When there are no easy answers

I'll be quoting from John S. Feinberg, When There are No Easy Answers (Kregel 2016). He's an evangelical philosopher and messianic Jew. His mother suffered from chronic pain. His father developed dementia. His brother died of complications from diabetes. His wife has Huntington's disease, which, in turn, carries a 50/50 chance that it will be transmitted to their children.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

At various times in my life I pondered whether I would still want to worship and serve God if he rewarded my faithfulness with severe affliction (17). 

Something else that heightens the feeling of abandonment. Invariably when news like this comes, people are very concerned; but for various reason, they tend to stay away. Some may feel that they will say the wrong thing and only make matters worse. They just stay away rather than taking the chance of sticking their foot in their mouth. Others may think that unless they have something "brilliant" to say that will remove all the pain and heartache, they should avoid the sufferer. Believing that they have nothing special to say, they don't communicate at all with the sufferer (29). 

Over the weeks, months, and years of dealing with tragedy, people who suffer "get used" to the problem they are facing. Adjustments in schedules are made as needed, and after a while, life returns to at least a semblance of normality. As this happens, those dealing with suffering and trials speak less often about the challenges facing them. Friends and family tend to take this as a cue that the sufferer is getting over whatever horrible things have happened. They assume, then, that the afflicted person must be doing fine with what has happened. As a result, they make little point to ask about the situation or offer any help that might be needed…[But] the burdens the sufferer bears are just as heavy as they ever were, and after bearing them for a long time, in some ways they hurt even more than they did at the start. Please remember, personal tragedy leaves an indelible mark that will only go away in eternity when God wipes away all tears. But we aren't there yet; so while the sufferer still bears the loss (as will be the case as long as he or she lives), continue to minister to his or her needs, just as you did during the first days, months, and years after tragedy struck (54-56).

In the weeks and months following Pat's diagnosis, I had so many thoughts and emotions rushing through my mind that I felt like there was a war going on inside my head. I felt like I had to express my thoughts, but I found few who would listen. It's not that I think friends and acquaintances didn't really care. I just think they weren't sure what to expect if they listened and whether they might make me feel worse by saying the wrong thing in response to what I would say. It was easier to pray for us or to offer a word of concern than to listen. Even today there are times when I just need someone to listen to how I feel and to what I've been thinking. And this is why it is so important for us to "be there" to listen, even if we have nothing profound to say in response. At times of crisis our profoundest contribution is our presence and our open ears. It says that we care and we understand the need to make public what is going on inside the sufferer's head and heart. So don't avoid the afflicted out of fear that you don't have the "magic words" to make the pain go away. Even if you have those words, when the pain is new and so intense, the sufferer cannot process what you would say. By listening instead, you gain the right to be heard when the sufferer is really ready and able to listen.

Listening alone won't make the pain go away, but it is a key first step. I hope I can encourage readers not to abandon the sufferer. I hope you will see that even if you don't have something to say that will remove the pain, you should still go to your suffering friend or family member. This is true  not only when tragedy first strikes; it is true for as long as the sufferer deals with his loss. Even now, there are times when I just need someone to listen to me talk about how I feel and what I think about what is happening to my  wife and family. Listening is far more helpful than you can ever imagine (59-60,62).

Here I must add that it is important for others to visit people who are sick. Thankfully, there are some friends who visit Pat regularly. But others visited only occasionally, and then stopped once Pat was not able to talk or interact with them. I understand that people like to think that when they visit the sick, it makes a difference to the patient. When the patient can't respond, it is easy to think you are accomplishing nothing, and so I understand why they stop visiting. But I must say two things. If you go at least in part because you think you can do some good for the patient, don't' assume you haven't helped just because the patient can't speak. If you could not speak, would you be happy to be left alone all day?…If you abandon your sick friend, what does that communicate? (63).

If I were ever to pastor again, I know one thing I would definitely do. At the very outset, I would work with church leaders to identify all the people in the congregation with special needs. And I would see to it that at least once every week (and no less than once every two weeks) someone in the church would contact these people…People with special needs may have little or no contact whatsoever with anyone for weeks at a time. Your love and care for them may be the only thing that brings any light into their life and dispels their loneliness, and it may be the only reason that they continue on in the faith. Though it may seems like an small investment of time and energy to those who do help, there is no way you can imagine the positive impact it will make when those you serve see that someone still cares and is there to offer a helping hand (70).

In previous chapters I have shared various lessons I have learned thorough our life experiences, and things that helped me to cope with our situation. But there were still a couple of issues raised along the way that bothered me. I knew that until I resolved them, they would continue to gnaw at me. I begin with the question of whether you could seek and find God's will only to wind up in a situation with severe affliction, something you expressly asked God to keep you from. And this raises the interesting theological question of whether on some occasions God gets us to do his will by withholding information from us, information that would have kept us from the situation. 

Once we got Pat's diagnosis, it seemed that I had made those choices under false pretenses. I believed God was leading me to choose one sort of life, when in fact I wound up with exactly the life I was trying to avoid. In fact, I was saddled with a situation worse than anything I could have ever dreamed in my worst nightmare. For a long time I was hurt and anguished by the thought that somehow God deceived me into marrying Pat by hiding information that could have saved me from my present circumstances…was it really God's will that I marry her but when one follows the Lord's leading one can expect to be double-crossed? How can one teach theology and write books about God, and yet be apparently so mistaken about how God works in people's lives? Such thoughts are among the most disturbing that I faced over the years, and they have been as disruptive to my relationship with the Lord as anything that I have ever experienced…The truth is that God had never promised me anything about my wife's health (99-100,104).

