ExodusPodcasts.com

Last night we spent a considerable amount of time discussing what God could do, specifically as it relates to the problem of evil in the world. For most Christians, they are fairly comfortable with the idea that God is not only the creator and author of all things, but knows what will happen to each of us (perfectly) and the choices that we will make. Naturally, this line of thinking can lead us to some important philosophical issues, specifically that if God is all powerful and knows all things then isn’t God, at the end of the picture, at least responsible for the problem of evil.

Let us consider the following thought:

God (by God’s very nature) can do whatever God wants to do.

God, being all powerful, creates the world that we live in.

Let’s stop here for a moment. I realize that many thinkers disagree on these characteristics of God, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the vast majority of Christians think about God this way, having little or no training in different theological perspectives that view the very nature of God differently.

The question that quickly comes up for me is, if God could create in any way possible, why did God create the world in the way that God did? For example, it is possible to conceive of a creation where there was no “original” sin, where the world never existed as “fallen”, where there existed none of the conceptual frameworks and boundaries that are common to our Christian understanding (i.e., freewill, grace, mercy, etc.). It is possible to conceive of a world where God simply created us perfectly, free from the issues that disturb us today.

On this picture, wouldn’t God be ultimately responsible for the evil that exists in the world today? To be sure, some would instantly argue with me, that it is precisely because God did not create that perfect world that we can know that God “values” the qualities of our life (grace, mercy, freewill) that we define as key components of our relationship with God. However, God only “values” (if we can even say that we know that God values anything from us at all) those things that we understand in this creative construct. In other words, if we lived in the perfect world mentioned previously then we would not understand God in the way that we understand God now–the rules of the game, so to speak, would be entirely different. The language and grammar of our very existence would not be the same. Comparing what we think God values of us in this world to what we think God would value of us in a different creative construct would be like comparing apples to oranges. Just because we define our existence now by a certain set of terms does not mean that we would do the same thing had the world been created entirely different.

That God created the world that God did does not mean God could not have created it differently, since by our earlier definition, God’s creative ability is unrestricted and unfettered. Our created status only has significance insofar as it is wholly dependent on God as its source. We may still ask, why didn’t the source create differently? The fact that we value this current existence says nothing about whether or not God could have done it differently or even values it in the same way that we do.

Thus, the problem still exists–if God could have created the world differently then, logically speaking, God could have created a world just as meaningful as the one we live in now, only without the evil, sin, and suffering we experience now–the question still remains as to why God did not do this.

There are, by the way, philosophical arguments which address this very question. Some have argued that this creation is in fact the “best of all possible worlds” while others have said we need to change our notions of the character and creative qualities of God. This post is far too long to go into all of those details, but as we continue on through our series of suffering and evil, hopefully we will have a chance to explore those options as well.

Something that Phil and I discussed later in the evening, after tonight’s talk had ended, was what it means to give and act responsibly. Let us start out with the premise that it is best to act responsibly whenever possible. Our first question quickly becomes, what does it mean to act in a responsible manner? Different people will have different answers, but I suspect that the majority of us could find some consensus on its meaning, that is, to make good choices.

What is problematic, though, are the reasons for the choices that we make when it comes to responsible judgments and actions. I can choose to be responsible in a given situation, but is it really for the sake of responsibility? Let us give an example: There is a homeless man begging for money on the street–two obvious responses are as follows: to give or not to give. In the case of the latter, a reason for not giving may be a belief (justifiable or not) that the homeless person will spend the money unwisely, thus making him undeserving of one’s charity.

Jesus addresses this situation in a peculiar fashion, one that is often overlooked when discussing the merits of charitable given. In Luke 6, Jesus compels us to give alms (to the poor) without reservation, and to lend to people without any expectation of being repaid. Jesus gives us an example of charity that is, by any standard definition, irresponsible. In our world, we do not lend to people who cannot pay a loan back. And we often withhold money from the poor for fear of how they may use it.

