Boyd, Prayer, and God's Will

I was visiting with a dear, sweet lady from our church who has been dealing with cancer for many years. Recently she underwent a very drastic surgical procedure in an attempt to remove the cancer from her body. She has been recovering for weeks but is still in a nursing home. The surgery caused a minor stroke, she lost use of one of her arms, a leg, as well as a portion of her personal dignity. For what it's worth, I think she's been wishing that she had not done the surgery at all.

On one of my first visits to her since she was transferred form the hospital to a nurshing home, she looked up at me and asked me, "Jason, you don't think God did this to me, do you?" Wow, what an interesting question. How to answer?

Well, I have to admit the answer wasn't difficult for me at all. I have a lot of thoughts on this, and a very strong opinion. At the nursing home that day was not the place for a passionate theological treatise, I knew my answer needed to provide comfort and help. So I told her, "No, God did not do this to you. But the wonderful thing is, he is experiencing it with you and loving you. He knows what it is to endure pain and indignity." Of course, God did NOT do this to her. To my mind, the answer is simply that God has created an open system in which free choice can happen, has happened, and has introduced evil and suffering into the system. From there, bad things happen because people choose to do them and because nature responds according to its programming, which allows for random evils like sickness and tragedy. There are coincidences! God is working within that system, but not in any way which overrides human free will. God does not have a specific reason for allowing suffering or causing it--instead he accepts it as a part of the situation and works within those events to bring good out of them. The ultimate answer, of course, is that he deals with the situation of our pain and suffering by enduring it--on the cross.

Let me try another explanation. In a system in which people are free to make decisions, if person a and person b both desire to be in one place at one time, without knowing the other is there or wants that, there will likely be an accident. This does not mean that God decided for there to be an accident, but that those people, coincidentally, decided to be there. Think about it. In a system in which there are billions of free agents and a natural system in which natural things operate according to programming among those free agents, why must accidents and problems be attributed to divine will? Existence really a chaos of sorts. So is it surprising that things happen which are good and things happen which are bad?

This makes it impossible to know with certainty that God has acted in a certain situation. I heard a guy on a Christian radio station the other day telling a story about a man who sold his home--shortly before the land was taken over by the government. The preacher insisted that this was a proof of God's involvement, that God's plan was working out for this person. Perhaps! I have to admit it could be the case. But must it necessarily be? Not to mention the fact that in saving this man from the problem, God subjected another to it. What about the fact that in a system in which sometimes people buy, sometimes people sell, and sometimes the government takes over land--in a large system in which these things happen all over the place on a daily basis--is it really so hard to believe that it might be a coincidence that the man sold his house shortly before the government took it over (and another bought his house shortly before the government took it over--the same house)? There simply MUST be a capacity for coincidence in an open system. There CANNOT be freedom if there are NO ACCIDENTS.

But I have to admit also that I don't think a lot of the people I know would have been able to answer it the same way I did. Good Arminian theologians, raised and educated in Arminian tradition have prescribed to the position which says that everything which happens has a specific pre-ordained purpose in the plan of God. They say that either God "allowed" it for a purpose or "caused" it for a purpose. Both of these, I think, are biblically and intellectually unintelligible. How do you tell someone that God's plan and intention was for them to suffer in this way to bring about some good? Why do you tell them that? What is the purpose?

I know I mention him a lot, but it always amazes me how often I listen to or read Greg Boyd and discover our similarity on an issue. He has been preaching on the Lord's Prayer in Luke and has done three sermons (as of the writing of this post only two have been podcasted, but I assume the third will be available this week). They are available on the Woodland Hills Church podcast (follow the link on the left under Theo's Podcast Picks). The first message, "The Insane Importance of Prayer," introduces the ideas. But it is "Scorpions, Eggs, and Prayer" which really begins to get at the heart of this issue.