It is now more than twenty-eight ears since we first learned that she has Huntington's. That's a long time to live with someone who is slowly dying…The same old feelings of helplessness and hopelessness are always there, but increasingly they are joined with a growing loneliness as the Pat I married slips slowly and irreversibly away…Every time her condition became worse, it was much harder emotionally to deal with the changes than I'd anticipated. I had imagined what it would be like but it was always worse, and for a while I wondered why. Before too long I saw the reason. If you imagine what will happen next, you can make yourself feel very sad while you think about that. But the sadness doesn't last, because you know that she has not really reached that new level yet. When she does reach that level, you know that this is real and it won't go away. Seeing how bad things are and knowing that it will only get worse, you cannot help but feel more depressed. Indeed, the reality of what this disease is doing is always worse than whatever I can imagine (107,114).

When we first met and later decided to marry, there was no way we could have foreseen that our marriage would come to this–relatively short visits together each day in a nursing home…I also believe that God had another major intention for me, and it relates to marrying Pat. God decided to provide someone to manage Pat's needs and take care of her, and I am that someone…Over the last two decades or so as I have helplessly watched Pat's condition worsen, I have thought on a number of occasions that the point of this marriage is not about me but about her (115,124).

Do I have any regrets over marring Pat and having a family? If this question means would I have married her if I knew then what I know now, the  question is really impossible to answer. If I knew then what I know now, I would have known what a blessing from God she and my sons would be. I would have known all the problems I'd avoid by not marring her, but I'd also have known of the lost blessings. Would I give back those incredible blessings to escape the trials we have experienced? While many of us might wish for a different life, that is probably because we think a different life would be one with no problems, or at least one with nothing catastrophic. But in a fallen world there can be no guarantees of a life with only happiness and no problems or challenges. So perhaps I could have avoided the pains and sorrows that have come our way. But a different life might have had different but even  worse problems than those we have experienced. I certainly know that I have received many great blessings, and I wouldn't want to lose them! (128-29) 

When Pat moved into a nursing home, I had to pay a deposit of one month's fees, plus the amount it would cost for the first month of care. This amounted to around $13,000–indeed, nursing homes are not cheap, and this was back in November 2007. I didn't have that kind of money in my checking account, so I paid for it with credit cards. But the Lord had a very welcome surprise in store for us. 

My lawyer had been preparing the Medicaid application all summer, and filed it once Pat moved into the nursing home on November 15. Early in December, I received a call from a nurse at the nursing home. She asked about the brand of liquid food Pat used, because it was time to order a new batch. She wanted to know so that she could place the order and bill Medicaid. I told her that we had applied for Medicaid but hadn't yet heard whether Pat had been approve for it. The nurse told me that she saw in her computer that Pat was a Medical patient. After a few calls to government health agencies, I confirmed that Pat had been approved for Medicaid.

Needless to say, we were overwhelmed when we learned that within fourteen days after our lawyer submitted the Medicaid application, it was approved. And the approval was retroactive to the day she moved into the facility! All of the money I had given the nursing home would be refunded. I found this very had to believe–government agencies never move that quickly! Clearly, God's hand was in all of this. We again had a vivid reminder of the goodness of the Lord (112-13). 

Safe spaces in church

Tom Buck, pastor at First Baptist Church, Lindale Texas, has a running series in which he critiques the inroads that homosexuality is making in TGC, ERLC, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, &c. It's not blatant homosexuality, but a soft, unstable, mediating position. In think Buck raises a number of valid criticisms. However, to judge by what he writes, his alternatives seem to be deficient:

Sadly, I grew up in a time when it was common for Christians to bash homosexuals rather than to lovingly call them to repentance and faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I often heard preachers stand in the pulpit and ridicule homosexuals to the laughter of the audience. Even as a teenager, I was appalled to hear many Christians openly belittle homosexuals. No one struggling with that sin would openly admit their sinful condition before a church that would treat them as nothing more than an object of derision.

When I became a pastor, I was committed to our church being a safe place to confess any sin without fear of ridicule. Churches who commit to making their congregations safe places, while remaining committed to a clear call to repentance, have seen individuals set free from homosexuality by the power of the Gospel.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/03/25/living-out-part-1/

1. I agree with him that homosexuals won't turn to a church that treats them as nothing more than objects of ridicule. 

2. That said, there's a balance to be struck. When I was a teenager, attending junior high and high school back in the 70s, normal boys openly stigmatized homosexuals, and while that can be carried too far, it can also be a useful disincentive which deterrs some closet homosexuals from going in that fateful direction. 

3. Likewise, transgenderism needs to be lampooned. 

4. I'm puzzled by what he envisions when he says church should be a safe space for homosexuals to openly confess their sinful condition before the church. In principle or practice, confession can take different forms:

i) An elder leads the congregation in the public, corporate confession of sins. The elder is the speaker. He recites a prayer of confession for generic sins, while the congregation silently assents. In my experience, that's a Presbyterian practice.

ii) The congregation recites in unison a prayer of confession for generic sins. That's a public, corporate confession of sins. That's an Anglican practice. I forget what Lutherans do.

iii) Auricular confession, where a laymen confesses his sin to a priest, in private, and receives absolution. That's a Roman Catholic practice.

iv) A parishioner who wrongs another parishioner, then seeks to be reconciled with the parishioner he wronged. That's a private transaction, between the two concerned parties. 

v) Divulging to a pastor or elder a besetting sin.

vi) Divulging to the entire congregation a besetting sin. 

5. Pastor Buck seems to envision a combination of (v-vi). If so:

i) Does he think there's a duty to confess a besetting sin to a pastor or the congregation? Why is that any of their business? This isn't a case where one person wrongs another, and then tries to make amends with the person he wronged. 

ii) Doesn't it foster a culture of gossip if everyone is privy to everyone else's misdeeds? Isn't that voyeuristic? 

iii) A pastor can't dispense magic pills to cure someone of their besetting sin. Pastor Buck talks vaguely about the mortification of sin, but that's optimistic. While there's evidence that some homosexuals are able to break free and transition to normal relationships, that's not a guarantee. 

Once again, no faithful pastor would give this counsel to a heterosexual man that is dealing with his lusts. Think of a single man telling his pastor that he finds a particular woman in the church beautiful, is sexually attracted to her, and desires to be “united to her.” I could never imagine any pastor saying, “This is simply your natural response to beauty as you were created to respond. You should appreciate the beauty, but do not let it drift into a sexual fantasy.”

