Feed The Sheep By Any Hand

Here's a good article by Greg Morse about overcoming envy and other sins in Christian work.

Teach us to number our days

Lord, you have been our dwelling place

    in all generations.

2 Before the mountains were brought forth,

    or ever you had formed the earth and the world,

    from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

3 You return man to dust

    and say, “Return, O children of man!”

4 For a thousand years in your sight

    are but as yesterday when it is past,

    or as a watch in the night.

5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,

    like grass that is renewed in the morning:

6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;

    in the evening it fades and withers.

7 For we are brought to an end by your anger;

    by your wrath we are dismayed.

8 You have set our iniquities before you,

    our secret sins in the light of your presence.

9 For all our days pass away under your wrath;

    we bring our years to an end like a sigh.

10 The years of our life are seventy,

    or even by reason of strength eighty;

yet their span is but toil and trouble;

    they are soon gone, and we fly away.

11 Who considers the power of your anger,

    and your wrath according to the fear of you?

12 So teach us to number our days

    that we may get a heart of wisdom.

13 Return, O Lord! How long?

    Have pity on your servants!

14 Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love,

    that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.

15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,

    and for as many years as we have seen evil.

16 Let your work be shown to your servants,

    and your glorious power to their children.

17 Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us,

    and establish the work of our hands upon us;

    yes, establish the work of our hands!

(Ps 90)

Not surprisingly, politicians and the secular media have been obsessed with preparations to survive the coronavirus. And we should make reasonable preparations, although there are many conflicting projections and policies about how to contain it. 

What's more striking is the reaction for the church. For instance, the entire Anglican Communion has folded like a bad hand of cards in the face of the pandemic:

https://virtueonline.org/anglican-communion-shuts-down-over-coronavirus-pandemic-updated

Likewise, flagship evangelical churches hav suspended public worship. For instance:

https://www.fpcphila.org/covid-19

A question this raises is what message we're sending to believers and unbelievers alike. One message is that there's no overriding good in attending church at this time. Church is a hazard to be avoided.

Then there's the message we're not sending. While the world is making desperate preparations to survive, the church should be preparing believers and unbelievers alike on how to die. Not because death from the pandemic is inevitable or even likely for most folks. But sooner or later, death comes to one and all, young or old. 

Is that the message we're sending? Are we preparing people for death? Are we preparing believers to face death? Are we preparing unbelievers to face death, and make necessary changes before it's too late for them?

Where's the Christian witness of the church in this time of crisis? The world retreats behind locked doors and the church retreats behind locked doors. Who can tell the difference? 

My late Aunt Grace was a missionary in Kenya for 13 years One time her husband shot a black mamba on the front porch. Not only did he have to mop the porch after that, but he had to get down on his hands and knees to scrub it so that natives wouldn't be envenomated by residual poison seeping into cuts in their bare feet.

Theirs wasn't a ministry for the risk-averse. Theirs wasn't a ministry for Christians who play it safe. 

Mortal sin

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that (1 Jn 5:16).

One of the puzzling things is how a Christian is supposed to know the difference between the two kinds of sins. The clue may be the occasion of John's letter. He may be alluding to the individuals who broke fellowship with the churches he pastored in Asia Minor. Heretical schismatics who refused to submit to his apostolic teaching. In context, that may be the mortal sin. 

Of course, some of them might have a change of heart. But perhaps John's point is that sometimes you may just have to give up on some individuals, not because their situation is necessarily hopeless, but there are other people and situations to pray about, so that, as a matter of priorities, it's okay to stop praying for some people and move on to other people and situations that call for prayer. And not in general, but the particular kind of obdurate sin that occasioned his letter. You've prayed for them repeatedly to no effect, and you don't have an open-ended commitment. You're not obligated to keep praying for them.

Even so, he doesn't forbid it. There are some people, like lost or straying family members, whom we never give up on as long as they, we live, or the prayer request is granted. 

Revisiting the unforgivable sin

i) The unforgivable sin is much discussed in pastoral ministry. In terms of the immediate context, the nature of the sin is clear enough. 

ii) What makes it a topic of ongoing dispute is whether the particular example is just a special case of a general principle, over and above the immediate context. Can that be extrapolated to analogous cases?

iii) Other questions include whether a Christian can commit it. 

iv) Whether, if an unbeliever commits it, he is doomed. Repentance is futile. No point attempting to become a Christian once you cross that line of no return. 

v) And what makes it uniquely unforgivable? Why is it unforgivable to blaspheme the Spirit but not the Son?

The unforgivable sin is endlessly discussed because it raises a number of issues without clear-cut answers. There's no general agreement, although there are cliche responses, which may be correct. 

However, I'd like to suggest a different angle. I'm not proposing that this explanation is necessarily correct. I haven't run across it before. But given the fumbling, flailing, somewhat ad hoc explanations we usually run across, given the lack of theological consensus, it might be worth considering a fresh approach.