Perhaps the most difficult part of giving is understanding its motivations. I believe that Jesus is not simply giving us an example of giving that is by definition “irresponsible”, but is encouraging us to examine the reasons behind why we give (or do not give). Do we give only because it is convenient, only in situations where we feel we can control its outcome or direct it towards some desired effect? Ultimately, the definition of responsibility is tied to some cultural expectation, some meaning that is connected to more than just a religious perspective. I believe Jesus gives us an example of giving that goes beyond some merely human idea of what it means to be responsible, an example that at its core is not tied to either an idea of responsibility or irresponsibility, but is tied to the very heart of the matter; why we give and ultimately to whom we believe we are giving.

This last Wednesday night, we started discussing the book Irresistible Revolution and the subject of service came up.  Specifically we began talking about our interactions (or lack thereof) with the poor and homeless.  Everyone in our group agreed that it is a command of God for us to take care of the needy, which definitely includes the poor and homeless.  We had different opinions of what that service or “taking care of” actually looked like.

One position was that we have a responsibility to directly and physically be serving the poor in close proximity at least to a small degree.  The other position was that the desired service and “taking care of” might be accomplished better or more effectively through monetary support of organizations or others who are already established and working to accomplish the same goals.  Both perspectives acknowledge the benefit or direct support and indirect support, but the question came up of where does the balance fall.

The issue of our heart being willing to serve directly is important, because we all agreed on that.  The question became: is it acceptable to simply give money if our heart is right and we are willing to serve directly if/when it comes up?  Are we commanded to pursue opportunities where we are in direct service?

This is a conversation that briefly came up during our social justice series and it was an interesting discussion, so I am curious what anyone else’s thoughts are on the subject.

Several weeks ago we viewed and analyzed the video, “Prayer is Superstition” from the people at Why Won’t God Heal Amputees.com.  During that discussion, the comment was made that the video assumed that prayer had absolutely no effect on healing, when in fact, several studies have shown that prayer is effective in these situations.

I had spent some time researching these studies, and for that reason, mentioned during our discussion that these studies were somewhat controversial because many had come to very different conclusions.  Often, this could be attributed to the methodology employed.  For example, if the patient knew they were being prayed for, it would be more difficult to determine whether it was the patient’s knowledge that was the key factor, or whether it was the prayer itself.  

It turns out that we weren’t the only ones exploring the subject.  This month, Christianity Today focused on the issue in the article, “What Do Prayer Studies Prove?”  The article highlights the growing interest in the scientific study of spiritual matters.  Of course, as Christians, we celebrate when a study is conducted that affirms our beliefs.  For example, a 1998 study conducted by Randolph Byrd at the coronary care unit of San Francisco General Hospital found that a group of patients who were prayed for by a group of committed Christians significantly outscored the control group, which was not being prayed for.

But what is our response when these studies go the other way?  Three years ago, a very significant study came to the opposite conclusion.  Predictably, this study did not receive much attention in Christian circles.  The difficulty is that this was likely the most comprehensive and carefully monitored study of its kind.  It was sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, a faith-friendly organization that funds exploration into the intersection between religion and science.  The study spanned 10 years, was funded by a $2.4 million grant and involved 1,802 patients, the largest group ever studied.  The subjects were three groups of patients who were admitted to the hospital for coronary bypass graft surgery.  Two groups were prayed for by committed Christians, while the third group received no prayer.  Only one of the groups of patients knew that they were receiving prayer.  

In the end, the group that knew it was being prayed for did worse than the other two groups in terms of post-operative complications.  And among the two groups that did not know they were receiving prayer, the one that was unknowingly prayed for did worse that the one that received no prayer.  Not exactly the results that the underwriters of the study wanted to see.  

Critics of the study, including the authors of the study, noted that there may have been some sort of performance pressure on those that knew they were receiving prayer from strangers.  But what about the two groups that did not know that they were receiving prayer?  Some Christians have attempted to point out that simply praying for strangers is not the model of intercessory prayer that is found in the Bible, and that prayers are more effective when we know and care for the persons that we are praying for.  But that would seem to limit effective prayer to only those that we knew and that we could lay hands upon.  It also ignores commands to pray for a whole host of people we do not know.  