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/03/27/living-out-part-3/

i) To begin with, heterosexual attraction isn't morally equivalent to homosexual attraction. What exactly is wrong with appreciating a winsome member of the opposite sex, short of sexual fantasy? Buck says it's unimaginable that a pastor would say that, as if that's self-evidently wrong. Perhaps Mt 5:28 is hovering in the background. If so, I think Don Carson has the most reasonable interpretation:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/12/lusting-in-your-heart.html

ii) One thing homosexuals need is friendships with normal men and women. For instance, a homosexual male needs to have friendships with heterosexual men and women. He needs to have normal male role models and confidants. And he needs to consider the possibility of forming a normal relationship with a woman. 

What homosexuals don't need is homosexual friends. Even if that's platonic, they reinforce each other's weaknesses, as mutually deficient role models of masculinity or femininity.   

Broken Pieces and the God Who Mends Them: Schizophrenia Through a Mother's Eyes

Simonetta Carr is a mother and homeschool educator. She has worked as a freelance journalist and as a translator, and is the author of the Christian Biographies for Young Readers series. She was kind enough to answer a few of our questions about her newest book.

Q. Most of your books are about notable Christians and written for children, or for families to read together. In what ways did the process of writing a deeply personal book like Broken Pieces differ from those books?

A. There is no comparison. For the other books, I do a lot of research and then process the information, choosing the main points to share with young readers and finding the best way to communicate them. It's pretty straightforward.

Broken Pieces is completely different. As you said, it's a deeply personal book. I wrote the first part (memoir) fairly quickly, soon after my son's death, perusing all the diaries and emails I could find. It was OK to do it then. I don't think I could do it now.

The second part of the book (thoughts and advice) is an attempt to offer my feeble recommendations to readers who might find themselves in a similar or somehow related situation. This is the product of much research, through books and articles as well as interviews to psychiatrists, psychologists, pastors, mothers, and people who live with schizophrenia. I collected many answers and some new questions. This part was equally personal, not only because I compared this research with my experience, but because I found myself in a situation where I had to test my findings in a practical way.

Q. Is the church body (church members) doing a good job of ministering to those with mental illness and their families? How can we improve?

A. Sadly, it seems that we still have a long way to go in this respect. I would say society in general has a long way to go, and the church is no exception. The best way to improve is through education. We are all busy, so naturally we tend to read only subjects that touch us personally, but mental illness is more common than most people realize and could be as close as the person sitting next to us in the pew. Or even closer. Schizophrenia, for example, tends to appear suddenly where we least expect it. The common saying, "If you don't catechize your children, the world will" may be applied in this case too. If we don't educate ourselves and our children to understand mental illness and a proper Christian response to it, we will simply follow the shallow (and often damaging) comments we read in the news every time a crime is linked to mental illness.

Besides education, or while we are getting it, let's just look at our brothers and sisters as people bearing the image of God and offer our genuine friendship, fighting any feeling that makes us uncomfortable with something we don't fully understand. In my book, I make frequent mentions of John Newton's empathy, respect, and care towards his friend William Cowper. I also include a chapter on advocacy, which includes creating a loving and safe environment within the church.

Q. What are some tangible ways pastors and church leaders specifically can help families in their church who are affected by schizophrenia and mental illness?

A. I am not in the position of advising pastors. I would just repeat what I said about church members in general. Education is especially important, because people respect their pastor's opinions. Sadly, there are still pastors who discourage people from taking needed medications and blame all mental illness on a person's spiritual condition. I can't speak for other types of illness, but I know that schizophrenia can rarely be managed without medications. I have seen my son - an exceptionally intelligent young man - struggling to discern reality within a vortex of voices and perceptions. Nothing helped, until the medications decreased the voices to a level where they could be recognized and managed.

Education is also important in knowing how to avoid words that may generate stigma or trigger paranoid feelings. It's true that in some cases our society is becoming overly sensitive, but this is an area where caution is necessary.

My book include suggestions from pastors who had experience in this field.

Q. Are there three or four other resources on schizophrenia and/or mental illness that you recommend for readers who are eager to learn more.

A. I have a section at the end of my book with a variety of recommended resources. If you want to understand schizophrenia in general, the best book in my opinion is The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey through Madness, by Elyn R. Saks. Troubled Minds: Mental Illness and the Church's Mission by Amy Simpson is more exhaustive than mine on the church's response to mental illness. There is also a fairly new book by Michael R., Emlet, Descriptions and Prescriptions: A Biblical Perspective on Psychiatric Diagnoses and Medications, that can be of great help to pastors.

As for websites, the go-to place is usually the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). They have a lot of information. On the Christian front, CRCNA's Disability Concerns provides many good resources.

Q. Last question: what are the books that have shaped you the most in your walk with Christ, and why?

A. Definitely a tough question. I read a lot and there are many books that have shaped my Christian life. Outside of the Bible, if you are looking for a monumental impact, I would say John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. When I first read it, I was a typical pragmatic Christian, the type that says, "Now that I know I am saved, just tell me what to do about my kids, my marriage, my devotions, etc." I read the Institutes out of curiosity and it jolted me into a completely different mindset, getting my eyes off my navel and onto the glory, majesty, and love of our Triune God.

Many books have shaped my life in a less drastic, but equally profound way. Right now I am slow-reading Ralph Erskine's Gospel Sonnets or Spiritual Songs, and it's a feast for my heart, pointing me to the love of Christ in ways that few authors can do. And that's really the only way to go through this pilgrim life with its obstacles, uncertainties, and sorrows, by "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith," (Heb 12:1) or, to use Erskine's words, by making the object of our "chase the God of glory in the field of grace."

Bourgeois naval-gazing

One chic objection to the Nashville statement is that it lacks pastoral sensitivity. But we need to distinguish between real problems and ersatz problems. From what I can see, transgenderism is primarily a reflection of cultural decadence. It reminds me of the idle rich and royalty who explore perversion because they are bored to death.