He asks, "Why is it that Jesus promises that if someone asks for an egg the Father will not give them a scorpion but that sometimes it looks exactly that way?" Sometimes bad things happen to us even when we pray that they do not. He examines two classic answers in that message. The first is that it was God's will for us to endure the problem. The second is that our faith was insufficient. In Greg's words: "The first is God's fault, the second is our fault." Both of these answers he finds insufficient.

Boyd's answer is that both of these answers are too simplistic. They attribute all causes of effects to only one variable. In the first case, that everything which happens is the will of God, the only variable is God's will. This means that there is no freedom and the system is closed. This is Calvinism at its worst--but it is still the answer of choice even for many of my Arminian friends. In the second case, that everything which happens is dependent on my faith, the only variable is FAITH.

Here is a great example he uses. Say that a parent prays that his child, who has grown to adulthood and left the faith, is saved--or comes to the Lord. Say, then, that the child never does. He rejects God his entire life and finally dies in a cruel accident. The parent had prayed for years, but now there is tragedy. Why did God say "No?"

The one influenced by Calvinism will say that either we can't understand it, or there are things we don't see, or we must simply trust God. His ways are not our ways. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

But is this the only answer? Why not answer that in an open system it isn't only God's will that decides what is to pass? God has created a system in which the child could always choose which way he could go. As much as God may work on an issue, it may be that his will was thwarted by the free decision of the child.

The bottom line is that in an open system, God's will is not always the one that comes to pass. It can't always be. Sometimes what God wants to happen DOESN'T happen! People often say to me, "If God wants it to happen, it will happen." Well, sin happens, did God want that to happen? If someone sins, does that mean God wanted it to happen? If someone rapes someone, does God want THAT to happen? I think not. God's will is not the only variable. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of events makes knowledge of why any event happens absolutely impossible.

Now, I know this smacks of a theodicy. And maybe it is. And, in strictly theological circles I would affirm that theodicy-making is not always an appropriate endeavor. Yet, on a practical level, when Christians endure these things, the questions cannot be avoided. There must be an answer which arises from scripture to comfort people in the face of their suffering. To my mind it is the suffering Savior. To many Christians, it is the ultimate plan of God. To others, it is the absence or presence of faith among the believers. If this post is a theodicy, so be it. But I think it is the only TRUE theodicy. The other answers are speculation and defense. I am appealing to the cross, not to a speculation about "God's ultimate plan!"

I highly, HIGHLY, recommend Boyd's recent sermons on prayer. Go download them today.

A Boydian Response to the Bridge Tragedy

In several of my posts, I've discussed the topic of God's will and attempts to: interpret how events fit in God's will, discern what God's will is, and explain why God allows bad events to occur. I have taken the position of an open universe, meaning that God simply created a system in which people (and angels) can choose wrong and events like this can happen. This system means that sometimes tragedies will occur, disease will attack, and accidents will happen. It means God has created a system in which the agents of that system have some control over what happens. It also means that God does not control every event, but interacts with that system dynamically. There is reaction with God--and not every event fits into his cosmic plan. Sometimes what God wants to happen doesn't happen.

On Greg Boyd's blog, Greg posted a response to an Augustinian preacher who attempted to rationalize the bridge collapse in Minnesota in light of God's purpose in the event. As Greg usually does, I think he nailed the response perfectly. Read his blog entry here.

Greg Boyd's Spiritual Warfare Q&A

Greetings friends. This post is just a quick one. I want to share a message by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy. It is actually a 2 hour Q&A session on spiritual warfare. In it they touch on certainty, openness, the will of God, sin, Christianity and the political spectrum, and many other topics. They come to a lot of the conclusions I've come to and published on this blog. And, since we all have a tendency to promote who we agree with, I think the whole thing is definitely a stroke of brilliance.

You can find Greg Boyd's podcasts by searching for "Woodland Hills Church Sermon Podcasts" in iTunes or by clicking Greg's name.

You can also go to Greg's website and download a non-iTunes version. Either way, the message you want is "Spiritual Warfare Q&A."

