Evil rears its head: so what is the god of the philosophers doing about it?

I comment on a fine speech by John Lennox at Pepperdine University in 2013:

Epicurus starts with the 'god of the philosophers' not the creator God of the Bible. As do most who enter this type of discussion. So we ask the wrong question, we misunderstand the Creator God and we under-estimate ourselves. We prefer to think of God as the puppet-master fairy god mother god and we as the poor waifs that he will wipe the nose of.

The first thing people do in questioning evil is to distance themselves from it: we fail as people to recognize that however 'good' we think we or others are, we are full of evil: selfishness, pride, and disdain for others. We match the 'evil' of this corrupt world perfectly as the corruption is the outcome of Adam's rejection of 'god-ward-ness' We continue on the path Adam identified. Thus Paul in Romans 8:18ff (compare Psalm 115:16).

This is so because we are in God's image (Genesis 1:26: ponder on it) and our words and actions have real meaning; but without 'god-ward-ness' our words and actions are corrupt and as the stewards of the creation, our corruption drags it down as God, like Elvis, has 'left the room'. Yet he stays to seek our good by our repentance; our rejection of 'not-god-ness'.

So, the world is a broken place, given over to futility and corruption. Why?

 

    1. Because we could not 'fit' as corrupt people if the cosmos was uncorrupted: the would be an unbridgeable existential rift that would make life impossible.

 

    2. That we have enough of God's imageness to understand that the world is broken and we can detect that it ain't right, even though we are part of the not-right-ness.

The benefit of this is that our being out of synch with the God of life (Jesus: the way, truth and life) who is love, rubs us up the wrong way at every turn. We are reminded of the disjunct in everything we do, think and hope. We all face death all the time: it looms at our end. Thus, when Jesus was asked about the Siloam construction accident (Luke 13:4) he said: repent, lest this also happen to you (that is, die without repenting?). That's how we deal with 'the problem of evil', repent! Turn to Christ for new life.

Now, that's how the Bible leads us to think about evil: we experience it because our 'mannishness' is 'god-like', and that is the constant alarm siren that things are not as they should be. But pastorally, we don't handle it this way: we share the other's grief, we listen kindly, we be with them, we give any practical support and succor we can. We show our love by our actions and seek to bring peace to them.

 

Here's my addendum, a comment to a question to Frank Turek:

 

God can't just forgive all sinners? He has, but its up to sinners to take up the forgiveness by repenting of their rejection of God and so rejoin his family. God does not impose himself on sinners (God is not a Calvinist!).

 

Its about life transformation, and doesn't work with people who want to remain in rejection of God. Too much moralism which characterizes much of US evangelicalism. It under-does the gospel and misleads people. Sin is at base our willful alienation from God: it is us saying "no, God, get gone" The gospel is about being in fellowship with God and having new life in Christ to enable this.

 

And it is something we must come to realize: that we are cut off from such by our corruption in a corrupt world. The scheme of Salvation is about fellowship, God over-restoring the world if Genesis 3:8a where he was in fellowship with Adam and Eve. The 'over-restoring' is the new creation, with this veil of tears 'rolled up' and superseded.

Woman conducting an 'Outpost' of Stand to Reason

This is my thinking on a question asked by a woman on a talk-back podcast questioning her congregation's limit on her ambitions to convene an apologetic 'Outpost' for Stand to Reason.

Dear G,

I was fascinated by your discussion with the sister who wanted to organize an Outpost.

It is sad that her congregation won't support her desire; doubtlessly a godly desire, given her humble demeanour and evident motivation.

Her 'pastor' seems to be the gum in the works.

His role, along with the other equipping ministries (Eph 4:11-12) is to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I'm sure our sister aforementioned had in mind taking some responsibility to convene a work of ministry, which would also be part of the 'equipping of the saints' activities within the congregation.