Bracketing the individuals who are truly psychotic, transgenderism is only possible for people who have it too easy. For our ancestors, and many people in the Third World today, surviving was a daily struggle. They didn't have the luxury to indulge in naval-gazing.

Transgenderism is made possible by affluence and leisure time. Don't get me wrong: affluence and leisure time are blessings as well as opportunities for good. If, however, you have nothing to live for, no higher purpose in life, then having things too easy exposes the vacuity and lack of direction. It's like pop stars, sports stars, and lottery winners who are ruined by success. They end up worse off than before their dreams came true.

In my observation, most of the transgendered are pampered, spoiled, self-absorbed individuals who have too much time to think about themselves because they have nothing better to think about. 

People like that can still have functional or even happy lives if they live in a society that channels them into naturally fulfilling social roles, as a spouse and parent. In that case, cultural expectations impose an external structure on their lives that makes their lives more meaningful. But when a culture loses common grace social norms, they no longer have the external direction to compensate for lack of inner direction. So their lives become aimless, frivolous, cruel, and debased. 

In addition, adversity is a distraction from the vacuum of the soul. You are too busy making ends meet to suffer from existential ennui and fashionable malaise. If, however, you don't have those distractions, and you have nothing worthwhile to live for, then the absence of adversity leads to self-pitiful naval gazing. 

Self-examination is only salutary if there's something better to aim for. But a secularized culture without a transcendent reference point has nothing to aspire to.   

Notice that this is a general problem regarding the "human condition" in a fallen world. The solution is to evangelize the lost. 

Dying well

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2010_dying_well.pdf

Permission to die

Sometimes we need to give people permission to die. They don't have a duty to fight death right up to the last minute. They don't have a duty to soldier on. 

It's a balancing act. On the one hand it seems right to hope for the best, pray for the best, hope for a miracle.

On the other hand, that drumbeat makes it hard for someone to be a peace with the prospect of dying.  To prepare themselves for death, which denies them a peaceful death, because they feel they have an obligation to resist death. And that can be cruel. Sometimes it's okay to let go–especially as a Christian. 

From a Christian standpoint, it's okay to say good-bye to this life and leave this world behind. In our efforts to "encourage" the terminally ill, I think some well-meaning believers have contributed to their ordeal and mounting sense of panic because they think we have a duty to always say something "hopeful" in the sense of waiting for a last-minute miracle. The terminally ill are never allowed to resign themselves to the probability of death and make the emotional and psychological adjustment. It's always, hang on to the last dying breath–just in case.

Death is easy for some Christians and hard for others. The danger is to make dying harder than it needs to be. If the terminally ill are made to feel that they are letting down the cause by "giving up", that makes dying harder. They aren't allowed to mentally prepare themselves for death. For release from this life. Release from pain. Release from unnecessary anxieties. 

C. S. Lewis as a Parishioner

[Ronald Head pastored the church Jack and Warnie Lewis attended.]

My parishioners knew little about them [Jack and Warnie] and had no idea who they were. They looked like countrymen, walked abound in old clothes, smoking pipes, visiting public houses, and fitted in happily with the local scene. Their conversation sparkled, and seemed to deal with any subject with equal brilliance. 

It was during the period of the 1939 War that the Professor [C. S. Lewis]–already known widely for The Screwtape Letters–became famous as a Christian apologist on account of his broadcast talks and lectures to the Forces, leading up to the publication of Mere Christianity and other works of that kind. As far as I can tell, this fact remained unknown to the great majority of the faithful at Quarry, or they entirely failed to realize that this brilliant expositor was the man sitting concealed by a pillar in the aisle. My parishioners in general, at the time, had not read either the science fiction, Out of the Silent Planet, or the children's stories. There were, of course, some, like Miss Griggs and Mrs Barnes-Griggs at Tewsfield, who had read everything; but they were quite exceptional.

C. S. Lewis–who, as I have said, became know to his intimates as Jack–usually arrived early to Church services, and would sit there quietly reading the Psalms or other parts of the Prayer Book…I've often though that Meditations on the Psalms in some respects occurred in my church…Letters to Malcolm, number 21, reports on an actual conversation on prayer with me.

In July 1963 the Professor was seriously ill indeed in the Acland Home and the Radcliffe Informatory. Father Hooper took me down to Keble to confer with Dr Farrer in these moments of crisis. It was not possible to get the Major [Warnie] back; he also was in the hospital. Happily, the Professor–after being anointed by Father Michael Watts, the Precentor of the Cathedral–recovered, and in time returned to The Kilns with a male nurse temporarily and Walter Hooper permanently added to the household. 

Lewis's heart attack, and its complications, led to his resignation from the Cambridge professorship. I then began communicating him at home on a fortnightly basis–which situation continued until his death. In the nature of the case there was a period when I had long conversations with the Professor–covering, of course, the usual field of spiritual matters…

He was a very humble man, self-effacing, never speaking of his remarkable talents, or his service to other people. One cold note his care in answering letters…Of course I remember his generosity in giving money away; not, I believe, so much to institutions, but rather to individuals he could help…scholars, clergy, all sorts of people. Ronald Head, "C. S. Lewis the Parishioner." Roger White, Judith Wolfe, & Brendan Wolfe, C. S. Lewis and His Circle: Essays and Memoirs from the Oxford C.S. Lewis Society (Oxford University Press 2015), 180-85. 

Celestial orphanage

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (WCF 10:3).

i) From time to time I discuss the question of the salvation of those who die before the age of reason. I mention that presumably they continue to mature psychologically in the afterlife. Now I'd like to flesh out the "logistics" of how that might occur. Obviously, what I say will be speculative. However, the speculation is an extension of things we know.

ii) In this post I'll confine myself to heaven for those who die before the age of reason. By "heaven", I mean the intermediate state for the saints. A disembodied condition for those dying in a state of grace. 

iii) The Bible contains visions of heaven. Now, these may be symbolic, so that doesn't necessarily tell us what heaven is really like. Perhaps, though, the question of what heaven is really like might be the wrong way to frame the issue. It's like asking what a dream is really like. To take a comparison, consider the Colonial or Antebellum squares in Savanna, Georgia. We can say what these are really like because they are physical spaces with physical objects (e.g. trees, buildings). They have an objective, durable subsistence. Trees and buildings are located in relation to each other in fixed positions. 