So what are we to make of prayer studies?  Some have disputed that we can ever bring any of our scientific methods to spirituality, but that response seems loudest only when those methods come to a conclusion we don’t like.   The authors of the article had a slightly different take:

 “The real scandal of the study is not that the prayed-for group did worse, but that the not-prayed-for group received just as much, if not more, of God’s blessings.  . . .  True to his character, God appears inclined to heal and bless as many as possible.  . . .  Did God answer the prayers of the study’s official prayer teams?  Yes.  But more than that, he answered the prayers of the patients, of their friends and relatives, and perhaps even of those who may not have known they were praying.”

How typical of us to think that only those who were in the “official prayer team” were praying for the patient.  Perhaps we can never study the effect of prayer because we won’t be able to stop people everywhere from praying long enough to isolate who is – and who is not – being prayed for.

A few weeks ago during our Wednesday night series on Lamentations, the concept of cursing our enemies during prayer came up.  It seemed as if there are multiple places in the Bible where people call on God to be wrathful towards the speaker’s enemies.  This creates a potential problem with other teachings of the Bible to love our enemies.  As I was recently encouraged to investigate this more, I came across one persepctive that I wanted to see other people’s opinions of.   God has the right to curse people and be vengeful towards them because he is God.  We, on the other hand, do not have that right.  The potential way to merge these ideas is that the speaker is actually speaking a curse from God.  I thought this idea was interesting, but I am not sure how justified it is.  Share your thoughts.

On Sunday, we talked about Revelation and a big theme that Jon kept coming to was the idea that we should apply this to our lives.  It is common to view Revelation as simply a book predicting future events (or past events depending on your view I guess).  I know that it is hard for me to see how I should live my life differently based on Revelation.  My perception was that a primary way in which we can apply what is written is for us to be even more active in our following of Christ.  I’m not sure exactly what that looks like or if it is even the best application of what we studied.  I am curious what all of your thoughts are on the idea.

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.  Galations 6:1-5

In the discussion that came up last night of ways to practice the spiritual discipline of Service was the idea of ”bearing each others burdens”.  I admit this tends to be one commandment that I’m not sure exactly how to apply.  I’ve heard it said that this means -at the very least – empathizing with your brother when they are hurting.  But to me, only doing this feels shallow.  What do you think this commandment is actually requiring of us, and in what (practical) ways can we better live this out?

As we get ready to launch an upcoming series on Questions About Prayer, we asked you to submit the questions that you have about prayer. We got a large number of questions back (over 50 so far) and the list keeps growing. Here is just a sampling of the questions that we’ve received so far. If you think of some others you’d like us to consider, just post a comment or send us an email.

Scripture says that the prayers of the righteous are heard. What does it mean to be righteous? Is there anything Biblical about praying in a group? It seems that Jesus was almost always in solitude for prayer. Are there any advantages to ritual (liturgical) prayers? How often should we pray? Why pray if God already knows what your needs are? Regarding people who have the “gift of intercession,” what does that mean? Are there people whose prayers are heard more than others? Some say prayer is for the purpose of being in conversation with God, but it seems like a one-sided conversation. How can we know the difference between God speaking back to us and our own thoughts (particularly if the voice tells us something we are okay with). Are we supposed to feel anything (some presence, some connection) with God?

How does prayer’s effectiveness relate to God’s sovereignty? Can our prayers change God’s plan? What is the purpose of listening to someone else’s prayer (when someone prays in front of a group)? Is there any point for a non-follower of Christ to pray other than making a commitment? Does fasting make prayer more effective? How do I deal with verses like John 14:12 where God says he will do anything we ask when it seems like he doesn’t? Is there more power in greater numbers of people praying about something? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer? If prayer is the way God’s people petition him to act, if his people don’t pray, does God not act? Is tacking on “if it is your will” to the end of our prayers really just a sign that we really don’t believe that God’s going to do what we ask? What is the difference between being persistent in our petitions (Luke 18) and grumbling (Exodus 16:8)? Does God sometimes answer prayer though a series of “coincidences”? If the purpose of prayer is to get to know God’s character, wouldn’t reading the Bible be more effective?

We’ve spent the last few couple of weeks talking about the spiritual disciplines of meditation, solitude, and silence.  John asked us to try and turn our radios off when we were in the car this week.  Just wondering if people tried doing this and how it went for them.