Why It Doesn't Matter to Christians if the Government Sanctions Homosexual Marriages

OK, the title is over the top, I know. But I want it to catch your attention. Let me begin by saying that I am a committed Christian and that my view of homosexuality itself is in line with that of most conservative evangelicals. The Bible is pretty clear that homosexual acts are sinful. Though I think most Christians really misunderstand homosexuality and underestimate its roots, I can't say I approve of it as a legitimate alternative lifestyle.

That being said, I have to admit that the whole legal battle to keep marriage between a man and a woman does not interest me in the slightest. Here are two reasons why:

1. Those concerned have a tendency to say that allowing homosexuals to marry one another will "destroy the sanctity of marriage." Because marriage has traditionally been seen as heterosexual only, giving legal sanction to same-sex marriage will set America on a slippery slope. If the government sanctions gay marriage, before long polygamy and bestial marriages will follow. And Christians all over are worried sick that America will take one step further from God (as if it is currently close to God). But does it follow that allowing homosexuals to have a legal union similar to marriage (even called marriage) removes the God-ordained sanctity of marriage? I don't think so.

When I was a child, we often played a game called "house." Most of us have done it. You get together with your friends, someone acts like a mommy, someone else like a daddy, you line up some teddy bears as "the kids," and have tea. "Mommy" and "daddy" call each other "dear" and "honey." If they are particularly adventurous, mommy and daddy may pretend to kiss each other when daddy or mommy leaves for work. "House" is a game played by children in which they mimic the actions of their parents, playing a game about marriage. It's pretty innocent and normal. In the game, however, the children refer to themselves as "married." They pretend to be "married." They even refer to themselves as "husband" and '"wife." Yet, the sanctity of marriage is generally considered intact throughout the charade.

Of course, there is a difference. The government does not sanction "playing house." Children who pretend to be married to not have legal partnership as spouses. They do not actually act as beneficiaries of life-insurance policies. They are not given legal, married status. But here is why I think they are no different:

If marriage has sanctity, it has inherent sanctity. The ground given by Christians is that God created and ordained marriage, therefore it has a special place and role. I think they are right about that. I even think they are right that marriage is designed by God to be between a man and a woman. In fact, I believe it so firmly that I don't think someone who does it wrong can remove that sanctity. If two children pretend to be married as a game, they don't impugn the sanctity of marriage. They're just playing a game. In the same way, if two men decide they love each other and want to get "married," does what they are doing (which isn't marriage as defined by scripture anyhow) really remove the sanctity of marriage? If someone else comes along and says, "I recognize this as a legal union," does it remove it then? No. It doesn't. God planted its sanctity. It cannot be removed just because people do it wrongly. If it could, those of us who have done heterosexual marriage so poorly would already have ruined it.

Let me use another metaphor. Say all of America recognizes the game we've come to know as golf. There is usually a course involved, people use little white balls and expensive clubs, and you try to hit the ball into the cup in as few strokes as possible. But, say a small group of people have decided that they want to play golf by using small wooden mallets to hit larger wooden balls across the lawn through metal wickets (croquet). They begin to petition the government to get croquet recognized as a legal form of the game "golf." They want recognition that those already playing croquet, have, in fact, all along been playing "golf." Say, then, that the government sees no problem with this and begins to consider sanctioning croquet as golf.

Now, of course, avid golfers all over the country are furious. The golfer's rulebook clearly defines what golf is, and it is not croquet! Some even say that no respectable golfer in his right mind would even consider touching a croquet mallet, much less calling that silly game "golf." They argue that, changing the name of croquet to "golf" will impugn the inherent dignity and beauty of golf.

Let's say that the duffers lose, and those with the mallets are now golfers. Now what? What happens? Well, you have a lot of people playing golf as it was. You also have a lot of people playing the game formerly known as croquet. Have the games changed? No. Just the names. Are croquet players actually playing golf? Only in name. They still aren't doing the real thing. They've just changed the vocabulary. Golf itself hasn't changed at all. It's just that some people are now more easily able to live in their fantasy. But they'll never win the Masters! And, most likely, real golfers will just start calling golf something else (like American golf--remember the same thing happened with football when Americans started calling their game the same thing the rest of the world calls "soccer!").