The unquestioned assumption is that the unforgivable sin is a damnable sin. Indeed, that's what makes it unforgivable. If it's damnable, then it's unforgivable, and if it's unforgivable, that must mean it's damnable. It will not be forgiven in this life or the afterlife (Mt 12:32). They committed an "eternal sin".

I'm simply point out that there's a possible fallacy lurking in this inference. The basic contrast between forgiveness and the alternative isn't forgiveness or damnation but forgiveness or punishment. Offenders either experience pardon or punishment, forgiveness or judgment. 

However, while damnation is punitive, the principle of punishment is not intrinsically damnatory. Many punishments, including divine punishments, fall short of damnation. Retributive punishment isn't inherently damnatory, although damnation is a type of retribution. And remedial punishment is restorative rather than damnatory (e.g. Heb 12:8). 

What makes it seem damnatory is the statement that it won't be forgiven in the afterlife. And that would be consistent with a damnatory sin. But that's equally consistent with a temporary postmortem punishment. The punishment is held over or postponed for the afterlife. But the contrast doesn't logically entail damnation. Someone who commits this sin might be punished in the afterlife, rather than forgiven in the afterlife, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the punishment is never-ending, but that the offender faces punishment or judgment rather than forgiveness regarding this particular sin. 

In general, biblical punishments don't mean you're doomed. The fact that you weren't forgiven just means you will experience judgment or punitive justice instead. But in many biblical instances, there's life after punishment. Punishment isn't always how the story ends. Sometimes punishment has a refining effect. Sometimes punishment is followed by amendment of life. 

The traditional interpretation of the unforgivable sin as damnatory may be correct. I don't rule that out. I'm proposing an original interpretation for consideration, due both to the potential fallacy of the standard inference, as well as unresolved confusion regarding the unforgivable sin. 

And I don't dent everlasting punishment. I'm not a universalist. I'm just raising questions about the interpretation of this particular transgression. 

Francis Chan at the Catholic Ecumenical Track

I watched the talk Francis Chan's recently gave to a Catholic group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zudQWKCFEBk&t=737s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER883Nr3O-0

This is, of course, right on the heels of a sermon in which he was regurgitating Catholic talking-points. A few random observations:

1. Pastor Francis made a number of good observations about Christian piety, unrelated to Catholicism. He usually has some good things to say. I don't think he should be written off. We get different things from different people. He has his own niche. 

2. I can't foresee the future, but I think it's unlikely that he will convert to Rome. He resists being pigeonholed. He's theologically eclectic. I think he views Catholicism as just another box. He may believe it has a few things that evangelicals can learn from or benefit from, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person to pulls a package off the shelf and goes by that label. He's more independent. What he did in speaking to the Catholic group was more a case of retranslating their piety into his own priorities. 

3. If the viewer was hoping that he'd clarify his position on Catholicism, his discussion was a disappointment. If you don't feel competent or comfortable with offering a public assessment of Catholic theology, don't accept an invitation to speak to a Catholic audience. The Catholic church is far and away the largest ostensibly Christian denomination. Many unbelievers reject Christianity because they identify Christianity with Roman Catholicism, which they think has discredited itself. 

So we can't avoid evaluating what Rome has to offer. We must present constructive alternatives. Pastor Francis doesn't have to be an expert on Catholicism to have a broadly informed, considered position. A basic way to clarify your own position is to understand opposing positions. That often provides a necessary point of contrast. 

6. Pastor Francis seems to think there's a generic, Christocentric piety which Catholics and evangelicals can share in common. He fails to appreciate that devout Catholics detour their pious impulses into the Rosary, eucharistic adoration, reading Catholic saints and mystics. It's going to be a distinctive Catholic-oriented piety. He failed to explain to the Catholic audience where to look for Jesus. How to cultivate fellowship with God. 

7. He acts like refusing to fellowship with Catholics is tantamount to "hating" Catholics, and falls under our Lord's condemnation of those who refuse to love the brethren. But that's terribly confused. 

8. He acts like you can tell who a real Christian is just by looking into their eyes. How well they emote about Jesus. 

9. Pastor Francis distinguishes between Christians who are "in love with Jesus" and those who aren't. He seems to think it's possible or even necessary for a Christian to be in love with Jesus all the time, and he treats that as what demarcates true followers of Jesus from self-deluded churchgoers. 

It's true that some Christians started out very zealous, but their fervor faded over time. There are different reasons for that. A superficial conversion experience. Or boredom caused by thin theology. After a while they think they've heard it all. There's nothing new or fresh. They stagnate rather than grow. 

However, you also have Christians where the zeal has dried out, but the commitment remains. The juice is gone, yet they faithfully persevere. That's actually a better test of Christian fidelity than when they were motivated by gushing fervor. It's like a marriage where the passion is gone but commitment remains. The couple will see it through to the end, even if the emotional dividends are gone. Endurance is a mark of true Christian faith. 