By contrast, I think heaven is like a very vivid, inspired collective dream. A dream has a simulated setting (dreamscape). The dreamer has a simulated body. Other characters in the dream have simulated bodies.

By the same token, people in heaven can have simulated bodies. And that's consistent with heavenly visions in Scripture. Likewise, heaven can have a simulated landscape, or cityscape, or seascape, &c. Heaven can be compartmentalized into a variety of different settings. There's no one way it has to be. 

iv) Apropos (iii), children die in different historical periods. They die in different countries and ecoregions. Some live around mountains, or rivers, or lakes, or oceans, or jungles, or forests, or deserts, or cities, or villages, &c. Some died in the Ice Age. Some died in the ancient Near East. Some died in the Middle Ages. Some died in the 20C. And so on. 

v) Let's pick an age group out of thin air for illustrative purposes: say children between 5-10 years of age. Let's say they go to heaven when they die. 

If heaven has simulated spaces and places, they might to go a "part" of heaven that resembles the time and place they're familiar with. If, however, they grew up in a slum (to take one example), they'd go to a much nicer place. Maybe urban or rural. 

Or childreen might go to a playground or amusement park. Or a meadow. They might live in simulated houses. There might be simulated wild animals as well as simulated pet dogs and cats and horses and whatever. The possibilities are endless.

vi) Children in heaven might be grouped according to age, language, culture, and ethnicity. At least initially. By that I mean, suppose you had pre-Columbian children who lived and died in the Amazon River basin. Maybe in heaven they are grouped together because they have so much in common, which eases the transition. That makes it less initially disorienting. But as they mature, they can branch out to explore other parts of heaven. Meet other kids (now teenagers) from different times and places. 

Or maybe communication is telepathic, so they don't need to speak the same language. 

vii) Heaven is full of men and women who died as adults. Men and women who were parents and grandparents in this life. They could be foster parents to the children. Not only do they have experience in child-rearing, but in heaven they are sinless. They aren't under the stress of life in a fallen world. So they could do a better job of parenting than they did in this life.

On this view, children could mature very normally, because their (simulated) physical and social environment is similar to what they knew before they died, only so much better.  

In the case of children who had a Christian parent or parents, they will be reunited with their parents when their parents die. But at that point they will be grown children. 

viii) Maybe children in heaven interact with angels. In addition, perhaps they get to meet Jesus or even see him on a regular basis. Although Jesus is physical, he can interface with disembodied souls the way a dreamer has a simulated body that enables him to interact with the dreamscape or dream characters. And because it's simulated space, he can be in two or more places at once.

ix) Their education could be individualized in a way that isn't feasible on earth. 

x) Perhaps they can do things in heaven, like flying, that we can only do in dreams. Likewise, skindiving without having to breathe. 

xi) On earth, children pass through adolescence. Hormones not only change them physically, but psychologically. Will there be something analogous to that in heaven? Hard to say. Perhaps that awaits the resurrection of the body.  

Should you confide in your spouse that you lusted about someone else?

John Piper had some advice last month that's getting some buzz:

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/talk-to-your-wife-about-lust

A few brief observations:

1. His discussion is terribly one-sided. He plays into the stereotype that men are sexual animals while women are nuns. But it should go without saying that just as men have an eye for good-looking women, women have an eye for good-looking men. To take that a step further, the college hook-up culture is very much a two-way street. What about sexual fantasies in Harlequin romance novels or Amish romance novels? Those are female fare. 

With that in mind, any reasonable, realistic wife should realize that her husband will notice other women–just as she will notice other men. In a way, a spouse should find it flattering that even if there are other appealing options, your husband or wife chose you. They didn't choose you because you were the last man (or woman) on earth. You're not second best. You're not the fallback option. Despite the competition, he (or she) chose you. 

2. In fairness, Piper isn't just talking about sexual attraction, but sexual fantasies about someone other than your spouse. I agree with him that that's wrong. However, fantasizing is something under our voluntary control–unlike involuntary sexual attraction. It's easy to flip the off-switch because using your visual imagination takes a bit of mental effort, whereas it's effortless to stop doing something that's a bit effortful. You have to work at mentally imagining something, whereas you don't have to work at not mentally imagining something. 

The solution isn't to confess it to your spouse, which doesn't actually solve the problem, and creates a new problem. Rather, the solution is to just stop doing it. That's easily within your power. Just think about something else. 

3. Now, it's possible that some spouses, whether husband or wife, fantasize about someone other than their spouse because their marriage isn't romantically satisfying. If that's the case, then that is something to talk about. You should talk about that rather than fantasying or confessing to sexual fantasies about someone other than your spouse.

4. Although he doesn't exactly say so, Piper seems to think spouses should be completely transparent with each other. That's a modern conceit.

There are science fiction stories in which someone becomes telepathic. As a result, he loses all his friends. There are folks he thought had fond feelings for him. But now he discovers that was a polite facade. 

There are still people with genuine affection for him. They care about him. They really do. But now that he can read their every thought, he realizes, on the one hand, that their fond feelings are mixed with less flattering feelings, while, on the other hand, he now has a lower opinion of them. They're not as admirable as he imagined. 

That's the limiting case of a transparent relationship. And that's deadly to friendship, much less marriage. 

Tact is a virtue. Not saying everything that's on your mind. We ought to keep some things to ourselves. It's inconsiderate and even cruel to give expression to your every feeling. Once words leave your mouth, you can't take them back. People remember what you said, especially if it's hurtful–even if it's well-intentioned. 