If the government gives homosexual couples the legal right to refer to themselves as "married" it doesn't actually change marriage. Marriage as ordained by God is intact. It always will be. Marriage doesn't need our protection to survive. We, as individuals, need to use it correctly to survive. And this requires individual commitments. So what if the government decides to redefine marriage? God hasn't. But the interesting thing is, he doesn't ever stop people from sinning. He only warns them not to. So, two men now think they are married and receive legal benefits? Is their relationship any less sinful than before? No. Is marriage, in God's eyes, any different? No. Does it matter that they can collect life insurance on one another now? I don't see why. Why should I care who is the beneficiary on their life insurance policies? I'm concerned, primarily, with the condition of their souls, not their work benefits.

That's reason one.

2. I used to think differently about this. But when did Jesus tell us to legislate Christianity? It just seems odd to me that we expect a nation that is so far from God (and all nations as nations are far from him) to want to live by his rules. Sinners sin. Why should I expect them not to? Why do we expect people who aren't Christians to behave as if they were? Is that the way Jesus approached sin?

Look at it this way. God ordained the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, within marriage. Yet, since time began people have been getting it wrong. Throughout history there has been adultery and prostitution (isn't it called the oldest profession?). Yet, when Jesus (God in flesh) walked on this earth, he didn't lobby the Roman government to make adultery illegal! He didn't even try to illegalize prostitution (which we have done). In fact, when Jesus did find someone about to be stoned for adultery (within Jewish law), what did he do? He rescued her from that fate and told her to stop sinning.

Jesus met sin differently than contemporary American Christians want to. We want the government to enforce Christian values on people who aren't Christians. But Jesus met sin by living among sinners and offering them love, hope, and a way out of the problems caused by their sins. Aren't we actually doing the opposite of early Christianity in demanding that the world bend to make us more comfortable?

Greg Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation has been helpful to me in these thoughts. I've been thinking this way for some time, but he's given me some fuel. His idea is that we aren't called to legislate Christianity from the top down, but to evangelize from the bottom up. His point is that, even if we win the battles for prayer in school, heterosexual marriage, and abortion (which we won't), we aren't doing the work of the kingdom.(pp.114-115) Let me add to his point. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world, or else my servants would fight." Perhaps today he'd say, "or else my servants would lobby." Really, when we concentrate on keeping Christian values as the legal norm, we aren't thinking of others. We're thinking of ourselves. We're trying to keep America comfortable for us. But that's not the proper mindset for Christians. First century Christians weren't about governmental reform. They were about a counter-cultural phenomenon known as Jesus Christ. They preached love, acceptance, and repentance. Why aren't we?

So, let them get "married." It doesn't affect my marriage. And, more importantly, it doesn't change my mission at all.

Post-post: Having read a little further in Boyd's book, I stumbled across some pages in which he deals specifically with this (really!). I thought it prudent to include a few quotes:

"Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogomous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called 'marriages.' To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called." (Myth of a Christian Nation, 137)

"We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!" (Boyd, 137-8)

"To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the church should publicly take a stand for gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages--others to allow it. In a democracy you're asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I'm simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the Kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could. [paragraph break] If your particular burden is to free people from their homosexuality, then go aobut it in a Calvary-like fashion. Commit to suspending judgment, start befriending gays, and then serve them in love--for years. Perhaps your loving kindness will lead some of them to faith and open doors for dialogue as God gently works in their lives--just as he works in yours. You may eventually develop a trusting, committed relationship in which you are invited to address issues in a gay person's life as you invite them to address issues in your life, for God uses relationships like this to lead us all into greater conformity to Jesus Christ." (Boyd, 138-9)