10. Pastor Francis's ideal is the persecuted church. The underground church. But there's a problem with making that the paradigm. 

i) For one thing, his ideal suffers from internal tension. On the one hand he thinks persecution and suffering for the cause of Christ are what promote genuine church growth. But that model only works if Christians remain a persecuted minority. On the other hand, once church growth crosses a threshold, the church becomes worldly, losing its purity and vision. 

So he doesn't seem to think the Gospel can or should spread beyond a certain point, because true Christian piety requires a dominant culture that oppresses the Christian faith and movement. He can't decide if church growth is good or bad. It's good so long as remains underground, but it can't stay underground if there are too many converts. At that point it's too big to be hidden. 

ii) Apropos (i), Pastor Francis seems to define genuine faith or saving faith in terms of heroic faith. The cult of martyrdom. A martyrdom mystique. He doesn't seem to have a model for how or whether it's possible to be a Christian in ordinary times. Can a faithful Christian have a normal family life? Or must true Christians live on the lam, under constant threat from the authorities? 

Has it occurred to Pastor Chan that there's a sense in which it's easier to be a martyr than a lifelong Christian? Martyrdom can be an escape from the daily demands of the Christian faith. Early release from the humdrum, the frustrations, and disappointments. 

iii) He seems to lack much appreciation for the fact that God calls different Christians to different lives of service. For instance, the church needs theologians and Bible scholars. But that requires some breathing space, where Christians aren't constantly under the gun. Where they can pursue education and research, teach and write. 

11. Instead of guilt-tripping Christians who don't suffer horribly for their faith, Pastor Francis should encourage them to make generous use of their blessings for the benefit of others. That's why God has given some Christians greater opportunities than others. On the one hand we need the purifying experience of the persecuted church. On the other hand, we also need the experience of believers in countries where Christianity is legal, where there's the affluence to cultivate Bible scholarship. Seminaries, Christian colleges, and Christian K-12. These two dynamics cross-pollinate.  

12. Pastor Francis suffers from an occupational hazard of gifted preachers. This holds true for talented performers in general. If you're a gifted public speaker, you acquire a reputation as a gifted public speaker. That in turn can make you self-conscious because there's now an expectation to live up to. That's not confined to preachers. Great performers like Laurence Olivier, Franco Corelli, and Vladimir Horowitz developed stage fright because the expectations were so high. Will you dazzle the audience? Will you say something unforgettable every time you step stage? 

One reason preachers should cultivate a text-oriented preaching style is to avoid becoming self-conscious. You stay in the text. And you bring the congregation into the text. You bring the congregation into the world of the narrative. Help them visualize what the Bible is describing, and draw analogies with their own experience. That's easier when preaching from biblical narratives, but the Bible is also chock-full of metaphors. It's good for a preacher to develop the metaphors. Draw a picture in the mind's eye of the congregation. Expand the metaphor into an extended theological parable. 

If a preacher stays in the text, and draws the congregation into the text, he's less likely to think about how he's coming across. He's not thinking about himself and the image he's projecting. Rather, he's projecting the world of the text. 

No hard feelings, right?

One of my objections to the doctrine of development is that it's so flippant. To take a few examples:

1. The medieval papacy authorized the use of torture on "heretics":

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_%27Ad_Extirpanda%27,_EN.pdf

That's admitted in a roundabout way in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but Rome now repudiates the traditional policy:

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

But what good does that do for all the victims of papal-sanctioned torture? How does that restore all the victims who died under papal-sanctioned torture–or survived, but where maimed, mutilated, and/or disabled, living in chronic pain or psychologically broken from the effects of torture? 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

2. For centuries, grieving parents were told that unbaptized babies went to Limbo rather than heaven. While that's better than hell, it also means the parents will be permanently separated from their deceased children. Even if the parents are ultimately saved, they occupy a different place than their children. 

When you consider the number of miscarriages alone, that's a huge number of unbaptized babies who died in the womb. Not to mention unbaptized dying newborns and toddlers. 

That centuries-old pastoral counseling has now been mothballed:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

But what good does that do for all the bereaved who were indoctrinated in the traditional teaching? It's too late for them. 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

3. In traditional Catholic teaching, suicides were presumptively damned, denied a Catholic funeral service and consecrated burial in a Catholic churchyard. For instance:

Q. 1274. What sin is it to destroy one's own life, or commit suicide, as this act is called?

A. It is a mortal sin to destroy one's own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson33.htm

Until just a generation ago and for many centuries before, controversy over homilies delivered at the Catholic funerals of suicides was unheard of for the simple reason that Church law forbade all funerals for suicides, so, no funeral homilies on suicide could have been preached. See 1917 CIC 1240 § 1, n. 3.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/about-that-funeral-mass-homily-some-points/

So grieving survivors had a doublewhammy: the suicide of their loved one and Mother Church shunning their loved one. 