Now, we run into two things:

1-      1 Tim 2:5-8 where Paul is taken by some to issue a blanket prohibition on women teaching or 'usurping authority' over men and

2-      Modern–post-reformation–congregational organization that make a minister or ‘pastor’ the authority giver, rather than the overseeing shepherd: to coach, instruct, counsel, encourage.

 

Together, these play merry hell with our practice with respect to our sisters in our congregations.

Note I use Coverdale’s translation of ekklesia, rather than the Jamesian usage ‘church’. I do so to make a point, and the point is that our understanding of the gatherings of Christians has been skewed away from a NT vision of an orderly charismatic (not in the modern popular sense) community of the holy ones, to an inherently authoritarian vision that comes to us via the un-reforming Reformation from Rome.

This plays out under the impetus of that strange Greek word authentein. Seemingly to endorse that men qua men have authority over women! I don't think that ‘authority' is given to any elder/presbyter/teacher/evangelist in this blunt terminology. The language used (hupeiko) suggests dialogue not command.

Before we start, we must set the scene with Paul's relevant general statements: Gal 3:28, 1 Cor 11:11 and 11:13-15, where there is no sex-based distinguishing of gifts. Put this alongside Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17 and the numerous unqualified mentions of Paul's female teachers and helpers/apostles (Junia) and we are in difficult hermeneutical waters. Our general hermeneutic policy is to use the less specific passages to interpret and modify the more specific.

On this basis, as well as the study of the word authentein, we must conclude that Paul’s Timothean statement is circumstantial. I mean specific to circumstances. Both the word itself, albeit translated in the NT on the basis of second and third century usage, rather than its earlier usage, and the immediate context with reference to the order of creation. Here he seems to be correcting something that was contradictory to scripture in the content of the women’s assertions of an 'authority' over men. That is they were putting the female as generative to the male rather than in the creation order. Paul also touches this theme in 1 Cor. 11:12

With the nature of the Ephesian setting that Timothy was in, Kroeger (1979, "Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb" Reformed Journal) hypothesizes that the Creation reference is there to overturn pagan-inspired heresies that attach women to the superiority of the goddess Diana, to the detriment of men: thus the 'authority' of women over men being taught. An 'authority' like no other teaching reference in the NT and one not aligned with the words of prophesy (in its various forms) that women are gifted to deliver.

But the church we are discussing also seems to have elevated the 'pastor' to a rank that exceeds that of an overseer who is to guide, and as we would say today to mentor the other sheep. The pastor as modern role bears more resemblance to a Roman (Catholic) priest than a biblical elder/overseer. But then if we do apply the surface and I must say anachronistic reading that seems to be popular in the modern church, it would prohibit all women from teaching or any appearance of exercise of 'authority' over a man. Paul does not limit this to the gathering of the church as we might characterize it today.

A little excursus here. Our modern conception of the church gathered: as a liturgical spectator ceremony, has nothing to do with the early church gatherings, which were informal, multiply communicative, community-edification gatherings. Firstly, they were constituted when (at least) two or three were gathered in Christ's name; so, any faith-oriented gathering should come under the Timothean rubric. Out go women university lecturers, seminary teachers, study group conveners, skills trainers, or Christian workers of any andragogic manner: conductors of any discussion group in a Christian gathering, offerer of opinions on STRAsk...a whole lot of permitted practices of the saints are out the window. Although I'd guess that one might place this as an action under the President of the organization. Still, a bit of a long bow, perhaps in this modern restrictive usage.

My conclusion is that as long as women don't assert over men a disordered creation of a 'goddess-earth-mother' that prioritizes the female over the male, to the disparagement of the male contra Genesis 1-2 and Gal 3:28, that they are free to exercise their gifts, irrespective of any dubious 'authority' of a male. And the NT is full of women doing just this, arguably! Titus 2, for example.

And even if one wanted to apply a rigid misreading to the Timothy passage, one could argue that the 'pastor' (or better, the board of elders) provided the umbrella for our women's work.

 Either way, Let's call the enquirer and tell her to 'get cracking' and start her Outpost and set aside the casuistry she has been subjected to.