Jonathan Edwards on the Problem of Evil

With the recent tragedy at Newtown Connecticut, the problem of evil is on everyone’s mind. How could such an evil act be perpetrated? How could God allow such evil? Would a loving God really allow the deaths of 20 innocent children?

Tragedies like this, and the questions it raises, lead meany people to blame God. Others point to this problem as evidence that a true God does not exist. Or they reshape their thoughts about God. He is nice and helpful and all, but limited. Like an old grandfather, he is saddened by our losses and didn’t want this to happen. He was just unable to prevent it – or worse, he didn’t see it coming.

In contrast to such man-centered thoughts, the Scripture’s teaching on evil and suffering is that God permits it, and works behind it, to accomplish His purposes. For those who love God and believe in Him (the elect), God works everything together for their good (Rom. 8:28). And ultimately, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Dan. 4:35). He “has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). And Amos 3:6 declares soberingly, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

If God is truly sovereign, then, why did He choose to allow such sin and suffering in this world? Theologians refer to this as “the problem of evil.” Why does evil exist, in such poignant and powerful measure as displayed so chillingly just this last week? This question is not merely for theists. What explanation can atheists give to this puzzling question? They would have to explain how evil, as a category, can exist without a holy God. If there is no God, than who’s to say what evil is?

Ultimately, Jonathan Edwards has perhaps the clearest answer that I have found. I delve into his thought a bit in this article, but here I want to share a quote I recently included in my SS class this past Sunday. May it help clarify your thinking on this point, and see how truly great and glorious God really is.

God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness… would not shine forth as the [other parts of divine glory] do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all… There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. No matter how much happiness he might bestow, his goodness would not be nearly as highly prized and admired…. and the sense of his goodness heightened. So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed

[quoted in Chosen for Life by Sam Storms (Crossway, 2007), pg. 186-187]

As a follow up to this thought, here are some earlier articles of mine along these same lines.

What Jerry Sandusky’s Fall Teaches Us about the Christian Basis for Morality

Like most everyone else, my heart was sickened by all the news surrounding Jerry Sandusky. Now that he has been convicted on 45 counts of child sexual molestation, it seems that justice is served. Setting aside the questions of whether Penn State should have done more to ferret out Sandusky, his conviction offers an opportunity to ponder the moral impulse of our society. By and large, the general public is shocked and outraged by Sandusky’s behavior, especially since he was in a position of authority. Pedophilia is universally condemned, and this by people of many different world-views.

The Gospel Coalition blog alerted me to an excellent article in the Catholic World Report that explores why Sandusky is guilty in the public opinion. The answer is Christianity and its effect on our culture and its undergirding of our moral fibers for hundreds of years. Let me excerpt the article and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

There is one and only one reason, 2000 years later, that Sandusky is guilty now…Our consciences, our minds, our hearts, our legal system in America have been formed by Christian moral teaching about sexuality. Subtract Christianity from history, and we would be back in Rome. In pagan Rome, Sandusky would be innocent.

The piece goes on to illustrate how natural morality, darwinianism, democracy, psychology and philosophy all fail to lead to a condemnation of the kinds of acts that Sandusky is convicted of. But the article concludes with a warning:

But again, here’s the problem. Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized. The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?

That is a good question indeed. But I would demur. We still have many Christian underpinnings in our society, and for that we should be thankful. I often bring up this free attitude toward pedophilia or even ritualistic sex that was so pervasive in Rome and Corinth, and other ancient cultures, when I encounter the widespread Christian pessimism about how bad things are getting today. Christianity thrived in the most pagan of cultures, and it will continue to thrive the darker it gets today. Saving our society and improving our secular culture shouldn’t be the primary focus of Christians. Living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its tranformative moral power should be. May God help us “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom [we] shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:15b-16a).

Q & A: What About the Arguments against CCM?

From time to time I get asked various questions through my blog contact form. I don’t always have time to respond. Sometimes, the question and my response seem appropriate to share with my wider blog audience. So I’ll begin a feature on my blog addressing reader’s questions. If you have any questions you would like me to consider for this feature, just contact me.

Reader’s Question:

I have read through your posts and the comments on music. I have found it very helpful as I have grown up with the fundamentalist view on music and it is extremely hard to shake. I have broadened my musical tastes, though, and have grown to be blessed by much of “ccm” and find it very God-honoring.

I know you are not an expert on the music debate but you have written much about it on this blog and have changed your own view point from the conservative to less so. Because of that I was wondering if you could answer a question I have. I feel like I can biblically counter much of the arguments thrown at me that condemn CCM. The one thing I have not yet been able to find an answer for is the argument that the beginnings of rock and roll as stated by those artists who wrote it was rebellion and illicit sex. I can say from my own experience that I am not driven to those things when listening. But I would be told that is personal experience and that that is a poor judge of truth. Their argument would be that the music itself is inherently rebellious and sensual as stated by even those who wrote it. I am curious as to if you have faced that and what you answer would be to that. It is hard to find people who I can discuss this with where I am currently so I appreciate your taking the time to read this and answer.

My Answer:

Great question. For starters, it should be said that fundamentalists don’t have a universal approach to music. I’ve experienced fundamentalist churches that utilize CCM music, or close to it, in their services but still preach from the KJB. Many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical churches shy away from using CCM music in public worship, but don’t have as big of a problem with people listening to that music for entertainment or personal edification. But I came from a wing of fundamentalism that was very anti-CCM and that marshaled the very arguments you shared in your question, so I’ll try to share how I would respond.

I should also state that I prefer CCM music for my personal music listening. I don’t like everything I hear equally, but I would rather focus on God in my music than listen to just secular music. Not all Christian music is created equal in its emphasis on a clear, Christ-focused lyrics and a melody and rhythm that complement that. But a lot does. Our church too, uses a blended form of worship where we sing older hymns as well as contemporary songs and choruses. Last week I led the worship at our church and we sang “Nothing but the Blood” and “Holy, Holy, Holy” right alongside “Revelation Song”, and “Worthy is the Lamb“. We also sang
Before the Throne of God Above“. We had an acoustic guitar, a keyboardist and an electric drum-set. Some songs the drums bowed out completely. (I help serve in a church plant, so we don’t have a permanent home – hence no piano).

Regarding the origins of rock and roll, I think you could say at one time the aura of rock and roll was all about sex. But that has changed over time. Tchaikovsky, along with other composers of classical music, had a horrendous personal story filled with homosexuality and aberrant behavior. Tchaikovsky’s music was described as “vulgar” and “supersensous”. But that stigma hasn’t survived to this day. So the association that rock and roll had with sex is something that can change over time. There was an association with free love and rebellion, too. But today it is just an art form. It’s something that plays at the dentist’s office and grocery store, not just at large, sexually-charged concerts.

Music without lyrical content, lacks the ability to communicate with specificity apart from cultural factors. A minor key means something sad to our culture, but something happy to others. When music is coupled with lyrics, then it has the ability, as a whole, to communicate with a degree of specificity that lets us judge it morally and accept or reject it.

There’s also the testimony you share about how you respond to CCM. It isn’t just an emotional response. There is a biblical principle that if you look at the fruits of something, you can know its character. The fruit in my life and my church of the best of CCM music with it’s God-ward focus, has been positive spiritual growth, not a tendency to carnality and sensuality.

I will also say that a person’s previous associations or personal prejudices will make it hard to adopt the style of CCM music for their own use. It can anyway. But for me, the music of 100+ years ago was just as sentimental and emotionally driven as today’s CCM. But the difference is I don’t respond to that, because it isn’t music of my generation. CCM does communicate and resonate with me powerfully, and has the ability to engage my whole being — emotions and heart and mind — in the power of the song. And that ability is something that CCM is using for good. I still think more emphasis on other emotions beyond praise and joy are needed in CCM music and music in the Church today. We need to bring back lament and Psalm-singing somehow. But I’m thankful for the blessing that CCM has brought to the church, particularly with the modern hymns and content-rich songs.

I’m sure my readers might be able to pipe in here and add their own thoughts. So, please take the time to share your thoughts here for the benefit of the one who asked the question, as well as to contribute to the conversation here for everyone’s benefit.

“The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality” edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche

Countless people are struggling in the church pews today. Our world is full of addictions, fears and psychological disorders. Divorce is rampant as is sexual infidelity. From all corners we are hounded by the siren call of worldly desires and sensual pleasures. What was deviant and beyond consideration three decades ago is considered standard fare today, and today’s deviance would make previous generations shudder.

Enter homosexuality. While thirty years ago this sin was still a mystery for most, today it is trumpeted from the billboards all over the place. And slowly and steadily, the problem of homosexuality is being realized inside our churches today. It is becoming increasingly common for young people in Christian homes to struggle with same-sex desires. And many a pastor, bible teacher or other church leader is confronted with a respected church member admitting to a problem in this area and seeking help. With all the controversy and debate that surrounds the issue today, and with the assumed distance the Church enjoys from this issue, it should not be surprising that many feel unprepared to help those struggling with this contemporary problem.

The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: A Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction (Harvest House, 2010) looks to be an accessible and comprehensive resource that will equip church leaders to handle this all important issue. Editors Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche have personal experience dealing with this problem. Joe is a former homosexual who found a new life in Christ. He is a past president of Exodus International, a network of Christian ministries dedicated to equipping Churches to minister to homosexuals. Nancy’s husband was secretly living as a homosexual who contracted AIDS, while her daughter, actress Anne Heche, was for a time, the gay partner of Ellen DeGeneres. Both editors are experienced counselors who continually address this issue.

Dallas and Heche have compiled a comprehensive collection of accessible and helpful articles covering the range of questions relating to homosexuality. Six others contribute to this volume, ensuring that each chapter contains expert advice. Part one gives a background to this issue calling on the Church to pursue truth, and which gives an overview of the issue and a history of the gay rights movement. Part two explains and rebuts the pro-gay theology. Part three looks into the debate concerning the origins of homosexuality and takes care to evaluate theories from a biblical perspective. Part four contains practical counseling advice for helping homosexuals. Part five deals with how to help the parents or spouse who finds their loved one struggling with this issue. Part six finishes out the book by dealing with some of the hot button policy concerns such as same sex marriage, gays in the military, hate crime legislation, transgender issues, and AIDS. The book is rounded out by a call from the editors for a Christlike response to homosexuality.

This book seems to have the right balance and care for such a sensitive topic. The Bible is repeatedly brought to bear but the Church is cautioned against making uninformed assumptions. Numerous resources are referenced throughout the work, and it is a great place to start for finding information on any question you are interested in regarding this issue. It is going to be a useful handbook on my shelf in the years to come.

With the problem of homosexuality all around us, the Church cannot afford to ignore this issue. We must speak truth with love and grace to those struggling with this issue. Church leaders and pastors cannot afford to be without a resource like this. I recommend this book highly.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Harvest House for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Harvest House direct.

Why I’m Leery of the Manhattan Declaration

Someone recently asked me what I thought of the Manhattan Declaration. For those who don’t know, the declaration I’m referring to links Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants together under the banner “Christian” to stand for life and traditional marriage in our culture. It’s an attempt to stick together as Christians in our opposition to these increasingly abandoned values in our culture.

Here is my response. I understand good Christian leaders to be with me against the declaration, and others have signed it in their desire to stand for life and for transforming the culture. I haven’t really read the arguments or taken a side necessarily. But here is my perspective.

I can appreciate it for what it is, but 2 things keep me from signing.

1) It seems to single out a prizing of life and heterosexual marriage as being what Christianity is all about. I don’t think it is the role of the Church specifically to be legislating morality, as that doesn’t work due to fallen human nature. Instead we need to proclaim the gracious gospel of Christ.

2) It joins hands with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in what could easily blur the distinctions between them and traditional Protestants. Again the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is what differentiates us from these other groups who claim the name Christian. That is an important difference that shouldn’t be obscured.

Still, I don’t think the declaration necessarily requires understanding it this way. It is just a declaration in one sense, so I can understand those who sign it. But the need of our country isn’t a united defense and legislative protection of marriage and preborn children, it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that life is a small cause that we shouldn’t fight for. It is to say that heterosexual only marriage (in my view), isn’t such an important cause.

For more on what I’m getting at in point 1 above, check out my post: America — A Pagan Nation? My pal Jason Skipper over at Fundamentally Changed agrees with my assessment that this declaration represents a compromise with the gospel.

But what do you think? Why or why not do you support this declaration?