Yet the centuries-old policy has now been softened:

2282 Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

But once again, what good does that do for all the grieving survivors who lived under the traditional policy? It's too late for them. 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

My immediate point is not to evaluate the positions in question. I'm not commenting on whether I think the new positions mark an improvement over the traditional positions, or vice versa. The point, rather, is that here's a denomination which lays claim to unique divine guidance and protection from error. 

Catholic apologists will counter that these changes go to show that the traditional teaching and practice never were infallible or irreformable. Yet these concern fundamental moral and pastoral issues. Not torturing religious opponents is hardly a marginal issue in social ethics. 

Likewise, what's more important than not telling grief-stricken family and friends the wrong thing about the fate of suicides and dead babies? Religion is centrally concerned with what happens after we die.

If the Catholic church wasn't protected from error on such crucial issues, why believe it enjoys any special protection from error? Why trust it with your immortal soul?

I'm not suggesting that Christians are obligated to give confident answers if we don't know the answer. But that's not what Rome did. Rather, Rome came down firmly on both sides of the issue at different times. It changes its mind: "We were mistaken, but that's water under the bridge." That's so flippant and callous.   

Low self-esteem

I'm not a psychologist, so this post is based on my personal observations. Many men and women suffer from low self-esteem. In my experience, there are Christian circles where felt-needs are denigrated as "moralistic therapeutic deism". And no doubt there are televangelists (e.g. Robert Schuller, Joel Osteen) who retail in flattery, telling people what they want to hear. 

It is, however, a great mistake for churches, pastors, and lay Christins to belittle the problem of low self-esteem. Historically, Puritan pastors like Richard Baxter and Richard Sibbes who took the issue seriously, only it was called something else back then. 

Some people seem to have a naturally melancholic disposition. That can be aggravated by things like seasonal affective disorder. That shades into the whole area of depression, which overlaps with low self-esteem. 

It's my impression that people with low self-esteem generally had an unhappy childhood. They didn't get what they needed from their parents during their formative years. Likewise, they may have been shunned or bullied at school. Obesity can also contribute to low self-esteem. Or lack of athletic prowess in school. 

Low self-esteem can feed on itself. Those who suffer from low self-esteem tend to be socially withdrawn, which exacerbates low self-esteem, so it's a vicious cycle. It's hard for them to trust other people. They are shellshocked by years of rejection. 

Rejection and betrayal are a perennial risk in romance and friendship, but it's harder for those with low self-esteem to cope because they have no insulation. No psychological padding. Nothing in reserve. Rejection and betrayal will reinforce their preexisting self-doubt, self-loathing, nagging sense that they must have done something to deserve it. 

Since I'm not a psychologist, it's possible that I'm overgeneralizing or overlooking some factors. 

The alternative to low self-esteem isn't necessarily high self-esteem. It doesn't mean I should have a high opinion of myself. It just means not to be dogged by a sense of personal inadequacy and failure. 

Christianity doesn't promise complete emotional healing in this life. For people who were deeply wounded in childhood and adolescence, it may be a lifelong battle. But Christianity can make the pain manageable. Moreover, Christians who struggle with low self-esteem can be wounded healers whose vulnerability is a strength when reaching out to other depressed people. It gives them empathy and understanding. What makes a Christian saintly isn't their natural areas of strength but how they handle their weaknesses. 

Blaming oneself is the default setting for those who suffer from low self-esteem. So how can that be overcome? Since it's natural to fall back into self-doubt and self-blame, you need a regular reminder to offset that pernicious dynamic. I'd suggest that you search your memory for people who notice praiseworthy things in you that you don't notice in yourself. People can recognize good things in you that you don't see in yourself. Make a record of that. 

In addition, memorize a list of Bible verses like Rom 8:1 ("Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"), Heb 13:5 ("I will never leave you nor forsake you"), &c. Put those on your cellphone. 

Write yourself a letter (email) in which you include these things. Update it periodically. Automate the letter so that you receive it every two weeks (give or take). 

Have a collection of edifying hymns and songs to listen to regularly. Listen to that when you're driving or busing or walking. 

In addition, it's important for naturally upbeat Christians to encourage depressed Christians. They can absorb your positive energy. 

I'd add that there's an opposite danger. Some churchgoers try to live on the adrenal rush of an ersatz, bubblegummy praise-chorus piety that bears no resemblance to what many Christians must confront outside the sanctuary. The realism of the Psalms is a salutary corrective. 

In case you're wondering, I had a happy childhood, and I enjoyed school, so I don't suffer from low self-esteem. My struggles and regrets lie elsewhere. 

Conflicted about God

Some Christians develop conflicted feelings about God, and some atheists taunt Christians who suffer from conflicted feelings about God. After all, if everything happens according to supreme wisdom, then it's irrational to resent God for what happens. They use that as wedge tactic. 

But is it quite that simple? Suppose I have a special needs brother. Let's say he's autistic. As a result, he gets the lion's share of the attention. My parents have to devote an inordinate amount of time to tending to his incessant needs. So I feel neglected. And sometimes I'm required to take up the slack when they're exhausted or have to concentrate on other things.

