’s motives for tolerating evil actually are, but rather he merely wants to show that it is possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil.

Criticism of Plantinga’s Free-Will Defense

I saw through Plantinga’s initial assumptions regarding his "solution" to the problem of evil twenty years ago while reading Plantinga’s book that a Calvinist friend loaned me. I phoned Plantinga years later. He didn’t answer my question.

The Bible on the Problem of Evil by John M. Frame

Is there an answer to the problem of evil? Well, that depends on what you mean by "answer." What kind of "answer" are you willing to accept? If what you want is a total explanation of where evil came from, how it arose, how it achieves God’s good purposes, well, I cannot supply that. I don’t believe that this kind of answer is available to human beings, and I don’t believe that God is under any obligation to give us such an answer. But if what you want is encouragement, a motivation to go on trusting God despite unexplained evil, then I think I can help.

I saw this video on the Neue site the other day, and it really resonated with me. I didn’t know Bill Hybels had it in him to pose the question, "What wrecks you?"

In this video, Hybels poses the idea that things that we "can’t stand" may be our very callings in life: whether it be our dissatisfaction with the economy, our discomfort with local homelessness, or our contempt for the millions of aborted fetuses.

It may be that God is using our discontent to bring about redemptive change in the world, as a part of bringing his kingdom to earth. The above clip goes along with the theme of a new book Hybels just had published under Zondervan called Holy Discontent.

It’s worth asking yourself today: "What can’t you stand?"

What just absolutely wrecks you?

Maybe it’s time to stop avoiding it.

There are a lot of buzzwords floating around in the church these days. Maybe you’ve read a book or a blog with some of them. Here are a few that I’ve noticed: relevant, emerging, postmodern, emergent, resurgent, missional, orthoparadoxical, authentic, complementarian, reductionist, 9 ½-point Calvinist (okay, I made up that last one).

Am I the only one who is getting a little confused? I mean, I feel like they need to invent a new kind of dictionary for all of this stuff. Maybe there already is one. Regardless, I feel out of "the club."

This weekend, I heard Tony Campolo speak at the National Youthworkers Convention about the evolution of vocabulary used to describe Bible-believing Christ-followers in the twentieth century. In the early 1900s, the word was "fundamentalist" - a term that had no negative connotation and just meant that people believed in the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity (i.e. the Apostles’ Creed). Then, with the Billy Graham crusades in the 50s, the term became "evangelicals" - a term that emphasized the "born-again" aspect of the Christian religion.

Nowadays, both "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are words that carry certain political connotations that can be problematic. For instance, are evangelicals gay-hating, judgmental hypocrites, as the media portrays them, or are they forgiven sinners who have been transformed into saints by the love and grace of God? Depending on whom you ask, the answers may greatly vary. Campolo suggests a new term - "red-letter Christian" - to accentuate the importance of following Jesus in a Christian’s life.

It seems that we just keep adding new words to describe age-old ideas. Even the word "Christian" came about as the result of an evolution of terms: first, they were Jesus’ disciples, then they were "followers of the Way," and eventually, perhaps derisively, they were called "Christ-ones" or "Christians" (Acts 11). Is this just the result of the inevitable limitations of language - that we keep searching for a word or phrase to communicate a transcendent idea and do very little justice to it? Or, can we do better?

Certainly, there are a lot of Christian catchphrases out there. A list of Christian buzzwords I found online suggested that you know something’s a buzzword when Chuck Colson writes an article condemning it (hah!). Another blog I found on the subject criticized Christians for saying "fuzzy things" instead of what they really meant. Certainly, this is cause for some concern, at least for those of us who may not realize that outside of our subculture words that are meant to bring hope to the hurting may completely miss the mark. Yet another blogger suggests that we purge our vocabularies entirely of buzzwords that hurt more than they help. I like that idea, but I’m not sure what words would stay and which ones would go.

While I’m glad that people are conversing about their faith and trying to go deeper by using words like "metanarrative," it does leave me with some questions:

• Are we over-intellectualizing our faith and using new buzzwords to create a hierarchy of religiosity that divides the Body of Christ more than it unites (i.e. "I follow Paul" vs. "I follow Apollos")?
• Is Christian vocabulary (especially if it doesn’t come directly from the Bible) a hurdle for people who are interested in Jesus? Are some people’s criticisms of "Christianese" valid?
• Should I be anything, except Jesus with skin on? Or is that just being simplistic?

I guess that I just long for a faith that is as simple as it is profound. If nothing else, our awareness of how our religious vocabulary affects others could greatly influence how we communicate hope, love, and faith within the church and to those outside of it.

What buzzwords have you heard dropped lately? How do they make you feel?

Evangelical Christians claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet how many actually do have a relationship with him that is personal? Relationships involve give and take, mutual interaction and dialogue. Marriages that lack this grow stale. If I relate to my wife by giving her a daily list of things to do or by telling her about my thoughts and never ask her what her thoughts or feelings are, then our relationship becomes impersonal. I will know little about her. She will not know that I care about her. To have a personal relationship with my wife, I must listen to her as well as speak.

Our relationship with God should work the same way. Jeremiah 33:3 says, ‘Call to me and I will answer you.’ (emphasis added). God wants us to give him our praises, our struggles, and our questions. And in return he also wants to give to us counsel, encouragement, and consolation. This interaction becomes the fabric of our relationship. The more frequent and honest our give-and-take with Jesus, the more personal it becomes.

This is understandably uncomfortable. God may be personal, but he is also different from us in some critical ways. He is invisible. He is transcendent; that is, he is far above our understanding. He is all-powerful. He is completely holy.

So, while we may look for give and take in our relationship with Jesus, oftentimes the main thing we hear is silence. It is no wonder Christians struggle to make their relationship with him a truly personal one. Silence in conversation usually feels awkward.

While it’s true that God tells us over and over in his word to seek him and to love him, we must suspend our expectations of how he will respond to us. As we seek to know God personally, we must not lose sight of his transcendence.

Jesus wants us not to just know about him, but to actually have a deep, personal relationship with him - to know him and to be known by him. John 17: 3 says, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." If you look at the Greek origin of the word translated "knowing," it refers to the most intimate of relationships. He wants our relationship with him to be a deep and intimate.

• Forgive someone you haven’t been able to forgive (and then tell them about it).
• Confess the sin you’ve been hiding.
• Make a phone call to someone who would never expect to hear from you.
• Apologize and say, "I’m sorry."
• Invite a friend to church.
• Come back to God.
• Give something away to someone who has a need.
• Tell someone about God.
• Something else?

Place your fears in the strong arms of your Heavenly Father, and then trust Him enough to jump without reservation. When you’re not willing to jump, you miss out on the spiritual ride of your life… your eyes big as saucers and screaming at the top of your lungs, "THAT WAS GREAT … LET’S DO THAT AGAIN!"

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" ~ Proverbs 3:5