5. He quotes Mt 5:28. But I think that's probably about seduction. I incline to Don Carson's interpretation:

Klaus Haacker (“Der Rechtsatz Jesu zum Thema Ehebruch,” BZ 21 [1977]: 113-16) has convincingly argued that the second auten (“[committed adultery] with her”) is contrary to the common interpretation of this verse. In Greek it is unnecessary, especially if the sin is entirely the man’s. But it is explainable if pros to epithymesai auten, commonly understood to mean “with a view to lusting for her,” is translated “so as to get her to lust” The evidence for this interpretation is strong (see Notes). The man is therefore looking at the woman with a view to enticing her to lust. If Haacker (see above) is right in his contention that the second auten is unnecessary on the customary reading of this verse, the problem is resolved if the first auten within the expression pros to epithymesai auten functions as the accusative of reference (i.e., the quasisubject) of the infinite (as in the equivalent construction in Lk 18:1) to generate the translation “so that she lusts,” REBC 9:184-85.

6. Piper quotes Jas 5:16: "Confess your sins to one another". I'll discuss that in a moment. But that needs to be counterbalanced by something else James has to say, and that is the need to guard our tongue:

6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing (Jas 3:6-10).

Rather than blurting out indiscreet "confessions," it's best to bite your tongue. Just imagine the effect of telling your spouse, "Honey, I've been lusting after so-and-so". Really, what was Piper thinking? 

7. Then there's the question of what Jas 5:16 means. What's the scope of that command? In context, it refers to friction within the body of Christ (cf. Jas 4:11-12). How church members can wrong each other and thereby foment resentment. One example which James talks about is wealthy church members snubbing poor church members. 

Now, although that's the immediate context, I don't mean the wisdom of his admonition is necessarily confined to church. However, in extending the principle to other situations, it needs to be reapplied to analogous situations. 

James isn't talking about secret sins. Hidden vices which no one else is in a position to suspect. Rather, he's referring to overt words and actions that alienate another person. 

That's very different than volunteering information about your mental life. That invites problems. That's like starting a fire to put it out. Many people have done things before they met their spouse which it would be imprudent to mention. There's no obligation to dredge up your entire past. Piper's appeal isn't comparable.

People don't need to know everything about us. People shouldn't know everything about us. That's what God is for–among other things. Some things we should confess to God alone. 

In addition, it's wise to be compartmentalize to some degree. Things you tell your spouse you wouldn't tell your best friend, as well as things you tell your best friend you wouldn't tell your spouse. Marriage isn't a substitute for friendships. It's a different kind of relationship. 

Thinking biblically about transgenderism

https://vimeo.com/191056254

How to struggle with grief

http://michaeljkruger.com/how-to-struggle-with-grief-a-conversation-with-david-and-nancy-guthrie/

Child mortality

Childhood morality is a difficult issue, both in theodicy and pastoral ministry. Why doesn't God stop it? A few quick observations:

i) Sometimes kids turn out badly. Their life ends in disaster. Suppose a child goes to haven when he dies. Then he doesn't go offtrack. 

ii) Some kids turn out well, but their life may adversely impact other lives through no fault of their own. Let's say Stalin's mother was a wonderful person. But indirectly, her life caused untold suffering for tens of millions of Russians under Stalinism. 

iii) It might seem like a child who dies in infancy (or by miscarriage) is a wasted life. There is, however, an all-important difference between existence and nonexistence. Once conceived, the person will live forever. In relation to this life, they were snuffed out tragically early, but in relation to eternity, that's infinitesimal. What ruler are we using: this life or the afterlife?  

iv) Child mortality makes room for other children. Additional lives. Although that may sound like a cruel way to put it, they aren't simply squeezed out to free up a slot. For death is not the end, but a new beginning. 

Homosexual ordinands

I'm going to comment on this:

Would you allow me to begin with a question? You say that the mere presence of same-sex attraction is itself sinful, and because of this we have no business inviting someone who experiences same-sex attraction to speak to our community. Friend, do you believe that there is a difference between temptation and sin? At Gethsemane, Jesus had desires that were contrary to the Father’s will — and so he prayed, “Father, take this cup from me.” Father, do I have to die for your will to be accomplished? Papa, I don’t WANT to die. Your will is HARD, it goes against my feelings. It is because of Jesus’ courageous, “Not my will, but yours be done” that we can say that he was tempted and yet without sin, yes? Can we not say the same about Stephen’s experience with same-sex attraction — that it is temptation for him, temptation which he has faithfully surrendered to the Father’s will?
Let’s say that there are two alcoholics who have been sober for ten years. The first, miraculously, no longer craves alcohol. The second, on the other hand, still battles hard against cravings every single day. Does the presence of cravings for the latter make him less faithful than the former? Some would argue, Friend, that he actually might be more faithful in his sobriety because for him, sobriety is a daily fight against the flesh — a fight that he keeps on, by the grace of God, winning.
If we would not condemn the alcoholic for having cravings, why would we condemn someone who experiences same-sex attraction? In the end, how are the two any different? Would we celebrate the sober alcoholic’s story as victory but not do the same with the sexually chaste man experiencing same-sex attraction? If Stephen is welcomed into our church’s seminary and has faithfully served as staff for our church’s campus ministry, do you really feel that it is a right, good, excellent, pleasing, and praiseworthy thing in the eyes of Jesus to take us to task on social media and in blogs because we have given him (and the many in our churches whom he represents) a voice? 

http://scottsauls.com/2016/09/06/open-letter-to-a-public-critic/

The issue at hand centers on the actions of the pastor of a large and influential PCA church who decided to promote pro-homosexual ideology from the pulpit through a morally compromised young man seeking ordination as a teaching elder (TE, minister) in the PCA. This young man not only claims to be homosexually-attracted to men but is very firm in his unrepentant attitude regarding that attraction. His struggle is not with homosexual attraction itself. He embraces it. However, to be obedient to God as a homosexually-attracted man, he claims to remain celibate. The pastor and the Presbytery all agree that homosexual lusts and behaviors are sinful. However, they also agree that homosexual attractions (desires, thoughts and feelings) are not sinful. When the ministerial candidate was asked if he believes “his homosexual feelings, attractions, thoughts and desires are sinful,” he believes they are not and further upholds that homosexual attractions and God-given heterosexual attractions are morally equivalent:

“I believe my same-sex attractions are broken, but I do not believe they are sinful. It is not a sin for me to be attracted to another man, in the same way it is not sinful for you to be attracted to a woman.”

These are the pastor’s exact words from the pulpit:

“He (Jesus) says some have been made eunuchs or some have been made celibate from birth. They were born to be celibate, born this way. And this could be through a physical disability of some sort, or it could be through an orientation. That if given into would represent infidelity to the gospel. And so with this orientation, assuming it doesn’t go away, the call to faithfulness is the call to chastity and to celibacy. Because you were this way from birth Jesus said. Celibate from birth the way you were made.You remember when, when, when the Pharisees were asking why is the man who was born blind, why was he born this way. You know, who sinned, the Pharisees said, “Who did something wrong that he was born this way; was it him or was it his parents?” And Jesus said, “Nobody did anything wrong. It wasn’t his parents, it wasn’t him. He wasn’t born this way because there’s something wrong with him. He was born this way so that through his affliction, through his minority position as a blind person, God can be glorified.”

http://theaquilareport.com/what-do-you-think/

My operating assumption is that the Aquila article is accurate. I notice that Scott Sauls didn't challenge the factual accuracy of the article. The reply of Scott Sauls is unresponsive to some key issues raised in the article. 

1. According to Rom 1, homosexual desires as well as homosexual activities are sinful. It speaks not merely of "shameful acts," but the "dishonorable passions" that motivate the dishonorable acts. 

2. Even if we didn't have a passage of Scripture (e.g. Rom 1) that's specifically addressed to this particular issue (i.e. homosexual attraction), it's a general truth that sinful actions often act out or act on sinful motives. For instance, murder is, in the first instance, sinful because the attitude is sinful. 

That, of itself, doesn't disqualify a person from church office. But we need to correct a false premise in this debate. Insofar as the ordination of homosexuals is justified by dichotomizing sinless feelings from sinful actions, that's a false dichotomy. And that invalidates a justification predicated on that false dichotomy.

3. Jesus didn't say homosexuals are born that way. Moreover, to be born a eunuch has reference to genital deformities, not "orientation". See Nolland's commentary on Matthew. It is illicit for Scott Sauls to prooftext his position from Mt 19. 

Likewise, the attempted analogy from Jn 9 begs the question. We have no evidence that Jesus thought homosexual attraction is genetic. Even if, for the sake of argument, Jesus did think homosexual attraction is genetic, we can't read his mind. Since he never said that, we have no way to determine if that's what he thought. It is therefore illicit to invoke the authority of Christ when there's no evidence to believe he'd affirm the analogy. 

4. Notice how Scott Sauls smuggles in the blind man's "minority position" to create a parallel with homosexual minorities. But that's entirely extraneous to Jn 9. Jesus says nothing about the blind man's minority position. The narrator says nothing about the blind man's minority position. That intrudes an extrinsic consideration into the text. 

5. It's quite possible for someone to have a disqualifying impediment through no fault of their own. For instance, if I was born with defective vision, that disqualifies me from becoming a fighter pilot. Or suppose I contract AIDS from infected blood during surgery. That disqualifies me from becoming a blood donor. So even if, for the sake of argument, we say that homosexual attraction is innocent, it could still be an impediment to church office. 

6. Church office is not a human right or entitlement. It's not as if "gay Christians" have an inalienable right to be ordained to church office. 

7. The comparison with a recovering alcoholic is problematic on two grounds:

i) A desire for alcohol isn't sinful. So the attempted analogy is disanalogous in that respect.

ii) Moreover, the comparison backfires. Would it be prudent for a recovering alcoholic to be a bartender? Should he work in a liquor store?

By the same token, is it prudent to put a "gay Christian" in tempting situations where he has access to young people, in a position of authority over young people? 

We've seen this movie before. It doesn't have a happy ending. We've seen what happened in the church of Rome when homosexual priests sworn to celibacy are put in that position.

8. In addition, we've also seen an incremental strategy in play where "celibate gay Christians" serve as a wedge tactic. Once that's acceptable, once they have that foot in the door, the next step is "faithful, covenanted" homosexual relationships. The complaint is how unfair it is for straight Christians to have the emotional and sexual fulfillment of marriage and kids, but deny that to "gay Christians". How hypocritical! 

That's the "noble lie": you break down resistance through a softening-up exercise. You intend all along to normalize homosexuality within the church, but that's not where you start.

I'm not accusing Stephen Moss of that. Maybe he's sincere. But I'm discussing this from a policy perspective and not isolated individuals. Once you have the momentum of a policy shift, there's a preexisting homosexual lobby that will take advantage of that policy shift. 

God and the problem of evil

Has a focus on the soul-making theodicy:

http://randalrauser.com/2016/05/god-and-the-problem-of-suffering-an-interview-with-paul-buller/

Divine chastisement

13 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:1-5). 

9 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him (Jn 9:1-3). 

4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it (Jn 11:4). 

i) Natural evils are sometimes remedial or retributive punishment for sin. 

ii) However, natural evils can, and often do, befall the righteous and unrighteous alike. Much suffering is due to original sin rather than personal sin. Due to the fall, humans are liable to suffering or death by disease, senescence, war, murder, starvation, poisoning, fatal accident, fire, natural disaster, &c. 

iii) Apart from special revelation, we can't justifiably conclude that a particular illness or tragedy is divine punishment. Sometimes that's the case, but in many situations, that's not the case. Ironically, that connection is made by health-and-wealth charlatans.

There are heretics, infidels, or generally wicked folk who lead long, healthy, comfortable lives, viz. Hugh Hefner (89-), Robert Mugabe (91-), Adolf Grünbaum (92-), Mary Midgley (96-), Bertrand Russell (d. 97), W. V. O. Quine (d. 92), Martin Gardner (d. 95), Edward Teller (d. 95), Linus Pauling (d. 93), Leo XIII (d. 93), Hans Bethe (d. 98), Ernst Mayr (d. 100), John Hick (d. 90), Harry Emerson Fosdick (d. 91), Leni Riefenstahl (d. 101), Charles Hartshorne (d. 103). 

So there's nothing approaching a one-to-one correspondence between holiness/orthodoxy and good fortune, or sin/heresy and ill-fortune. Indeed, there's no probable correlation.  

Conversely, there are devout Christians who had short, often hard lives. Westminster Divine George Gillespie died at 35. Missionary Jim Elliot died at 28. Missionary Eric Liddell died at 43 of brain cancer. Robert Murray M'Cheyne died at 29. Missionary David Brainerd died at 29.

iv) We need to distinguish between individual divine judgment and collective divine judgment. In the nature of the case, collective judgments are indiscriminate. If God unleashes a pestilence on a community, those who become sick or die will be those with the least natural resistance to the contagion or those with the greatest contact, not those who are the most sinful. Collective judgments don't target sinners. Innocent and guilty alike will suffer.

v) There's a big difference between allowing for the possibility that ill-fortune is punishment for sin, and presuming that to be the case. Scripture warns us to avoid judgmental inferences (e.g. Job; Lk 13:1-5; Jn 9:1-3; 11:4). 

vi) Since illness and tragedy are sometimes divine chastisement, a suffering Christian should make allowance for that possibility and consider if there are unexamined sins of omission or commission in his life. If, after he rectifies the problem, the illness abates, that might be evidence that it was remedial punishment. Even then, that's iffy.  

Talent's temptations

I'd like to make one last observation on the Wilson affair. I'm using this occasion to make a larger point. 

From what I've read, Wilson acts as if he's the victim, he's the one who was wronged in this whole dispute. 

In my observation, most pastors are pretty ordinary people. They aren't especially gifted. They don't have any great knack for what they do. And I don't say that as a criticism or putdown.

Because most pastors don't have a deep well of natural talent to dip into, they can't rely on their personal facility in the way a truly gifted person can. To be a good shepherd, the average pastor must rely one things which aren't based on his special endowments, because he never had all that to draw upon. Instead, he must simply be studious, faithful, prayerful conscientious, know his parishioners, visit the sick, &c. Plodding, mundane things that anyone dutiful person can do. 

However, Doug Wilson is a big talent. Talented people rely on their outsized abilities. And there's nothing wrong with that. Make the most of it. Put it to good use.

However, talented people are prone to a danger that average people are not: pride. Egotism. 

Because they have talent, because they rely on their natural talent, it is easy for a gifted person to be self-centered. And this is reinforced by the fact that charisma is a drawing card. People come to hear and see you. They read you for style as much as substance. You have starpower. You become the sun of that solar system. 

It's easier for a talented person to see himself in his work, because he did put more of himself into his own work. He's less dependent on the work of others. He has a personal flair for doing things. He plunges the big dipper into the well of his own overflowing talent. 

Hence, gifted people, including–or especially–gifted Christians, must make an extra effort to guard against vainglory.

Counseling apostates

Lydia McGrew left some useful comments at the blog of a recent apostate that are well-worth reading:

Lydia McGrew  says:

August 26, 2015 at 3:29 am

This sentence probably is a good place to zero in on where I think your reasoning has gone astray: ” And if there is to be absolutely no relational value in being a Christian then I seriously question the value of believing it.”

The value of believing Christianity is quite simply that it is true. If it is true, and if we have reason to believe it is true, then we should believe it even if it doesn’t have the kind of relational value we were hoping for from it. That’s true of anything. Why should I believe in the existence of ________ if it isn’t what I was hoping it would be like to interact with ___________? Well, presumably, I should believe in the existence of ________ if it’s true that ________ exists and if I have reason to believe that. The same for, e.g., the Trinity, Jesus as the atonement for sins, the deity of Christ, etc.

Moreover, if Christianity is true, then that means one has an opportunity to a) be forgiven of one’s sins (we all need that) and b) experience the beatific vision forever after death, in comparison to which (Christianity says) everything we’ve gone through on earth, however bad, including the pain of *not* having a “relational” feeling of God’s presence, will seem like nothing when we are there.

So believing Christianity is very valuable, *if* it is true.

Which means that discovering whether it’s true is very important, even if it turns out that “relational value” is not part of the package deal.

It seems to me (and I apologize if others in the thread have said this already, but I have not had time to read the thread) that you came to believe in a particular experiential interpretation of various verses in the New Testament (I would assume more than the old) and therefore considered Christianity falsified if the expectations raised by that interpretation were not met. But perhaps that interpretation of those verses was incorrect. And if, in addition, there is a wealth of other evidence that Christianity in its broad theological outlines is in fact true, then it would be a terrible mistake to abandon it on that basis.

Speaking for myself, I virtually _never_ have anything like an experience of the presence of God, and when I have an experience that might be such, I tend to be skeptical of it. I do not consider such experiences to have important evidential value. My evidence for Christianity is quite other, and *on the basis thereof*, I cultivate the personal side of what one might _call_ a “relationship with Christ” (petitionary prayer, meditation, receiving the Sacrament, mentally “placing myself before God,” and so forth), but which has a very different “feel” from what a “relationship with God” is supposed to be like in a more charismatic context where one is constantly expecting to receive “words” from God. I think the expectation of such constant “words” is harmful, and I think that your case is a good illustration of why. I discuss some of this not only in the main post but also in the comments thread, here, where I get some pushback from a reader:

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/04/on-petitionary-prayer.html

By the way, prayer for you, specifically, has been a part of my relationship with God, because of this loss of faith and the cause of it. If you think it would be of any value to you, please feel free to e-mail me privately: