A couple of years ago I got into an argument with some dear friends over the soverignty of God is suffering. They did not share my calvinistic veiw of the world so it quickly began to look like a show down. Fortunatly this friendship has always been fraught with mutual respect and humility. At one point I pointed to the man born blind in John chapter 9. The disciples ask if it was this man or his parents that had sinned, and if that sin brought on the blindness.
Jesus response was that neither was the case, but the man was born blind that God's glory could be revealed in him. When I brought up this verse I was accused of proof texting an accusation I take quite seriously as I never want to be seen as mishandling the word of God, (which I see as inerent and inspired and all the other crazy things fundamentalists say about the Bible). Here is why I think the accusation was erroneous bordering on an error of philisophical categories:
First off I am still reminded that we are exploring the book of John, the one about the self revealing God (the word became flesh and moved in the neiborhood [John 1:14 the message]). What John is telling us about is what God is like when he is self describibed by being present in The Lord Jesus Christ, this is not a book about the authors perceptions that need far more in the way of decoding than any other sort of biographical work. I say that to counter the argument that John is simply responding to the needs of his local spiritual community. He is the method of Gods revelation to the church.
What kind of God is revealed? He is a God that turns thinking on its head even if it would be seen as unpopular. Jesus says in essence that the man born blind is blind not because of guilt or innocents. That is not the purpose of the created order. God is a the judge of the world but the Gospel of John is not a long episode of Judge Judy with God on the bench. The created order including this blind man is meant to point ot God that we may call him glorious. "And the Word became flesh and moved into the neighborhood. We have seen his Glory like that of the Father to the son." (rough paraphrase from the message mixed with NIV all from memory so who knows if that is the exact wording).
"Andrew," my friends object, " you take this to mean that all human suffering is ordained by God? Are you an unfeeling turd?" Okay friends dont ask the second part they might imply it. I will say that at the very least some suffering is ordained by God. He is pleased to crush his son Isaiah tells us. He allows for the sacking of Jerusalem by Babylon even though the conquor of the city would have been horrible if you read about ancient warfare. He raises up Pharoh to display his might is destroying that same Pharoh. He causes a man to be born blind so that this encounter can take place.
Our Lord suffered, and it was the moment his love was most gloriously displayed. I may be wrong in the premise that all human suffering is ordained by God but to say that none was is equally hard to prove. As for the members of the church and thier suffering, we should seek it. We should set aside comfort to go and make his name known. We should desire to follow His suffering as his call is always a call to our death (I am guessing Bonhoeffer is correct in this assesment).
As for those who disagree, what will be the meaning of your suffereing? Proof that God does not exsist and is there for even more meaningless? Proof that God is non-interventionist akin to the man who lets his neighbors house burn to prove a point about his respect for human freedom? I am not saying that his authorship of suffereing helps us sleep better at night, I am only submiting that his allowing it out of defernce to human freedom is no more morally exusable than anyother explination.
In the mean time I gladly bow in worship of this self revealing author of all things, uncaused cause who cares for man and crys along with him. Sola Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment