Will God always heal?

A number of years ago someone gave me a video of an English-based preacher speaking in Uganda.  This man stood before a small congregation and made an outrageous claim.  He said, ‘I have an anointing, and because I have this anointing I can heal you.  I don’t care whether its AIDS or TB, today you will be healed.’

Imagine those dear people putting their hope in him.  Think of those people who stopped taking their medication because of what he said, only to find their condition deteriorating.  I do believe God can, and does, heal today.  But I don’t believe that healing is something that can be presumed upon.  I believe that even the faithful get sick and die.

What is the relationship between sickness and sin? 

Sometimes people are quick to assume that the reason a person is ill is because of some unconfessed sin in their life.  I am not doubting that this can be the case.  In 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle Paul says that there were people getting ill and dying because they had a loveless and irreverent attitude towards the Lord’s Supper.  However, we must not make the mistake of assuming that every illness is the result of some specific sin.

The disciples made this mistake in John 9.  They approached Jesus with a blind man and asked: ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’  Jesus replies that his blindness was not the result of either his or his parent’s sin.  Similarly, at the end of 1 Timothy, Paul tells his young disciple Timothy to ‘stop drinking only water and take some wine for your stomach’ (1 Timothy 5:23).  If Timothy’s stomach problems were caused by unconfessed sin in his life, then Paul would have simply told him to repent.  The whole book of Job deals with the issue of the fact that bad things happen to faithful Christians.

Can we always expect healing? 

More than once, I have witnessed people claim that an ill person would be made well, only to see that ill person die shortly afterwards.  Why weren’t they healed?  Was there something wrong with their faith?  It is interesting that some people who pray for the healing of others will blame the sick person if they don’t get well, rather than assuming that there may be something deficient in their own faith (see Mark 9:14-29).

Contrary to what these people think, the New Testament does not present us with a picture of everyone who was prayed for being healed.  Surely Paul prayed for Timothy’s stomach before he told him to take some wine for his illness.  Paul had to leave Trophimus behind in Miletus because he was sick (2 Timothy 4:20).  Surely Paul prayed for him too.  Indeed, in 2 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul pleads with the Lord three times that his thorn in the flesh (whatever that was) would be removed.  However, the Lord had a purpose for the thorn and replied, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness (verse 9).  The Lord didn’t remove the thorn but did give him the grace to sustain him and worked out his purpose through Paul’s suffering. 

In the Old Testament, the story of Elisha is very interesting.  Elisha had a significant healing ministry, but then we read that that he got ill and died (2 Kings 13).  He healed others, but a time came for him to get ill and die.    

The mistake of thinking that the prayer of faith will always heal people has lead to needless suffering amongst those who already enduring the pain of watching a love one struggle with terminal illness.  In the first church I worked with, there was a fine Christian man who was dying of a brain-tumour.  The pain his wife was enduring was made worse by well-meaning people promising he would be healed if they prayed with enough faith.

But what about all those promises about the prayer of faith?

For example, in Mark 11 Jesus declares to the disciples, ‘Have faith in God . . . I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain “Go through yourself into the sea” and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.  Therefore, I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.’ 

I am glad that Jesus healed in situations where faith was far from perfect.  Where our faith seems weak we can pray those great words, ‘I believe, help me in my unbelief’ (Mark 9:24).  But what is going wrong when we pray in faith and a person is not healed?  Why was Timothy not healed of his stomach problems?  Why was Theophimus not healed of his illness?  Why did Elisha die of his illness?  Why did God refuse to remove the thorn from Paul’s flesh?

Jesus’ teaching on the prayer of faith is meant to remind us that God delights ‘to give good gifts to those who ask him’ (Matthew 7:11).  We should not think that he is reluctant to respond.  Jesus is also teaching that we should show confidence in God’s ability to do anything we ask.  However, I think that he assumes what is taught elsewhere: that we subject all our prayers to the will of God (e.g. 1 John 5:14).  Later in Mark’s gospel we see this attitude on the lips of Jesus when he prays, ‘Father, all things are possible with you … Yet not what I will, but what you will’ (Mark 14:36).  Sometimes God’s will’s is to bring healing for his people as he brings them home through the valley of death.

Am I just dampening your enthusiasm for healing?

I hope not.  That is not my intention.  I actually believe that praying for healing should be a vital part of the life of any church.  James pictures a person calling the elders of the church to pray with them.  I have been a part of a team that was gathered by a church to pray for a particular healing, and it would appear that God responded to that prayer by healing them.

We have the gifts of healing in 1 Corinthians 12.  At certain times God uses particular people as an instrument of bringing his healing.  Notice the plural—it is not ‘the gift of healing’ but ‘gifts of healing.’  That fact the Apostle Paul of ‘gifts’ rather than ‘the gift’ seems to suggest that each healing occasion is the result of a gift being given for that particular situation.  The author Michael Green writes of a man he knows who prayed and laid hands on someone who had been told that they must spend the rest of their life in bed, immediately that person got up and was instantly and permanently healed.  But that man who was only used in that way on that one occasion.

I love the attitude of one person with a notable ministry in this area.  He acknowledged that God does not always heal the way would want him to.  But he said, ‘I’d rather pray with a hundred people and see one healed, than pray with no-one and see none healed.’

Conclusion – ‘Now and not yet’

Finally, some people claim healing on the basis of Isaiah's prophecy that 'he took up our infirmities and carried our diseases' (Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17).  They say that 'there is healing in the atonement'.  That is true.  The cross is the source of all the blessings we experience as followers of Christ.  But not all the blessings secured by Calvary come to us now.  For example, no-one in their right mind would claim to have their resurrection body already!  God often heals in this life, but we have to wait until the New Heaven and the New Earth for that time when there will be no more sickness for Christ's people (Revelation 21:1-4).

Don’t believe anyone who says that it is God’s will that his people should not suffer illness.  Freedom from illness and an end to suffering is a ‘not yet’ for the Christian.  We experience sickness and death in this life.  In his mercy God often does amazing things, we shouldn’t ignore the role of healing in the Christian life, but we should see these only as a foretaste of what is to come.        

Thank God for healing in whatever form it comes!  Pray with faith.  Be open to the fact that God will sometimes use particular people in certain situations as a channel of his healing mercy.  But these are first-fruits of the healing to come, when we will be given an imperishable body that will never perish or spoil.

Also:

Praying in Faith - Decision Magazine

The book and the coincidence

William MacKay was brought up in the wilds of Scotland, and when he came to Edinburgh to train as a doctor, his mother gave him a Bible in which she had written his name and hers.  

It was not long before he rejected her faith.  In fact he came to despise Christianity.  However, he did take a liking to whiskey.  He soon ran out of money.  In order to get some cash, he pawned the Bible.

Despite his drink problem he became a successful surgeon.  He still hated the Christian faith.  

One day a man was brought into the hospital who had been crushed in an accident.  The proud surgeon loved such a challenge.  When he met the man he could not get over how peaceful this man was.  The patient told Mackey that he trusted Jesus, and he was not afraid to die.

He asked Mackey how serious things were.  The surgeon said that there was little he could do, he had at most three hours to live.

'Thank you, doctor.  In my pocket is a two-week pay packet: please could you make sure that my landlady gets that to pay for my lodgings?  And could you get her to send me the book?'  He explained that his landlady would know what book he meant.

Mackey hardly ever went back to the ward after he had finished with a patient, but he went back because he was intrigued about how peaceful the man had been.  The nurse informed Mackey that he had died a few minutes earlier.  Then Mackey asked if he had managed to get the book.  He asked what kind of book it was.  Was it a bank book perhaps?

The nurse told him that the book was under his pillow.  Mackey went to the pillow and saw a Bible that looked strangely familiar.  He opened it, and there on the flyleaf he was startled to read his own name and the name of his mother, together with the verse of Scripture she had given him all those years earlier.  This was the very Bible he had pawned for whiskey.  

He hid the Bible under his coat, ran to his office, fell on his knees and asked God into his life.  

Hell: The doctrine that almost shattered my faith

I can’t tell you how difficult I have found the doctrine of hell to accept.  I doubt I am the only Christian who feels this way.  During a time of depression, I just could not accept the idea that our God who is love, would send people to hell.  A friend of mine packed in his faith over this doctrine, and I feared that I was going to join him.  The doctrine of hell nearly shattered my faith.  So, I wrote down some ideas to help us think through this doctrine.

The first thing I want to say is that it can be a godly thing to be disturbed about the doctrine of hell.  You do not struggle with this doctrine on your own.  You struggle with Jesus, who wept over Jerusalem when he considered the judgement that was coming to it, and who reminded them that while God longed to gather them under his wing, they were not willing (Matthew 23:37-39).  You struggle with the apostle Paul, who saw the unbelief of his people, the Jews, and said that he felt great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart (Romans 9:2).   There are times when it is appropriate for the doctrine of hell to make us miserable!

The second thing I want to point out is that while we speak of God sending people to hell, there is a sense in which God is simply giving people what they choose.  To people who don’t want to accept God’s mercy and live for Christ as their king, God says, ‘have your way!’  The responsibility for going to hell is placed squarely on the shoulders of the people who go there.  Paul writes, ‘they perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved’ (2 Thessalonians 2:10).  Theologian, J. I. Packer, writes, ‘nobody stands under the wrath of God save those who have chosen to do so.  The essence of God’s action in wrath is to give men [and women] what they chose in all its implications.’  Indeed, given that heaven centres upon the adoration of the person of Jesus, there is a sense in which heaven would feel like hell for those who do not love the Saviour

Thirdly, hell stands as a terrible testimony to the hardness of the human heart in the face of amazing love.  Jesus sincerely invites all people to come to him (Matthew 11:28).  God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather they repent and live (Ezekiel 33:11).  Yet people continue to try to justify themselves and refuse to come to Jesus in repentance and faith.  Jesus doesn’t seem to be shocked by the existence of hell, but he is dismayed over people’s stubborn refusal to come to him for rescue.

The thing that I find hardest to accept about hell is the eternal nature of the suffering of people there.  Some evangelical theologians in the last century toyed with the idea of annihilation (that hell would be the ceasing of our existence).  I would be much more comfortable to believe annihilation is true, but the evidence is against it (e.g. Revelation 14:11).  Don Carson points out that hell is not simply an eternal punishment for a finite lifetime of sin.  Hell is a place where the cycle of rebellion and punishment continues for ever—for all eternity people continue to resist God and they continue to receive God’s justice.

Fifthly, hell is a place of justice.  Those is heaven will look at the existence of hell and agree that the judge of this world has done what is right (Genesis 18:24).  Indeed, even those in hell will not be able to deny that their punishment is just.  It is interesting that there seems to be different degrees of suffering in hell that take into account differing degrees of hardness in the human heart (11:24).  We might not feel it, but it would actually be worse if God simply ignored human sin.  The alternative to a God who judges is a God who does not care if justice is done.

Sixthly, I realised that I had allowed my view of God to be distorted as I considered this doctrine.  I saw hell as the judgement of a mean-spirited and vindictive deity.  However, we have to remember that it is Jesus who warns us most consistently about hell and Jesus who comes as the judge.  Jesus was capable of holy indignation and righteous anger, but he was never vindictive, cruel or mean. 

Seventhly, one of the most significant reasons we struggle to accept the concept of hell is that we have not given serious thought to how serious a thing sin is.  This struck me when we were looking at the cross of Christ in small group.  There was the darkness for three hours in the middle of the afternoon, signifying God’s great displeasure.  There was the punishment of the Son of God, paying a price of infinite value to win a people to God.  There were the haunting words, ‘my God, my God, why have you forsaken me’ (Matthew 27:46).  Look at the cross and you will see how seriously God takes human sin.  Look at the cross and you will see how far God goes to recue people from hell.

The doctrine of hell will make no sense to us until we can see that hell is what our sin deserves.  While we try to defend and excuse our sin, God’s judgements and justice will seem unfair.  But if we are honest about the evil that we see in our hearts, we will know that we have reason to be amazed that Christ has rescued us from hell.  Jesus warned us of our danger, the Holy Spirit convicted us of our guilt, and the Father delighted to accept us as his children as we came in repentance and faith.  And don’t give up believing that what God has done for you, he is willing to do for a great multitude (Revelation 7:9).

Finally, the doctrine of hell should motivate us to lovingly warn people of God’s judgement and rescue.  Rico Tice explains, ‘For me, as I look at Jesus' life and the way he treated people, I see the most loving man who ever lived.  Even people who were rejected by the rest of the world were deeply loved by him.  The reason that Jesus warns us about Hell is surely that he loves us and does not want us to go there.  He knows that if we reject God throughout our lives then ultimately God will be right to reject us.  He knows that our sin, if left undealt with, will take us to a place of unimaginable and unending suffering.  He warns us, because he loves us.’

Should God always heal?

A number of years ago someone gave me a video of an English-based preacher speaking in Uganda.  This man stood before a small congregation and made an outrageous claim.  He said, ‘I have an anointing, and because I have this anointing I can heal you.  I don’t care whether its AIDS or TB, today you will be healed.’

Imagine those dear people putting their hope in him.  Think of those people who stopped taking their medication because of what he said, only to find their condition deteriorating.  I do believe God can, and does, heal today.  But I don’t believe that healing is something that can be presumed upon.  I believe that even the faithful get sick and die.

What is the relationship between sickness and sin? 

Sometimes people are quick to assume that the reason a person is ill is because of some unconfessed sin in their life.  I am not doubting that this can be the case.  In 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle Paul says that there were people getting ill and dying because they had a loveless and irreverent attitude towards the Lord’s Supper.  However, we must not make the mistake of assuming that every illness is the result of some specific sin.

The disciples made this mistake in John 9.  They approached Jesus with a blind man and asked: ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’  Jesus replies that his blindness was not the result of either his or his parent’s sin.  Similarly, at the end of 1 Timothy, Paul tells his young disciple Timothy to ‘stop drinking only water and take some wine for your stomach’ (1 Timothy 5:23).  If Timothy’s stomach problems were caused by unconfessed sin in his life, then Paul would have simply told him to repent.  The whole book of Job deals with the issue of the fact that bad things happen to faithful Christians.

Can we always expect healing? 

More than once, I have witnessed people claim that an ill person would be made well, only to see that ill person die shortly afterwards.  Why weren’t they healed?  Was there something wrong with their faith?  It is interesting that some people who pray for the healing of others will blame the sick person if they don’t get well, rather than assuming that there may be something deficient in their own faith (see Mark 9:14-29).

Contrary to what these people think, the New Testament does not present us with a picture of everyone who was prayed for being healed.  Surely Paul prayed for Timothy’s stomach before he told him to take some wine for his illness.  Paul had to leave Trophimus behind in Miletus because he was sick (2 Timothy 4:20).  Surely Paul prayed for him too.  Indeed, in 2 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul pleads with the Lord three times that his thorn in the flesh (whatever that was) would be removed.  However, the Lord had a purpose for the thorn and replied, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness (verse 9).  The Lord didn’t remove the thorn but did give him the grace to sustain him and worked out his purpose through Paul’s suffering. 

In the Old Testament, the story of Elisha is very interesting.  Elisha had a significant healing ministry, but then we read that that he got ill and died (2 Kings 13).  He healed others, but a time came for him to get ill and die.    

The mistake of thinking that the prayer of faith will always heal people has lead to needless suffering amongst those who already enduring the pain of watching a love one struggle with terminal illness.  In the first church I worked with, there was a fine Christian man who was dying of a brain-tumour.  The pain his wife was enduring was made worse by well-meaning people promising he would be healed if they prayed with enough faith.

But what about all those promises about the prayer of faith?

For example, in Mark 11 Jesus declares to the disciples, ‘Have faith in God . . . I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain “Go through yourself into the sea” and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.  Therefore, I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.’ 

I am glad that Jesus healed in situations where faith was far from perfect.  Where our faith seems weak we can pray those great words, ‘I believe, help me in my unbelief’ (Mark 9:24).  But what is going wrong when we pray in faith and a person is not healed?  Why was Timothy not healed of his stomach problems?  Why was Theophimus not healed of his illness?  Why did Elisha die of his illness?  Why did God refuse to remove the thorn from Paul’s flesh?

Jesus’ teaching on the prayer of faith is meant to remind us that God delights ‘to give good gifts to those who ask him’ (Matthew 7:11).  We should not think that he is reluctant to respond.  Jesus is also teaching that we should show confidence in God’s ability to do anything we ask.  However, I think that he assumes what is taught elsewhere: that we subject all our prayers to the will of God (e.g. 1 John 5:14).  Later in Mark’s gospel we see this attitude on the lips of Jesus when he prays, ‘Father, all things are possible with you … Yet not what I will, but what you will’ (Mark 14:36).  Sometimes God’s will is to bring healing for his people as he brings them home through the valley of death.

Am I just dampening your enthusiasm for healing?

I hope not.  That is not my intention.  I actually believe that praying for healing should be a vital part of the life of any church.  James pictures a person calling the elders of the church to pray with them.  I have been a part of a team that was gathered by a church to pray for a particular healing, and it would appear that God responded to that prayer by healing them.

We have the gifts of healing in 1 Corinthians 12.  At certain times God uses particular people as an instrument of bringing his healing.  Notice the plural—it is not ‘the gift of healing’ but ‘gifts of healing.’  That fact the Apostle Paul of ‘gifts’ rather than ‘the gift’ seems to suggest that each healing occasion is the result of a gift being given for that particular situation.  The author Michael Green writes of a man he knows who prayed and laid hands on someone who had been told that they must spend the rest of their life in bed, immediately that person got up and was instantly and permanently healed.  But that man who was only used in that way on that one occasion.

I love the attitude of one person with a notable ministry in this area.  He acknowledged that God does not always heal the way would want him to.  But he said, ‘I’d rather pray with a hundred people and see one healed, than pray with no-one and see none healed.’

Conclusion – ‘Now and not yet’

Finally, some people claim healing on the basis of Isaiah's prophecy that 'he took up our infirmities and carried our diseases' (Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17).  They say that 'there is healing in the atonement'.  That is true.  The cross is the source of all the blessings we experience as followers of Christ.  But not all the blessings secured by Calvary come to us now.  For example, no-one in their right mind would claim to have their resurrection body already!  God often heals in this life, but we have to wait until the New Heaven and the New Earth for that time when there will be no more sickness for Christ's people (Revelation 21:1-4).

Don’t believe anyone who says that it is God’s will that his people should not suffer illness.  Freedom from illness and an end to suffering is a ‘not yet’ for the Christian.  We experience sickness and death in this life.  In his mercy God often does amazing things, we shouldn’t ignore the role of healing in the Christian life, but we should see these only as a foretaste of what is to come.        

Thank God for healing in whatever form it comes!  Pray with faith.  Be open to the fact that God will sometimes use particular people in certain situations as a channel of his healing mercy.  But these are first-fruits of the healing to come, when we will be given an imperishable body that will never perish or spoil.

How can you trust the gospels?

The great nineteenth-century preacher, Charles Spurgeon, was asked about defending the Bible.  He replied, ‘defend the Bible?  I would rather defend a lion!  Unchain it and let it defend itself.’

In this post I want to defend the four gospels.  I want you to see that their evidence is significant.  But more importantly I want to encourage you to read the gospels, and let them defend themselves. 

Objection: ‘We don’t have the originals’

We refer to the original text as an autograph.  It is true that we don’t have the autographs of any of the four gospels.  However we can be confident of knowing what those autographs contained.

To start with, we have a great deal of manuscript evidence.  For example, there are over five-thousand Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament, dating from the second-century to the time of the Reformation.  Compare that to the seven manuscripts of Plato’s ‘Tetralogies’ that date from at least 1,200 years after its composition.

Two interesting examples of New Testament evidence are the John Ryland’s Fragment (a few verses of John’s Gospel, and dating from around 120 A.D.) and the Chester Beatty Papyri (containing major parts of the New Testament, and dating from around 200 A.D.).

Added to the manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents are the 32,000 citations of the New Testament in the writings of what are known as the pre-Nicaean fathers (they were church leaders writing before in the time period before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.).  From their writings alone we can be clear about what was contained in the New Testament originals.

When I was a young Christian I read a book by Professor F. F. Bruce of Manchester University entitled, ‘The New Testament Documents – Are they reliable?’  In this he states that ‘The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.  And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.’

Objection:  The gospels are full of errors

When I say that I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible I mean that I believe that there were no errors in the originals.  However, there are variations in the manuscripts.  These variations are the results of mistakes made by those who were copying the manuscripts.  No one is keeping this a secret.  Open any copy of a modern Bible and you will see footnotes that inform you of variations in manuscript evidence.  The vast majority of these variations are extremely minor, and no doctrine of the church is altered by such a variant in the text.

Writing of the Bible as a whole, one systematic theologian writes, ‘For over 99 percent of the words of the Bible, we know what the original manuscript said ...  In the small percentage of cases where there is uncertainty about what the original text said, the general sense of the sentence is usually quite clear from the context’ (Grudem). 

There are also some places where it can seem difficult to reconcile various accounts of the same event.  So when I was speaking on this topic at the University of Limerick Christian Union someone asked me about Judas’s death.  The account in Matthew and that in Acts is not an easy match.  Similarly, aspects of the resurrection account don’t fit comfortably together.  However, if writers like Matthew and Luke were aware of each other’s accounts, then clearly they do not see any contradictions, and if they are entirely independent of each other, then we have added historical weight to what they were saying.

The fact that the accounts can be reconciled with each other, but that they don’t always smoothly do so, is clear evidence that the writers have not colluded in their story.  They are telling the same story from different viewpoints.  Kel Richards tells of a police-officer who looked at the evidence for the resurrection from the gospel accounts and so was struck by how authentic they sounded that he was brought to faith.

One of the interesting things about the gospels is that if you were making this story up you would not make it up like this.  The text is full of marks of authenticity.  For example, in a Jewish court of law the evidence of a woman was not permissible, so you would not have had women as the first eye-witnesses of the empty tomb.  Similarly, Peter apparently is the source of Mark’s gospel, but Peter comes across as spiritually slow on the uptake, and even denies Jesus (I would have made myself look better).  Also, in a chauvinistic society, Luke records that the ministry of Jesus was financially dependant on a bunch of women.  And, Jesus is portrayed as being too weak after his flogging to carry the beam of his cross--he has to be helped by Simon of Cyrene (who Mark tells is the father of Alexander and Rufus—who his readers seem to know).

When someone points to a problem text in Scripture remember that they are presenting you with something that Christians have been aware of for centuries.  As Wayne Grudem points out, ‘the Bible in its entirety is over 1,900 years old, and the alleged "problem texts" have been there all along.   Yet throughout the history of the church there has been a firm belief in the inerrancy of Scripture ... Moreover, for these hundreds of years highly competent biblical scholars have read and studied these problem texts and still have no difficulty in holding to inerrancy.’

Objection:  They were only myths that weren't meant to be taken as history

But maybe the writers never meant us to take their work seriously—maybe they were writing legend or myth.  Luke claims to have carefully investigated his gospel so that he could give an accurate account, and John (19:35) claims to have been an eyewitness.  Remember that John was a Jew who would have believed that inventing a hoax messiah would have been an act of blasphemy that would have excluded him from God’s kingdom.  The apostles all endured lives of hardship for what they claimed about Jesus!

The time lag from event to legend is too short.  Legends cannot be created in the time frame of eyewitnesses to the events.  Neither do the gospel accounts read like legends.  C. S. Lewis was the writer of the Narnia books.  He was also a Professor of Literature in Oxford.  He writes, ‘I have been reading legends and myths all my life.  I know what they look like.  I know they are not like this.’

Objection:  What about other gospels?

This sort of objection has become popular since the Da Vinci Code.  However, these so-called gospels should not worry you.  It can easily be shown that the four gospels we have were in circulation in the second-century and recognised as having unique authority.  However, none of the alternative gospels were written in the first-century, have a very different feel to them, and can be attributed to unorthodox Christian off-shoots.

Listen to the description in of the resurrection in the Gospel of Peter.  The soldiers guarding the tomb ‘saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them.  The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of [Jesus] that was led up them went beyond heaven.’

One of these other gospels is the gospel of Peter, which was written in the second half of the second-century.  Unlike the four gospels it is completely otherworldly—with moving crosses, and a Jesus who has a head that reaches beyond heaven.  It reflects an accommodation to the Greek mind, that didn’t like the physical, and so created an ethereal Jesus.  It is consistent with the thoughts of the Gnosticism that was an influence at that time.

Conclusion

I could mention the evidence for Jesus and the early Christian movement from non-biblical sources, like the Jewish historian Josephus or the Romans Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.  J. P. Moreland writes, ‘No historian I know of denies that Christianity started in Jerusalem just a few weeks after the death of Jesus in the presence of friendly and hostile eye-witnesses.’

I could also point to the internal consistency of the Bible.  Many have read the books of the Bible (written by over forty authors over 1,500 years) and been amazed that it seems to have unifying threads. 

However, I want to finish with words from the Bible translator J. B. Phillips.  He writes, ‘The New Testament, given a fair hearing, does not need me or anyone else to defend it.  It has the proper ring of truth for anyone who has not lost the ear for truth.

By all means defend the lion, but more importantly let that lion lose to defend itself.  This book has the fingerprints of God on it.  If you have never read one of the four gospels as an adult I can guarantee you that you will be surprised by what’s in here.

Letter to Limerick Post

Dear Sir,

Tom Murphy has challenged me to come up with a coherent narrative for the events surrounding the first Easter morning.  I would suggest that the easiest thing to do is to deal with some of the apparent discrepancies that exist between the gospels, and then give a possible account.

The first thing that I need to point out is that it is really encouraging to see the apparent discrepancies between the gospels.  If there had been collusion around the resurrection accounts we would see identical stories.  However, what we get is what would be expected from eyewitnesses. 

One of the apparent discrepancies surrounds the number of women involved.  The fact that the first witnesses to the resurrection were women is a real mark of authenticity (as the testimony of women was not admissible in a first-century court).  None of the writers are claiming to give an exhaustive list. For example, John only mentions Mary Magdalene, but then has her reporting her findings using ‘we’ language. 

Then there is the difference in the light.  John says it was dark, while the others talk of sunrise.  I would suggest that the women may have set off from Bethany in the dark on the two mile journey to Jerusalem, arriving in the early light.

Were there one or two angels?  There were two angels.  It is not strange that Mark would only mention one angel, as frequently only the spokesperson is mentioned and accompanying figures are not mentioned.  Also, it was common in the Bible for angels to appear in the form of men.

The other thing that needs to be noted is that scholars believe that the gospel writers knew of each other’s writing.  If this is so, then they clearly didn’t see contradictions between what they wrote and what was written before them.  If they didn’t know of each other’s writing then we have to account for the huge overlap in their stories of the life of Jesus.

There are a number of ways that you can harmonise the resurrection accounts.  The following is based on the work of New Testament scholar Murray Harris:

On the first day of the week, as morning was dawning, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome approach the tomb intending to embalm the body.  Mary Magdalene immediately returns to tell Peter and John that the body is missing.  Mary (mother of James) and Salome enter the tomb and see an angel who directs the women to tell the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.  These women return to Jerusalem, where they initially do not report the angelic vision, because of the awe and fright.  Certain other women, along with Joanna, go to the tomb, also planning to embalm the body.  They meet two angels and then return to report the resurrection the disciples (the disciples had scattered after Jesus was arrested).  Informed by Mary Magdalene, Peter and John run to the tomb (without meeting Mary the mother of James and Salome).  They observe the grave clothes and return home.  Mary Magdalene remains behind and meets Jesus.  She returns to inform the disciples.  Mary the mother of James and Salome haven’t said anything yet.  Jesus meets Mary the mother of James (and perhaps Salome and others) and directs them to tell his brethren to go to Galilee.  Later Jesus will appear to other people, including to five hundred people on one occasion.

Finally, can I recommend a great website that not only answers questions like those Tom raises, but explains why these issues matter?  It is bethinking.org 

Yours sincerely,

Paul Ritchie (Limerick Baptist).

Tim Keller on how treat homosexuals

Letters from a sceptic (part 2)

Greg  Boyd places a great deal of his explanation for suffering on the concept of human freedom.  Now I agree that the actions of people are responsible for so much of the evil in our world.  Yet Boyd presents human freedom as so important to the relationship between God and people that God is unwilling to act in such a way that undermines it; I am not convinced. 

I fear that he restricts God's involvement in human affairs to much.  I am not convinced by his answer to the question, 'why didn't God simply place people in heaven and avoid all the suffering associated with this life?'  (His answer relates to the idea that people should be given the opportunity this life gives to choose God).  His emphasis on the role of demons in human suffering challenged me because I have not given sufficient thought to it.

All through reading this book I am thinking, 'would this be a good one to give to my friend Phillip?'  I am not sure.  I am enjoying it, it is written in a warm and engaging style, but are there too many places where I disagree with Boyd?

One final thought; Boyd states that 'the main business of this life, from a Christian perspective, is not this life but the next.'  When I was younger I thought that life would last for ever.  Now that I am approaching middle age it seems to be shorter.  While some people say that Christians spend too much time focusing on 'pie in the sky when you die' the truth is that the eternal perspective is central in the Christian message.  Of course God wants us to experience life in all its fullness now, but teaching about heaven and hell must not be neglected.

Letters from a sceptic (part 1)

When the church my cousin attends embraced open theism I was concerned.  Open theism involves a belief that God does not perfectly know the future.  With typical arrogance I read one book about this and thought myself an expert.  I also had one very frustrating conversation with my cousin about her theology; we talked past each other and both concluded that the other was uninformed and naive.

  

I would still recommend the book I read; Bruce Ware's, God's Lesser Glory.  But the truth is I do not have the intellect to understand all the issues that are debated.

Then my brother started reading a Greg Boyd (a big open theism author) book, Letters from a Sceptic.  Would he too embrace what I felt was a dangerous theology?  He is far more intelligent than I am and is capable of separating wheat from chaff.  He enjoyed the book and agreed with some of its points; yet he did not buy into it all and still believes that God perfectly knows the future.

I am not as worried about open theism as I used to be; after all it is clear that my cousin still loves the Lord and is trusting him alone for forgiveness and life.  However, I am still concerned that her whole church seems to have bought to a fringe theological position at the instigation of their charismatic leaders.

 

Anyway, when I was at my parent's home recently I saw the book that David read.  Letters from a Sceptic is a dialogue between Boyd and his father (who is the sceptic).  I started to read.  He begins by telling his father that: 

'Having one's faith challenged - whatever faith one holds - is always a good thing.  If it can't "stand the fire," a faith isn't worth holding - whether it is Christianity or atheism.' 

Christ is risen

What about religious hypocrites?

My friend Mucky was in the U.V.F., before he became a Christian. That terrorist organisation may have claimed that they were fighting 'for God and Ulster' but God had very little to do with it. Indeed, those above him were unimpressed about his conversion, and his new found faith led him to renounce violence. A lot of people claim that there is a link between religion and hatred, and cite Northern Ireland as part of their case. The truth is more complex. I believe that the 'troubles' were more about tribalism than alternative understandings of the Reformation.

That is not to say that there haven't been acts of evil committed by those who are sincere in their religious beliefs. I am sure there have been fanatics who believed that they were acting in line with God's will as they blew up abortion clinics. However, I think such people are mistaken in their logic. Similarly, I have met people who claim to be Christians yet whose attitude towards other groups was marked by an underlying bigotry.

Christianity and terrorism are incompatible. I do not want to deny that there are difficult texts in the Old Testament where God instructs his people to carry out acts of war. But it is important to note where we are in God's direction of his people. God's people are no longer associated with a holy nation and a holy land. God's people are no longer commanded to carry out his judicial sentence on evil nations. Christians are called to be subject to the states in which they find themselves resident (Romans 13). The case of when a nation is justified in going to war is more complicated. However, the church is never called to ‘holy war’.

What about the Crusades? Yes, they are a terrible indictment on organised religion. I don't know enough about them to judge the sincerity of those who ordered them. Perhaps they were driven more by political and economic ambition than devotion to Christ. Unfortunately they are a blemish on the name of Christianity.

There are some things worth keeping in mind.

Firstly, not all who claim the name of Christ are actually Christian (Matthew 7:21-23). There will be some people who are fanatical for a 'religious cause' who are not ‘born of the Spirit’. They may claim allegiance to Christ but they neither have the desire or ability to truly follow him. Those whose lives are marked by hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness should not be confident about the coming Day of Judgement.

Secondly, some people do evil knowing that the evil they do is inconsistent with the faith they protest. Take a priest who engages in child-abuse. Such an act is evil and inexcusable. But surely most of those who did these things knew that they were acting against the faith they professed. Again those who claim to be Christians but whose lifestyle is inconsistent with the rule of Christ have no reason to be confident of their standing before him.

Thirdly there is the problem of ignorance. Take those who justified a system of racially-segregated churches. The argument simply does not stand up to the teaching of Scripture, which tells us that all are made in the image of God and that believers are a part of one new family (Gen. 1, Gal. 3 and Eph. 2). Some might point to past ignorance and say that we need to be careful about being dogmatic about what we believe. I see it slightly differently. We need to ensure that we rigorously examine what we believe in the belief that truth matters and that error can distort the witness of the faith.

All evil points to our need of Christ. The Christian should be the first person who acknowledges that evil is not simply a problem of other people, but that we all have failed to live up to even our own standards (yet alone God’s perfect standards). Sin is not just the preserve of religious hypocrites. Some of the most awful atrocities were committed by anti-religious regimes like those of Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot. The Bible’s diagnosis is that sin is something that all people are guilty of. All people need forgiveness and Christ took upon himself human guilt that people can be forgiven.

Yes, Christians shouldn’t be creeps. When we handed our lives over to Christ he gave us his Holy Spirit and is transforming us into the likeness of his perfect self. As has been pointed out, if a person claims to be a Christian but doesn’t show any evidence of change, or ignores Christ’s way of love, then it is doubtful that actually have been born again. But the Christian also knows that they are not perfect. We are works in progress. We are being transformed. We still battle the sinful nature and often fail. But we delight that God continues to forgive us. No Christian should claim to be without sin.

So my final plea to those who see my hypocrisy, and a difference between what I ought to be and what I am, is to ask you to look away from my imperfections and look to the one I say I follow. Please don’t write off the perfect person of Jesus because he shows such patience with imperfect people like me. Please see that he is willing to forgive your hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy you see in others.

Lennox verses Dawkins

I am watching the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins (both professors in Oxford).  I thought that I would post some thoughts.

1. John Lennox states that, 'What divides us is not science, what divides is is particular worldviews.'  I realise that among Bible-believing Christians there exists a variety of ways of engaging with science.  However, it is ill-informed of atheists to imagine that Christians simply run from science.  Indeed there are some notable scientists who are Christians.  For example, Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project.  As Dawkins admits, 'it has to be admitted that science grew out of a religious tradition.'

2.  Richard Dawkins admits, 'There are still gaps in our understanding.  We don't know how the cosmos came into existence in the first place.'  Now Christians need to be careful in using such a statement.  The fact that science has to admit its limitations in current understanding is significant.  Nevertheless, if Christians base their arguments on those things that science has not yet figured out their case will be weakened every time science claims a breakthrough in understanding.

3.  John Lennox says, 'Some faith is blind, and blind faith is very dangerous.'  'Faith in the Christian sense is not blind.'  'My faith in God and Christ as the Son of God is no delusion.  It is rational and evidence-based.  Part of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some comes from history; and, some is subjective, coming from experience.'  At the end of the debate he points to the resurrection of Christ as the main objective evidence for his Christian belief.

4.  We must not simply equate rationality with science as if every field of study that is not science is not rational.

5.  Lennox accuses Dawkins of confusing mechanism and agency.  As if finding out how something works does away with the need for something behind the mechanism.

6.  Lennox quotes Whitehead's thesis, 'that human beings become scientific because they expected law in nature; and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.'

7.  It is clear that Dawkins and Lennox have a different understanding of the nature of faith.  Lennox says that Dawkins has been too influenced by Kant in his understanding of 'faith.'  For Dawkin's faith is something that is not based on evidence, for Lennox faith is something that is based on evidence.

8.  Lennox appeals to the fine tuning of the universe.  The fact that the Bible had claimed that there was a beginning before evidence existed of a beginning (put forward in the 1960's).  Aristotlian thought had hypothesised an eternal cosmos.  However, Dawkins points out that this is not too impressive given that there were only two options.

9.  In the God Delusion Dawkins claims that 'the whole argument turns on the question "who made God?"'  This is a weak argumentt.  For the Bible is clear that God is uncreated.  The atheist has the more difficult question to deal with, 'where did original matter come from?'

10.  In the God Delusion Dawkins makes reference to Northern Ireland among his references to the evils of religion.  I don't think that the conflict in Northern Ireland was primarily religiously driven, it was a ore basic tribalism.  In fact coming to a genuine Christian faith made many people move away from terrorism.  We could also point to the evils perpetuated by atheistic regimes like that of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

I don't claim that atheism on its own led to such oppression.  I think something within the human heart did.  Dawkins says that the problem with Stalin was something within him.  The question is whether this 'something' exists, to some extent, in all of us.  It would seem to me that there is both something moral within humankind and something twisted.  The accords with the Biblical view that we are created in the image of God and yet we are corrupted by a sinful nature.  Lennox says that 'the very fact that human beings all around the world show a common core of morality is evidence for the biblical claim that we are moral beings made in the image of God.'

'He warns us because he loves us'

This morning I am again looking at the new Christianity Explored course, preparing for doing it with our church in the new year.  I have been looking at the third session, on 'sin'.  I thought that Rico Tice's words were appropriate to post because I have been thinking about the topic of judgement in recent weeks.

When we hear Jesus' words about Hell we have to ask ourselves, 'Why would he talk like this?'  'Is he trying to manipulate us - trying to scare us, just so that he can gain control over us?'  'Or is he giving us a loving warning?'

For me, as I look at Jesus' life and the way he treated people, I see the most loving man who ever lived.  Even people who were rejected by the rest of the world were deeply loved by him.  The reason that Jesus warns us about Hell is surely that he loves us and does not want us to go there.  He knows that if we reject God throughout our lives then ultimately God will be right to reject us.  He knows that our sin, if left undealt with, will take us to a place of unimaginable and unending suffering.  He warns us, because he loves us.

Creation proclaims the glory of the Lord

After Christmas we are going to be doing the new Christianity Explored course.  This morning I decided that I would watch a couple of the sessions.  In the first Rico Tice speaks of the witness of creation.  I have attached the following two clips, from John Piper, on this theme.

How can God forgive wicked people (like me)?

My friend Mary has a question. ‘How could Myra Hindley be forgiven?’ Do you remember Hinley? She was involved in the terrible Moors’ murders. She was found guilty of despicable crimes. Yet there were claims that she has found God. If that is true then she is a sister of every other believer. How do we feel about that?

What about Andres Breivik in Norway? Supposing he arrived into court one day and said, ‘I am sorry for what I have done, I have asked God to accept and forgive me, and I want to give thanks for his love’? How would the people in Norway feel?

This was the problem Jonah was struggling with (see the book of Jonah). The city of Nineveh was a feared and hated place. Its people were responsible for all kinds of atrocities. As one preacher says, ‘Nineveh had been keeping undertakers in Israel busy for years’. Now God calls Jonah to speak to these people. Jonah knows what God is at. In God’s warnings there is mercy. God’s threats of judgement are kindness. He is telling them what he will do if they do not repent. In so doing is calling them to turn to him and experience his forgiveness. Jonah does not want these wicked people to have their sin forgiven (Jonah 4:2).

So how can God forgive wicked people like Myra Hindley? How could God desire the salvation of Andres Breivik (2 Peter 3:9)? How could God invite a wicked city like Nineveh to experience his forgiveness? The question is actually more personal. How could God forgive sinful people like us? After all, the Bible tells us that there is none who has not sinned (1 Kings 8); that we all turned our backs on God on gone astray like sheep (Isaiah 53), and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3). I love the realism of the old spiritual hymn that goes ‘were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ Don’t think that we would not have been amongst the crowd shouting ‘crucify’. Yet later on the cross Jesus looked at those who despised him and prayed ‘Father, forgive them.’

If we were only to see how utterly holy God is, and how abhorrent he sees our sin to be, then we would realise the question becomes ‘How could God forgive me?’ The undeserved forgiveness that Myra Hindley needed, the unmerited forgiveness that the people of Nineveh would experience, is the same unearned forgiveness that each of us has been offered.

God forgives wicked people like us because of the cross.  The whole of the Bible points to the cross. On the cross God demonstrates that he is both just and the one who justifies (Rom. 3:26). There we see that God has not turned a blind eye to sin. His forgiveness does not mean that he thinks that the crime does not matter. But he has dealt with the demands of justice by taking the divine penalty of guilt upon himself. Justice is done. Now he has the right to forgive anyone he wishes as he moves people to turn their lives back to him.

Why I believe!

When I was doing probation studies as a Methodist minister we were given a very interesting talk by Pete Rollins.  Pete has since become a pin-up boy for the emerging church and tours America.  Pete's blog has the subtitle 'to believe is human, to doubt is divine.'  When he talked to us he was enthusiastic, kind-of deep, and confusing.  Apparently he is a very nice bloke, although we come from opposite ends of the theological spectrum. 

Pete began his talk asking us why we believed.  I guess that he thought that we had based our belief on subjective grounds.  I suppose it is not surprising that he has gone on to be an advocate for doubt.  I did find his question challenging and I have often pondered it.  What follows are some uncompleted thoughts on the grounds for faith.

1.  I believe that God is the author of belief.  Ultimately I think that I believe because God has revealed himself to me.  I believe that he opens people's eyes to see the truth.  I believe that he rescues us from our spiritual ignorance.  Any other grounds for belief are really variations on this theme (or the means of how God achieved this end).

2.  I believe because I have seen him in others.  My parents are believers.  As a child I could see that they were different from other adults.  They had an integrity that was real.  These were intelligent, thoughtful people who had a solid and transforming belief in the God of the Bible.

3.  I believe because it makes sense.  When I went to college in Dublin I wanted to find out more about the Christian faith.  I joined the Christian Union and met some very intelligent Christians.  I know that God does not choose many who are wise by this world's standards (1 Cor. 1:26-27) but I am glad for the wise ones he has chosen.  These intelligent Christians comfort me in the fact that they have thought through the questions raised by faith and are comfortable with their belief. 

One of the areas where Christianity really makes sense to me is in its explanation of the human condition.  In humanity I see unmistakable greatness and an clear inner bent towards doing the wrong thing.  In other words I see that eternity has been placed in our hearts and that we battle against a sinful nature.

4.  I believe because their is objective evidence.  Before I went to theological college a liberal clergyman said that my naivety about the Bible would be knocked out of me with some further study.  Now I can not claim to be an expert on such things as textual criticism but it seemed to me that the detractions of liberal scholars revealed more about their presuppositions than it did about the biblical texts supposed lack of trustworthiness.  I believe that there are solid grounds for accepting the Bible to be true.  In particular I am impressed by the manuscript evidence for the New Testament.  I think that the transformation that occurred in the disciples lives, and that of Saul from Tarsus, is a strong testimony to the resurrection.  I think that while there is much debate about the nature of creation something cannot come from nothing and the existence of something, particularly a beautiful something, points to a creator.

5.  I believe because I believe.  I am always uncomfortable when someone says 'I just beleive'.  I think that we shouldn't separate belief from reason.  Yet every Christian points to an inner sense of belief.  This seems to be the witness of the Holy Spirit because these things are true.

6.  I believe because God is still at work today.  I have been thinking through the issue of 'signs and wonders'.  I am not sure how much these function as authenticating belief.  What I do know is that is that there are many credible evidences of God's intervention in people's lives today (you can click on to the label 'amazing things God does' for some examples).

Where was God?

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Edwin Lutzer's Where was God? ('Answers to tough questions about God and natural disasters').  I have found it compulsive reading and have decided that I will finish it today and blog some thoughts (plus share these thoughts at Sunday night's communion meal).

Not all of these thoughts are from Lutzer's book.  These are my thoughts that came to me as I read.  All the quotations are Lutzer's, unless otherwise stated.

1.  We must not ignore the horror of tragedies.  Natural disasters make me feel uncomfortable because they raise difficult questions that can shake my faith.  But it would be ignorant to turn off the telly and ignore the reality in order to preserve my belief.  We must have a faith stronger than that.  Neither should be hide from the devastation and human sorrow associated with such disasters.  Lutzer says, 'Many of us are better at trying to explain natural disasters than we are at weeping over them.'

2.  Our first response should be to pray and give rather than explain.  Jesus sets us an example of one who was moved to action by people's suffering.  It may be of more value to pray for those effected, and give to those helping, than simply to speak in God's defense.  'We should be willing to help those who are in distress even at great personal risk.'  'Jesus was touched by the plight that the curse of sin brought to this world.'  One woman surveyed the repairs done on her home by relief workers after Hurricane Katrina and commented, 'If it weren't for the Christians, we would have no hope here in the Gulf Coast.  We needed them, and they showed up.'  If only that was always the case!

3. Natural disasters remind us about what is really important.  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, author Max Lucado said, "No one laments a lost plasma television or submerged SUV.  No one runs through the streets yelling, 'My cordless drill is missing' or 'My golf clubs have washed away.'  If they mourn, it is for people lost.  If they rejoice, it is for people found."

4. We live in a world characterised by death. The apostle Paul explains how death is related to the rebellion of humankind (Romans 5:12).

The question is not so much 'why did that person die?' but 'why did they die in that way?' Why do some people die in their sleep after a long and peaceful life, while others die painfully in their youth? We are told that all will die, but we are not told why people die in the way that they do.

Indeed, natural disasters are a wake-up call regarding our own mortality. C. S. Lewis pointed out that war does not really increase death; even without war, the victims would still have to die eventually.

Lutzer writes,

In natural disasters, God intensifies the curse that is already upon nature and, for that matter, upon us. When we look at it this way, we realize that natural disasters happen every day as thousands of people die from disease, accidents, and tragedies of various kinds. Natural disasters only catch our attention when they are of great magnitude with many simultaneous deaths and unbelievable devastation to property. These disasters are really only a dramatic acceleration of what is happening all the time.

5. We can't explain away the involvement of God.

Sometimes people try to get God off the hook by saying that he merely 'permitted' a disaster, rather than ordaining it. This hair-splitting will not do! If God is in control of this universe then he had the power to stop it. Jesus calmed a storm with a word (Mark 4:39). At the word of Christ, the tsunami in Southeast Asia would have ended before it began. The Bible pictures God as ruling over nature: he who ... calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land - the LORD is his name (Amos 9:6).

Satan may have afflicted Job, including using the natural elements of lightening (to kill his sheep and servants)and a windstorm (to kill his ten children). 'Here, is proof, if proof is needed, that satanic powers might indeed be connected to the natural disasters that afflict our planet.' But Job knows that God remained in control, declaring, 'The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away' (Job 1:21). In that story we can see that Satan acted with God's permission and God set the boundaries around what Satan could do.

God sent the flood (Gen. 6-9), the plagues (Exodus 1-15) and the storm that pursued Jonah. God is in control of his creation. We also read God claim, I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things (Is. 45:7); and Amos declare, When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6).

6.  We should not think that we can offer a complete explanation.   

'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts' (Is 55:8-9). After the earthquake in Turkey, John Piper says, '[God] has hundreds of thousands of purposes, most of which will remain hidden to us until we are able to grasp them at the end of the age.'  Lutzer writes,

After years of studying the problem of reconciling the suffering of the world with God's mercy, I have concluded that there is no solution that will completely satisfy our minds, much less the minds of a sceptic.  God's was are "past finding out."  He has simply not chosen to reveal all the pieces of the puzzle.  God is more inscrutable than we care to admit. 

'The New Testament faces realistically the pain and evil of this world, but assures us that the future will make sense of the past.'  'It is not necessary for us to know God's purposes before we bow before His authority. And the fact that we trust God even though He has not revealed the details is exactly the kind of faith that delights His heart.'

When we are not sure what to say to people the best rule is to say nothing.  'I am well aware that little or nothing can be said to ease the pain of those who mourn the loss of loved ones ... Glib answers can be hurtful not helpful.'

7.  When we are confused about what we cannot know trust the one we can know. 
Martin Luther urges us to 'flee from the hidden God and run to Christ.'  While natural disasters may raise questions that baffle us and present us with mysteries we cannot answer we can still be sure that God is good.  We know that God is good because he has shown such beauty in the person of Jesus and demonstrated such wonderful love through the cross of Christ.

8.  We must avoid speculating. On November 1, 1755, an earthquake hit Lisbon killing 30-60,000 and reducing three-quarters of the city to rubble.  Protestants were inclined to say that it was a judgement against the Jesuits (who had founded the city) and the Jesuits responded that it was because the Inquisition had become too lax. Tele-evangelist, Pat Robertson, suggested that the stroke which ended Ariel Sharon's rule in Israel was God's judgement for having divided 'God's land.'  Such explanations are mere speculations and can be a source of embarrassment for Christians.

Luke 13 (1-4) should put an end to claims that natural disasters and accidents are personal acts of judgement. There people ask Jesus about two talking points of that day. One involved a tower falling and killing a group of people. The question was asked, 'those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?' Jesus replied, 'I tell you, no!' But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'

'Tragedies separate people into two camps - the dead and the living - but not the saved and the damned, not the religious and irreligious.' Yes, natural disasters could be an act of specific judgement. But we are not given the information that would enable us to say whether they are or not. So we would be wise not to speculate.

9.  Natural disasters drive people in one of two directions.  This is merely an observation.  People either run to God or run from God when disaster strikes.   Lutzer comments, 'The Lisbon earthquake split Europe between earth and heaven. On the one hand, the tragedy stimulated interest in the comforts of religion, especially the Christian faith, Church attendance increased and people were more likely to be attentive to eternity, and loyal to the church and God. But it also spurred the development and the growth of the secular Enlightenment.'   

10.  The Cross is the ultimate answer to suffering. All death reminds us to repent.  Did you notice Jesus' warning?  'Unless you repent, you too will all perish.'  Those who heard of those tragedies were reminded of their own need to repent.  I can't figure out what to think about what one person wrote to World Magazine:

We owe a great debt to those affected by Hurricane Katrina.  They received just a small taste of the wrath of God as a warning to us all that unless we repent, we will likewise perish.

'Earthquakes and the tsunamis they sometimes generate are the voice of God shouting to an unrepentant planet.'

Jesus would point to these daily reminders of the fragility of life and warns us to repent.  Unless we repent we will perish - we will face a fate more dreadful than any earthquake - as we take the punishment for our sin.  If we repent, turning from our sin and enthroning Jesus as our king, we will see that he has taken our punishment on the cross.  He has removed the sting from death and he is bringing us to a new creation where suffering and death no longer can touch us.