So I'm missing out on many opportunities I'd enjoy if I didn't have an autistic brother. I can't go hiking or rafting with my dad because he can't be away from my autistic brother for extended periods of time. My dad can't attend playoffs when I play football because he's needed at home to deal with the perennial crisis of my autistic brother.

It's possible for me to resent my parents, even though I know it's not their fault. It's possible for my to resent my brother, even though I know it's not his fault. There are moments when I might wish my brother was dead, but I know that's horribly wrong. He can't help himself. 

But what I really resent is the situation. Not my parents or my brother but the situation. I resent being thrust into that situation. Everyone is doing the best they can. My parents are doing the best they can. Often at their wits' ends. My autistic brother is doing the best he can. If it's frustrating for me, imagine how frustrating it is for him! 

By the same token, although there's a sense in which it's illogical to resent God, it can be natural to have conflicted feelings. That's not necessarily a sign of incipient or impending apostasy. The situation really is aggravating to be in. So it's not unnatural or even illogical to find it frustrating or aggravating. That's the reality. Like spiritual hives. 

If anything, apostasy can sneak in from the opposite direction. There's a well-meaning but perilous and precarious piety that clamps the lid on while internal pressure builds. Because some Christians think it's irreverent to harbor conflicted feelings about God, they suppress them and pretend they don't have them–until it finally explodes, blowing their faith apart in jagged pieces flying everywhere. 

This is one of the values in reading the Prophets and Psalmists. They are honest about their frustrations. Sometimes they have intensely conflicted feelings about God, and they aren't afraid to express themselves. That's safety value releases the internal pressure before it becomes unbearable. Healthy piety requires honesty. We can't fool God by feigning what we think we're supposed to feel when that's at odds with what, deep down, we're really feeling. 

And a little child shall lead them

Lully, lullay, thou little tiny child,

Bye bye, lully, lullay.

Thou little tiny child,

Bye bye, lully, lullay.

That woe is me, poor child, for thee

And ever mourn and may

For thy parting neither say nor sing,

"Bye bye, lully, lullay."

– Coventry carol

The death of children must be one of the hardest occasions for a pastor to preach on and offer counsel to the bereaved. And it raises trying issues in theodicy and theology, although that has more to do with the emotional problem of evil than the intellectual problem of evil. 

However, that concern may cause us to overlook something else about the death of children. There's a natural fear of death, and that's a good thing. God uses that. Even Christians may tremble at the prospect of death. 

But consider this: if a child can face death, surely an adult can face death. Some children die in the faith. They are old enough to embrace the Gospel. They take comfort in the prospect of heaven. Other children die without the comfort of the Gospel because they were unchurched. 

But fearful or fearless, many children past and present have had to confront their own mortality. And in that regard they set an example for adults. 

That reflects a paradoxical dimension of the Christian faith (1 Cor 1-3). The weak can lead the strong. We may hold a dying child's hand to comfort him, but in another way the dying child is taking us by the hand as he goes ahead, with one hand in heaven, to lead the way. By watching a child–even a child–die before our eyes, we learn how to live and how to die. 

Farewell dear babe, my heart's too much content,

Farewell sweet babe, the pleasure of mine eye,

Farewell fair flower that for a space was lent,

Then taken away unto eternity.

– Anne Bradstreet

No sooner came, but gone, and fall’n asleep,

Acquaintance short, yet parting caused us weep;

Three flowers, two scarcely blown, the last i’ th’bud,

Cropped by th’ Almighty’s hand; yet is He good.

With dreadful awe before Him let’s be mute,

Such was His will, but why, let’s not dispute,

With humble hearts and mouths put in the dust,

Let’s say He’s merciful as well as just.

He will return and make up all our losses,

And smile again after our bitter crosses

Go pretty babe, go rest with sisters twain;

Among the blest in endless joys remain.

– Anne Bradstreet

With troubled heart and trembling hand I write,

The heavens have changed to sorrow my delight.

How oft with disappointment have I met,

When I on fading things my hopes have set.

Experience might ‘fore this have made me wise,

To value things according to their price.

Was ever stable joy yet found below?

Or perfect bliss without mixture of woe?

I knew she was but as a withering flower,

That’s here today, perhaps gone in an hour;

Like as a bubble, or the brittle glass,

Or like a shadow turning as it was.

More fool then I to look on that was lent

As if mine own, when thus impermanent.

Farewell dear child, thou ne’er shall come to me,

But yet a while, and I shall go to thee;

Mean time my throbbing heart’s cheered up with this:

Thou with thy Savior art in endless bliss.

– Anne Bradstreet

"You just don't understand!"

Every so often you see someone compile a list of things not to tell those who is suffering or grieving. At or near the top of the list is "I know just how you feel".

The problem, though, is that many suffering or grieving people have a schizophrenic attitude toward sympathy. On the one hand, they want people to sympathize with their ordeal. On the other hand, if you express sympathy, they may be offended. "How dare you–you haven't gone through what I'm going through!" 

By that logic, it's safer to say nothing. Do they really not want people to care about their situation? A problem here is a failure to differentiate two kinds of sympathy. Consider these two statements:

i) I understand what you're feeling

ii) I feel what you're feeling

The first statement is an expression of intellectual sympathy or compassion. At a conceptual level, they grasp the situation. 

That's a necessary condition of compassion. Say you see news footage of a natural disaster than leaves survivors in terrible distress. Now the viewer, didn't experience the natural disaster, but they have the intellectual ability to project themselves into the situation: "What would it be like if I went through that ordeal?"

If we didn't have the ability to imagine what someone else is going through, there'd be little basis for compassion in general. Compassion would be limited to those having the same personal experience. "If it doesn't happen to me, it isn't real. It doesn't register." That's the mindset of the sociopath. 

It's a great mistake to dismiss intellectual sympathy. Social life depends in large part on the ability to relate to someone else's situation even if you don't share their experience. Moreover, a degree of emotional detachment can be essential to assess a situation and offer a solution (if any). 

At the risk of sounding paradoxical, consider the dispassionate compassion of a good physician. Although he cares about his patience, his medical judgment isn't clouded by emotion. 

The second statement is an expression of emotional or existential sympathy. They've had the same kind of experience or a similar kind of experience. So they can relate to the suffering individual on the same emotional level. That kind of sympathy or empathy is especially valuable in consoling grief-stricken individuals. 

Both kinds of sympathy are necessary and valuable. One is not a substitute for another. 

Altruistic suffering

1. As I've said before, I think the problem of evil is miscast. The real problem of evil isn't human suffering in general but the suffering of God's people. That raises questions about divine benevolence because God makes promises to his people (Christians, OT Jews) that he doesn't make to humanity in general. Yet God often fails to protect his people from harm, which calls into question his benevolence towards his people, given some of his promises. 

2. Christianity has a fairly unique principle: altruistic suffering. To see how unique that is, just consider how shamelessly selfish many secular progressives are. For instance, one reason to have children is to share the gift of live with others. But many fertile couples refuse to have kids because kids are too much of a bother. Likewise, the resort to abortion or infanticide if pregnancy occurs. At the other end, involuntary euthanasia and involuntary organ harvesting. These aren't people you'd want to have as passengers on the proverbial lifeboat, with rations and drinking water in short supply.

3. The only thing remotely similar is is Mahayana charity. As I understand it, because Buddhism fosters emotional detachment to avoid personal suffering, that frees the Buddhist to be charitable without partiality. It's not that a Buddhist loves everyone. He can't love anyone, since he must practice emotional detachment. Yet he can treat everyone impartially because he has suppressed the normal bonds of affection. But of course, that's radically different from Christianity.

4. One way to frame the issue is whether God can fail to be benevolent to one Christian (at least in the short-term) for the sake of another Christian. Can he neglect some Christians for the sake of other Christians. And can he be neglectful without malice toward the Christians he neglects? 

5. Let's begin with a comparison. Suppose a widower has two sons–three and five years of age–as well as a bedridden father. Their country is overtaken by war. He makes arrangements to smuggle his two sons out of the country for their own protection. The grandfather is too enfeebled to make the journey, and the widower must stay behind to care for the bedridden father. So the two sons will be separated from their father–their only parent. That will be a great hardship, but at least they will have each other for companionship. 

When, however, the widower gets his sons to the rendezvous point, the smugger only has room to take one more passenger. So the father must choose between the them. Even though they are young, the older brother is noticeably tougher than the younger brother. The older brother can survive the separation, but he will be emotionally damaged by the separation. However, it would destroy the younger brother. He lacks the fortitude. 

The war rages on. Both brothers grow into teenagers. The father is killed in the war.

Although the older boy survives, the prolonged separation during his formative years leaves him profoundly alienated. Not just the separation but the sting of betrayal. He hates his father. He can't comprehend why his father chose the younger brother over him. He is consumed by bitterness.

Years later the brothers are reunited. The older brother can see for himself that the younger brother is psychologically fragile. In addition, their late father told the younger brother why he did it. The younger brother explains to his brother why their father did it.

Initially, the older brother is still resentful, both towards his kid brother and their late father. However, he comes to appreciate their father's dilemma. He comes to appreciate that if one of them had to suffer, it was better for the older brother, who's tougher, to suffer sacrificially for the sake of his kid brother. He can see that his kid brother would be unable to survive the hellish ordeal the older brother went through. 

He finally forgives his late father. And the two brothers, long separated, form a strong emotional bond. Nevertheless, the older brother has lingering trauma from the years of loneliness and sense of rejection. He suffers from depression. 

6. I use this to illustrate how, as a matter of principle, neglect is consistent with benevolence. Moreover, this isn't just a case of an agent letting it happen. Rather, the agent is deliberately neglectful. He acts in ways that are positively harmful. Yet there's an exculpatory reason for his neglectful behavior. 

7. Now let's consider two objections to my comparison:

Objection #1: You can make just about any position consistent by resort to ingenious, ad hoc, face-saving hypotheticals, but that's special pleading.

Response: I agree that if there was no evidence at all for God's benevolence toward his people, then the example would be special pleading. However, there's lots of evidence for God acting benevolently towards his people. Some Christians experience answered prayer, miracles, special guidance, special providences. 

The problem is the disparity of treatment. Why does God protect some Christians rather than others? Why does he fail to act in the best interests of every believer? 

Objection #2: The comparison is disanalogous. God isn't subject to the same dilemmas and limitations as humans. 

Response: It's true that in some respects, God has far greater freedom of action than we do. God has resources we can only dream of.

However, even an omnipotent, omniscient God–indeed, even a Calvinistic God–is subject to certain build-in limitations regarding his freedom of action. A particular timeline only allows for certain possibilities to be realized. God is juggling lots of balls. God must keep many balls in the air all at once. So it might not be feasible for God to be equally or consistently benevolent towards all his people. Some believers may have to suffer on behalf of other believers. The good of some believers necessarily comes at the expense of other believers. 

At the same time, eternity provides ample opportunities for emotional healing. Even if God didn't promote their well-being in this life, that's not the end of the story. That's not a complete frame of reference.  

What the New Testament Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage

http://andynaselli.com/what-the-new-testament-teaches-about-divorce-and-remarriage#more-22637

http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019_Divorce_and_Remarriage.pdf

Praying for Trump–what's all the fuss about?

I've read several articles about the controversy surrounding Platt praying for Trump, but I'm still unclear on the specific objections. Platt provided a backgrounder: 

https://www.mcleanbible.org/prayer-president

1. Do critics object that Platt prayed for Trump at all? Do they think he should have refused to pray for Trump?

2. Do critics object that he prayed for Trump in public? Do they think it's okay for him to pray with Trump offstage, but not onstage, in front of the congregation and cameras? If so, that raises several issues:

i) It was a snap decision. 

ii) This is in the middle of the service, so Platt had to return to the stage to resume his participation in the service. So the question is whether he should have left Trump backstage. 

In effect, that would be snubbing him. There are situations in which snubbing someone is justifiable. Is this one of those situations?

iii) I assume they initially met backstage because the Secret Service brought Trump into church through a rear entrance for security reasons (rather than the main entrance). So Platt had to decide, on the spur of the moment, where to take it from there.

iv) Is the concern that praying for Trump onstage constitutes an endorsement? But that turns far more on the content of the prayer (which was neutral) rather than the venue. This was at Trump's initiative, not Platt's. 

v) Since the initial meeting took place during the service, it would be natural for Platt to invite Trump into the sanctuary to join the service, if he so desired. Trump declined, but Platt didn't know in advance what Trump would do after the prayer. At that point it was a communion service. What if Trump wanted to take communion? So I think it's perfectly reasonable for Platt to bring Trump into the sanctuary. If anyone might be queasy about that move, it would be the Secret Service. 

vi) Do critics think it was okay for Platt to bring Trump onstage, but instead of offering a neutral prayer, he should have used the occasion to denounce the policies of the Trump administration? 

Of course, Platt may not share the views of SJWs regarding the Trump administration. But suppose he did. If he denounced Trump to his face, what would that accomplish?

It wouldn't cause Trump to change his mind. If anything, it would harden Trump against evangelical pastors.

Moreover, given Trump's penchant to fight back, that might provoke a heated exchange between Trump and Platt. That would completely derail the worship service.

3. It is important for churches to maintain a level of independence in relation to political figures. If (a future) Pres. Pete Buttboy showed up at Platt's church, perhaps that should be handled differently. 

4. I think it's obvious that the critics are ideologically opposed to Trump, they think Platt should share their ideological priorities and do what they'd do in that situation.. 

I expect critics of Platt get their information about the Trump administration from outlets like CNN, NPR, MSNBC, NYT. If that's your source of information, then that presents the Trump administration as an unmitigated evil.

If, by contrast, you get your information from Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson et al., then that presents the Trump administration in generally postive terms. 

It's important for people to ask themselves if they are reacting to the actual Trump administration, or to an image of the Trump administration that's a construct and projection of their news outlets.  

Of course, if SJWs got their information from conservative outlets, they'd still despise the Trump administration because they despise conservative ideology, Christian theology, and any administration that's center-right. 

We Are All Philosophers: A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions

Should be a good book for seekers, pastors, and laymen alike:

https://www.amazon.com/Are-All-Philosophers-Introduction-Fundamental/dp/1683593103

In We Are All Philosophers, John M. Frame takes seven major questions of philosophy and compares the Bible's answers with common philosophical ones:

• What is everything made of?
• Do I have free will?
• Can I know the world?
• Does God exist?
• How shall I live?
• What are my rights?
• How can I be saved?

Gary Habermas on grief

Well, my wife, it was over pretty quickly, but my wife had been sick for a few months. We had no idea what it was, and when they finally sent us for testing, they had already sent us for other tests, but when they sent us for the final testing, they discovered it. Turned out she had stage four stomach cancer and she died four months later. That’s all she lived. But, before she got sick I had done some publishing on the subject of doubt and in one of those publications I was reflecting on Job. And Job is talking with God in Job 38 and I made this make believe scenario, what my Job 38 would be if I got to ask Job my questions. What would it look like? And I had published that. And three years later she got sick.

And so I thought, “Oh my, for crying out loud. I can’t believe this. Now, I have to see. Does the advice I give in this earlier document really work when I’m going through the fire?” And so we had gotten back from the hospital where they told us there was nothing they could do for her and she was terminal. And the kids were in school. It was the first week in May of 1995. She was upstairs sleeping because she was given medicine for stomach cancer that made her sleep 17-18 hours a day. And I put a child monitor up there and went out and sat on the front porch. It was starting to get warm and I had my Job 38 and I literally sat there and thought, “Wow. This is my day in the sun. I can think like Job 38.” And I had this make believe conversation. It was the same one I had three years earlier with the resurrection, but now it was spiced in a way by my wife’s obvious dying. And she didn’t live too much longer.

But as I sat there on the porch imagining what God would say to me, I would start by saying, “Lord. Why is Debbie upstairs dying? I mean she’s 43-years-old and she’s the mother of our four children and I thought you called me to ministry. But how can I minister, and how can I teach, and how can I publish if my kids need breakfast, lunch, and dinner? And they need their clothes washed.” We had four children. And if they had to have their homework done at night, how can I get anything done? And so I said, “Why her? Why now? Why this? And she’s my best friend.

And my Job 38, the way I saw that is the Lord would have said to me, “Gary I appreciate this. I appreciate your laying this out, but I’ve got a question for you. What kind of world is this? Now, I notice that’s howJob 38 starts too, “Where were you when I created the foundation of the world?” And I pictured the version for me would be, “What kind of a world is this?” And I didn’t know what to say and she’s dying and I didn’t want to play theology. And I said, “Well, Lord I don’t know. I’ll tell you in terms of my own studies. It’s a world where your son came to earth, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and we can have a lot to hope for because of this.

And he said to me in my imagination, “Well, it’s a good start. It’s a good place to start. And I know what you’re going through.” Well, I had read a lot of literature and later wrote a book on grief and I knew that’s the last thing you say to somebody who is dying, “I know what you’re going through,” even if you did go through what they went through. The problem is they can look at you and say, “Yeah, but you’re over it. I’m not. I’m in the middle of it. So don’t talk to me about this.” Well, I pictured God saying to me, “I know what you’re going through.” And I thought, “All right. How so?” And he said, “Well I watched my son die.” And I said, “I had already been told it was terminal but I had hoped there was a way out for her.” And so I was shocked when he said that. And I said, “Wait a minute are you telling me that as you watched your son die I’m going to have to watch Debbie die?”

And I pictured him saying to me, “Son you’re going to go through some deep water, but some day you will be –” as the last card I put away after she passed away said, “How are you going to feel some day when you talk about the Yellow Brick Road finally issuing into the Emerald City?” The card said, “How are you going to feel walking down the streets of heaven hand in hand with your wife?” And I’m telling you guys, when I read that card I thought I was going to die. When I opened that card up I couldn’t repeat those words for a year. “You’ll be able to walk down the streets of heaven hand and hand with your wife.” And so I pictured God saying to me in the words of that card, I pictured him saying, “Gary, you’ve got some deep waters to go through, but one day you and Debbie will be in the kingdom together with us and it will be a glorious time. But I can’t explain it all right now, but just keep that truth ever before you.”

And basically that was the shortened version of the conversation. Later, I told the story again. That was the three-year earlier story that I published with her death put into it. So I interpreted her death as my sending my greatest gift home to heaven. And it would have been the other way around if it would have been me that died. But I sent my greatest gift home where she couldn’t be touched. And the words of 1 Pet 1:3 and following there, “Nobody can take this away from me.” She can’t be hurt anymore. Nobody can steal this. It’s garrisoned in the halls of heaven. Yes, it’s horrible. But, yes she’s safe. And, yes it’s forever. And, yes it’s about reunion. And metaphorically, because the conversation never took place with the Lord, but metaphorically, yeah that’s what the resurrection meant to me. So it symbolized, “It’s not great right now,” but this is as philosophers have said down through the ages, “This is not the best of all possible worlds, but it’s the best way to achieve the best of all possible worlds.” And I knew I was going to have to get on with the achieving part.

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/resurrection-hope/