The Gall To Ask

I was the first of my high school friends to discover REM.  I think I was the only one to really be interested in REM, in fact, but I was definitely the first.  I thought that was really special, particularly when I saw something on MTV which said REM was a favorite among college students.  “See,” I thought, “I listen to music at a college level.”

Toward the end of my high school career, REM released a song called “Man On The Moon”.

This song would continue to get radio time throughout my college career.  It always disturbed me, particularly during my college years.  I think some of that disturbance is that I felt this song was different from the REM songs I had loved before.  But I know some of it is due to the line “Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask”.

That line is obviously a reference to Charles Darwin of On The Origin of Species fame, and the “asking” there is obviously Darwin’s willness to question the generally-accepted idea of divine creation.  This willingness is called “gall”, which amounts to brave or courageous or any number of idealistic things.

And I don’t suppose that really a problem.  I don’t want to be a knee-jerk theist, hating everything which is not on my side or my team.  I do wonder, though, why one person’s willingness to question generally-accepted ideas is called gall and viewed idealistically while another person’s willing to question generally-accepted ideas is regarded as stupidity or wickedness.

Let me give you an example of the latter which I recently found in Lee Strobel’s The Case For Miracles:


Strobel records the “theater” Hitchens performed, theater based on Hitchens’ apparent belief that no one could question science (or, more accurately, the materialistic worldview).  I found something similar in the movie Prometheus (which I went to see at the very first showing the Thursday night of its release):

The scientist (whose name I have forgotten but who doesn’t act all that scientific later in  the film when he taunts the obviously dangerous alien creature he encounters) clearly doesn’t think much about people discounting three centuries of Darwinism.  He apparently didn’t have a problem with Darwin and all his followers discounting millennia of creationism.

I suppose something on a much smaller scale happened when I went with my daughter’s kindergarten class on a field trip to the nearby Lawrence Hall of Science.  As we stood in the parking lot of the hall, one of the other father’s, a Russian expatriate, gestured at the building and said to me in broken English, “I thought you no like this.”

Image result for lawrence hall of science

The fact of the matter is that I don’t have any problem with science.  i don’t gravitate toward it much; it was never my favorite subject in high school and it still doesn’t do much for me today; I’d rather engage in philosophy or literature.  But I’m not the least bit -unscientific.  I don’t even see science as a threat to my faith.  What I have a problem with is the generally-accepted idea that science can explain everything and/or science is the only thing which can explain and make sense of reality.  And I believe I should be able to challenge that generally-accepted idea without being called a “science denier” or any other silly and untrue name.  I believe I should be able to challenge that generally-accepted idea without theatrics or the sarcastic thumbs up or the “wooo” or any other lowly way people try to avoid thoughtful debate  I believe challenging that generally-accepted idea is gall, the same gall Darwin was praised for.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  Or, what’s gall for one is gall for other.  You can’t praise Darwin for questioning what was generally-accepted and then blast others for doing the same.  Rather, you have to allow the questions (all of them) to take you where they do.

The Next Step

Some guy walked passed me at the department store one day.  He had on a T-shirt which was making some statement about evolution.  The shirt said something about “the ascent of man” and profiles of ancient hominids becoming full-fledged homosapiens.

Image result for the ascent of man

Now it is possible that this shirt was more comedic than serious.  I couldn’t see either end of the ascent as the man was wearing a jacket which obscured them both.  There was also the name of some school under the profiles.  It could be that either the last or the first profile was something ridiculous (a professor from said school or something; I don’t know) which would have turned the whole thing into a joke.

Serious or not, though, I reacted to it.  As soon as I saw this shirt, I imagined things I could say to this man to debunk evolution.  I started thinking of how I could fight this man, in other worlds, fight him and his evolutionary presuppositions and all he has built on them.

But as soon as I realized I was doing that, I additionally realized I shouldn’t be doing that.  I realized that wasn’t the way of Jesus, whom I call my Lord and on whom I base my behavior.  I realized that Jesus didn’t fight with people, didn’t attack and throw down their worldviews, as much as He moved people into the next step in their walk with God.

The idea of “moving people” like this comes to me via something called “The Engel Scale”.  I don’t know who Engel was, but I learned of this scale during some disciple-making training a couple years ago.  The scale shows that people are not just “all God” or “no God” but are instead at differing levels of closeness to or distance from God.  The scale further shows that success in disciple-making is not necessarily a matter of -10 to +10 but could instead be a matter of moving someone from -7 to -6 or +1 to +2.

Image result for building a discipling culture engel scale

This sounds correct to me.  It also seems a lot like what I see Jesus doing in the Gospels.  If you look at His encounters with tax collectors and religious leaders, with Nicodemus and the woman at the well and the rich young ruler, what you see is not Jesus so much engaging in large scale worldview battles as much as figuring out where they were and helping them to move one step closer to where they needed to be.

That being the case, Jesus probably wouldn’t have argued evolution with the guy I passed in the department store.  Jesus probably would have sidestepped evolution to find out where the guy really was and what the guy really needed to move closer to God.  And then He would have given it to him.  Jesus, in other words, would have been far more like a scalpel whereas I (and so many like me) are too much like an ax.


I certainly would like to be more like Jesus in this area, would like to do more of what He did or do things more like He did.  I’m not sure how to do that.  But I believe it is the right and better thing to do.  I believe trying to move people to the next right step, giving them what they need despite themselves rather than beating them in an intellectual contest, is far more right and better than what I typically do.

Convincing The World That What You’re Working On Matters

I’ve been seeing this commercial a lot lately:

Now I think Windows 10 is fine, and I think this young lady’s desire to benefit others with cancer research is great.  I still have to comment, though, about her second-to-last statement.  She says,  “Half of science is about convincing the world that what you’re working on matters.”  And that got my attention because the fact is that this is impossible.  It is impossible to convince the world that what you’re working on matters.  It is impossible to convince the world that anything else matters, either.  It is impossible to convince the world that anything matters because the truth is that nothing matters.

Nothing matters in a materialisitic worldview, that is, the worldview which asserts that matter (which is different from matters) is all there is, that there is no spiritual/non-material/non-physical element to existence.  In this worldview, the universe and all humankind are nothing other than materials of various kinds which will eventually cease to exist.

Image result for materialism philosophical

It is a popular worldview in our time.  I think it is, anyway.  Certain applications or ramifications of it are certainly popular.  It kind of acts as a default worldview; we all seem to be interacting on something similar to this in the public sphere.  If it is true, though, it dashes that young lady’s hopes of doing something that matters.  If it is true, it dashes everyone’s hopes of doing something that matters.  If it is true, nothing matters because everything will cease to exist and everything we’ve done (good, bad, or indifferent) will be null and void.

This is the truth that drove Leo Tolstoy to despair.  While searching for “meaning”, that is, something which mattered, he asked this question.

Image result for tolstoy anything meaning death destroy

His implied answer, of course, is, “No.”  It is “no” in a materialistic worldview, anyway.  If materialism is true, then, as Tolstoy so rightly saw, there is nothing which mattered, nothing which death would not stop from mattering.

This is likely what MacBeth was thinking about as well when he made this statement:

Image result for full of sound and fury

More than anything, though, it is what Solomon discovered.  After spending a good deal of time trying to determine what was good in life (that is, what mattered), he came to this conclusion:

Image result for ecclesiastes 12:8

All is vanity (empty, worthless, meaningless, matterless), Solomon says.  All is vanity, that is, apart from God (a spiritual worldview).

Now you may not accept Solomon to be the inspired and thus infallible teacher I take him to be.  You may not even accept that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes.  But you can’t deny that Ecclesiastes contains wisdom.  You can’t deny that whoever wrote the book was wise and that the book itself was considered wise enough (or containing enough wisdom) to be preserved.  You can’t deny that whoever wrote the book had more time and resources to devote to this question than most of us do (as he details in the first two chapters).  You can’t deny that his well-researched conclusion has some validity.

And it does.  I’d love that young lady to become a doctor and cure cancer.  I’d love her to do something that matters (not just convince the world of it but actually do it).  That’s not going to happen in a materialistic world or a materialistic worldview, though.  The only way to do something that matters is to get a different worldview, a spiritual one.



Ok, just one more response to a comment on a Timothy Keller tweet.  I found this one while I was looking into the others and, much though I hated to do it, knew I had to write about it.


The commenter here is suggesting that God could have created a world without evil and thus without suffering.  He further suggests that God didn’t do this because of “reasons”.  By this, he is suggesting that that God either didn’t have reasons to create the world the way He did or (more likely) no reason for God’s creating the world the way it is has been given.  I suspect it is the latter, but I don’t know for sure.  In either case, the assertion is that neither God nor His followers have/have given reasons for the evil/suffering that currently exists.  Not only so, but that assertion is made in a sarcastic and disrespectful manner (the “because whatever” formula usually implies some intellectual deficiency in creators of whatever is being critiqued).

And it is, of course, not the first time I’ve encountered this suggestion.  I have heard this before.  Perhaps the most notable time was when I came this book in a Barnes & Noble (i think that was 2009):

Image result for bart d ehrman god's problem

I literally rubbernecked when I saw this book on an endcap display at the store.  I was walking past it, saw it out of the corner of my eye, and was one step beyond it when I realized what I had read and had to jerk myself backward for a second look.  The Bible, Ehrman suggests, fails to answer the question of why we suffer, a question he considers “the most important”.

I’ve seen this in other places as well.  Time Bandits did it almost as flippantly as the above commenter did:

I was surprised to hear the Supreme Being in the Dawn of the Croods show my daughter has been binging lately give this same answer to this same question in the episode “Themy Might Be Sky Giants”.

So I’ve seen this suggestion before, sometimes seriously, other times as flippantly as the commenter here.  And there are quite a few elements of this suggestion that I have trouble with.  Some of them are ones I’ve already covered (this is fairly close to the self-defeating “I don’t believe in God because I don’t like Him” argument; it also doesn’t offer any solution or end to the problem it is critiquing, as it seems to think it does).  A new element, though, is veracity.  What the commenter is suggesting here and what Ehrman is directly stating in the subtitle of his book and what both Time Bandits and Dawn of the Croods are having fun with is just not true or accurate.  The suggestion that no reason has been given for the evil/suffering that currently exists is patently false.  The fact of the matter is several good (that is, complete and comprehensive) reasons for the evil/suffering that currently exists have been given.

We have to go no further than the third chapter of the first book of the Bible to find the first reason.  Genesis 3 tells us in no uncertain terms that evil and suffering exist because of us, because of our actions.  God gave us a paradise, a place without evil and suffering.  He created the world the commenter wanted created.  And we messed up.  To me, this is a sufficient reason for the existence of evil.  It is well-known, too.  It even has its own Wikipedia page.  That being the case, I just can’t understand how people miss it.


Free will is obviously another.  I’m not sure there is a biblical reference for this one, but it seems quite logical to me.  Having freewill creatures (the only creatures worth entering into relationship with) brings the risk of evil.  Even Bruce Almighty understood this.  I don’t know why so many people today don’t.

(I could only find this in another language, but Bruce is asking how to make somebody love you when they have free will, and God, if I remember correctly, says that is the big question).

Third, and I think perhaps the greatest, is the fact that there are reasons we can’t understand.  The book of Job (a very early book; some think the earliest of all the biblical books) teaches this.  Job spends the bulk of the book wishing God would tell him why he is suffering.  When God finally appears to Job, He does not do that (even though it would have been so easy to do; He could have just said, “Me and the devil had a bet, Job.  Good news: you won!”).  Instead, He just tells Job about all the wonderful things He has made.  I believe His point there is that if Job couldn’t understand physical things like snow and donkeys and ostriches, he wasn’t going to understand a complex spiritual thing like evil and suffering.  The real interesting thing about that encounter is that Job accepted it.  He believed God gave him all the answer He needed (and if he believed that, who are we to contradict him?).

Image result for god talks to job

So the suggestion that there are no reasons for evil/suffering is a false suggestion.  It is not true.  What we really have here is a refusal to accept the reasons for evil/suffering.  That is what I suspect is really going on here.  I don’t know for sure; I can’t read minds and so don’t know why the commenter or Ehrman or any others make this accusation.  But it seems to be a possibility.  If there are reasons and you know there are reason and you still say there are no reasons, then the problem isn’t in the reasons.  The problem is in you.  The problem is you don’t want to accept the reasons.  And if that’s the case, well, fine.  You are free to reject these reasons if you so choose.  Just be sure to be honest about that.  Don’t depict this as something it isn’t (i.e., there are no reasons).  Depict it as what it is (i.e., you just don’t like the reasons).

Real Freedom?

Just one more from Tim Keller’s comment section, and then I’m going to stick to my guns and stop looking at those ugly things.  This is one I found today:


Keller is saying there that the freedom God intended us to have can only be held through the observing of certain restrictions (including, of course, moral ones), restrictions which are not abnormal but absolutely normal, fitting our very beings.  That is a standard Christian understanding of “restrictions” (or “commands” or “teachings” or whatever else you want to call them).  I believe it is an understanding of reality.  I believe it is an inescapable truth, and that life becomes happier or easier or better or more glorious when we live in harmony with that truth, aligning ourselves with those restrictions.

The person who commented, though, (and whose identity I have obscured) apparently believes the opposite.  He believes in “throwing off” those restrictions rather than aligning with them.  He believes in ignoring or denying or violating our design rather than accepting it.  He believes this will give him real freedom, and he expresses that with the indignant disdain that has become unfortunately too common in such discussions.

It is not a new idea.  I heard this idea from atheist Christopher Hitchens several years ago.  He stated it during a debate with apologeticist William Lane Craig.


The statement to notice there is close to the end.  Hitchens refers to “the poisonous role played by fellow primates of mine who think they can tell me what to do in the name of God.”  You can find that statement somewhere in the debate below:

So Keller’s commentator says real freedom is throwing off the restrictions of religious leaders, implying that such restrictions are wrong (if freedom is right, anything which restricts it must be wrong/evil/unjust, right?), and Hitchens says that “fellow primates” telling each other what to do is the name of God is poisonous.  And there is a lot of indignation in those assertions.  There isn’t a lot of logic, though.  Here’s a couple logical problems I see with these complaints about restrictions/being told what to do.

People tell other people what to do all the time.  My self-proclaimed secular society tells me what to do all the time.  They tell me not to be racist, not to be sexist, and not to be a dozen other similar things.  They will punish me harshly if I do those things.  What they don’t tell me is why I can’t do those things or by what authority they are telling me not to do those things.  They tell me they are wrong (even as they tell me there is no such thing as wrong), but they don’t tell me why they are wrong or why they are the ones to tell me they are wrong.  Does Hitchens regard this as equally poisonous?  Is this one of the restrictions Keller’s commentator would like to throw off?  I doubt it.  They more than likely accept those restrictions (even as they proclaim a wrong-less worldview).  Why, then, do they get so bent out of shape about these other restrictions?  Why do they act like religious leaders are the only ones who proclaim such restrictions?  If you’re going to live in the presence of other people, you are going to be told to do or not to do hundreds of things from the moral to the civic.  Getting upset at that is not wise.  Getting upset at only half of that is even less wise.

Other leaders promote the same restrictions religious leaders do.  Religious leaders often promote sexual restrictions.  In our sexual society, that is probably what generates the most resistance.  They are not the only ones to promote such restrictions, though.  I saw a news story on TV last year about a high school counselor who forces her female students to be abstinent.  She does so not because she thinks sex is wrong but because she knows pregnancies and STDs will keep these young women from completing college.  Is she wrong in having those restrictions?  Is it right for her to point out the physical consequences of sexual activity but wrong for religious leaders to point out the (very real) spiritual consequences of sexual activity?

Religious leaders don’t force anyone to do anything or stop anybody from doing anything.  I certainly don’t.  I haven’t been given that authority.  I wouldn’t take that authority if it were offered to me.  Such authority would offend my faith, in fact; my faith is based on reasonably persuading people to come to God of their own free will, to respond to them with their hearts.  That can’t be forced or coerced, and I don’t try to do that.  What I do try to do is tell people what the right choices are and (like the high school counselor above) what the consequences of wrong choices will be.  I tell them that and then allow them to make their own choices.  Without fail, those who have chosen what I (and God) have said is right turn out much happier than those who chose the other way

Let me give you a short story here: a guy came into my office years ago to ask me for permission to commit adultery.  Yep.  He had the chance to commit adultery and wanted my okay on it.  He was not getting the intimacy from his wife which he needed, he found another woman in an open marriage who would give him that intimacy (at least for awhile), and he wanted me to tell him it was okay.  I couldn’t tell him that.  It was hard not to; it was very hard to tell a guy starved for intimacy that he couldn’t go get some.  However, I also told him that not only was adultery wrong, but it had consequences.  I told him any intimacy he found with the other woman would be short-lived.  I told him I doubted she was really in an open marriage; I suggested that her husband had just found a way to talk her into allowing him to have sex with other women and would be angry if she had sex with other men.  I told him he would have a secret to keep, and doing so would be unpleasant.  I gave him lots of good reasons not to commit adultery.  But I didn’t stop him from doing it.  He went and did it.  Then he came back a month later and told me I was “right” (which is not my goal; I’m not trying to be right; I’m trying to help people live what God calls “fruitful lives”).  He said that the husband was angry and threatened him.  He said he wished he had never done it.

I don’t make other people’s choices for them; I can’t and wouldn’t.  Nor do any other religious leaders I know (and I know a lot).  I simply tell people what I think is the right choice.  Hitchens is doing the very same thing.  So is Keller’s commentator.  I don’t see why it is wrong for me to do so when it is (apparently) right for them to do so.

Hitchens and Keller’s commentator are telling me what to do.  Hitchens’ big problem is people telling him “what do do” (he uses that phrase a couple times in the debate).  That’s apparently the commentator’s problem as well.  And yet they are doing the same thing.  They are telling me what to do even as they say I should not tell them what to do.  Telling people what not to do is telling them what to do.  Should I, then, through off their restrictions on me?  It seems like a big paradox or audio feedback loop, but it is true.  One man’s liberator is another man’s dictator.  I’m sure Hitchens would be surprised to be called a dictator, and I’m sure he was not trying to be one.  But he does seem like one to me.

What religion tells us to do is by and large accepted as correct.  That might sound strange, particularly with the problems the non-believing sector has with the believing sectors teaching on sex.  Nonetheless, it is true on the larger scale.  The primary teaching of my faith is love.  Love God is the first commandment, and loving others is the second.  Everything beyond that, including the sexual restrictions, is about how to love God and others in specific situations.  And that is something most people (probably even Hitchens and the Keller commentator) agree with.

Again, a little story helps here:  I was in the gym locker room with a fellow pastor a couple years ago.  We were talking about the faith, not realizing that anyone else was in there with us.  All the sudden, a guy came around the corner and started yelling at us, telling us that we don’t need things like the Bible and Hell.  “Why can’t we just do unto others?” he asked me.  Because I am gracious, I didn’t embarrass him by telling him that “do unto others” comes from the Bible he just said we don’t need.  Whether or not I told him that, though, the point remains that most people agree with love and kindness and compassion.  And those are the things my faith teaches.  Those are the things the restrictions are meant to produce.

Image result for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him

The end of the matter, then, is that I’m not poisoning anybody, nor are the many other religious leaders I know.  I’m not restricting anybody, either; Keller used that word because it fit that context, but I’m sure he would agree that what he is calling restrictions are really not restrictions at all.  No, I am freeing as many as I can.  I have found from my own experience that nothing is as freeing as the way of Christ, as way that (like all ways) has boundaries but which leads to a much better place in a much better manner than any other way I know.  People can get indignant about that; they have (as we see here) and they always will.  But their indignation doesn’t make any sense.  What they are pursuing, whether they know it or not, is not real freedom.  A life without boundaries is not a life of freedom; it is, as Peter says, a life of mastering, of being mastered, of being a slave.  No, it is the life of boundaries that is free.  It is the restriction-giving God who gives real freedom.

What Does Denying God Solve?

Remember those comments on Tim Keller’s tweets I was telling you about yesterday?  Well, here is one of them:


To be honest, I didn’t fully understand what Keller was getting at here, or at least I didn’t understand the first part of the statement.  But the gist, I think, is that if there is a God (that is, a higher being, a being superior to us in thought and foresight and understanding) then that God is going to do things we lesser beings can’t understand.  That seems fairly logical to me, especially considering I see the same dynamic play out in my house every day.  My grade school daughter, who is currently (but, I trust, not permanently), at a lower level of understanding than I am does not understand why she has to go to school or has to go to bed at a certain time or can’t eat ice cream for every meal or dozens of other things I do.  As all you parents immediately realize, I not only have reasons for what I do but I have very good reasons for them, reasons that will bless her all her life.  So, yes, while Keller’s statement is somewhat odd on the surface, there is a fairly simple and obvious logic to it.

Oddly enough, almighty god himself (no capitals, by the way; I guess that solves that debate) disagreed with Keller’s statement.  He disagreed by saying that thousands of children die everyday with prayers to him on their lips.  The implication is that he simply chooses not to answer their prayers, and the further implication is that he is wrong to not do so.  almighty god then further says that this is all part of his perfect plan, which is obviously meant to be ironic, to assert that there either is no plan or that whatever plan there might be is not perfect.

Now I am not one to contend with Almighty God.  I think I can respectfully contend with this “almighty god”, though, and would like to do so.  What the lowercase almighty god offers here is what at first glance looks like the common atheist argument which I call “I don’t believe in God because I don’t like Him.”  As I’ve said before, this argument is self-defeating:  1) if there is no God, there is nothing to dislike; He has never allowed thousands of children to die because He does not exist, and 2) if He does exist, He is apparently quite powerful, and your indignant dislike of Him, whether righteous or not, probably isn’t going to help you out very much in the end.

And that may be what this is; this might be the old “I don’t believe in God because I don’t like Him.”  It seems to me to be more than that, though.  It seems to actually fall into what Peter Hitchens calls The Rage Against God.

Image result for the rage against god

“The rage against God” isn’t “I don’t believe in God because I don’t like Him.”  It is more, “I do believe in God and I hate Him because I believe He does wrong.”  This is less self-defeating because God’s existence is assumed; whether those making this statement realize it or not, they are assuming that God actually exists and actually does these things that produce the “righteous” rage against Him.  So that takes out the first part of my quick rebuttal above.

It doesn’t take out the second, though.  Again, your agreement with what any god does will not matter if such a god exist.  Whether that god does right or wrong, he is more powerful than you, and, if he’s as bad as you say it is, he will probably show you he is more powerful than you in a fairly unpleasant way (I doubt that will actually happen, at least in the crude way I describe, because I believe the God that exists is better than that, but according to the worldview these people present, though, that is what would happen).

There are a couple other problems with this rage against God, though, this “I do believe in God and I hate Him because I believe He does wrong” argument.  Here they are:

Why are atheists upset at evil?  I wanted to ask, “Why do atheists follow a Christian blog?”, as I do legitimately wonder that; if I was an atheist who believed that the fleeting moments of this life (which could end at any unforeseen moment long before I think they will) are all I have, I wouldn’t spend those moments arguing with Christians.  That would be a colossal waste.  That is something I legitimately wonder whenever I see non-believers commenting on Keller’s or any other Christian teacher’s Twitter.  But it doesn’t really fit here so we’ll have to save it for another time and go to this question: why are non-believers/atheists/etc so indignant about the existence of evil/pain/bad/etc?  Such evil is not contrary to their worldview; it is entirely commensurate with their worldview.  Remember what the worldview of the atheist is:


We’re all familiar with that quote, I’m sure.  But notice what it says about this argument.  First, it says that there is no evil or good, which means that the deaths of thousands of children is neither evil or good.  It can’t be as such things don’t exist in the atheist’s worldview.  Everything, including the deaths of thousands of children, just are.  Second, it says that there is nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference”.  There is just survival of the fittest (or, as it often is, the luckiest).  So atheists again shouldn’t waste their fleeting, uncertain moments getting indignant about such things; there is no basis for that indignation.  They should instead just be glad they aren’t one of those thousands.

What about the prayers that have been answered?  almighty god here is basing an argument on the unanswered prayers of thousands of children.  Fair enough; that’s a legitimate thing to do. However, if you are going to argue on the basis of thousands of unanswered prayers then you have to account for answered prayers (of which believers believe there are likewise thousands).  You can’t have the one without the other.  The argument is prayer, and unanswered prayers are only have the equation.  Not only so, but once you account for the answered prayers, you then have to account that there must be (as Keller suggested) a reason some where answered and some weren’t.  You may not ever know that reason, but the fact that some prayers have been answered indicates it is there.  That makes the argument far less solid than it originally seemed.  I think it makes the argument fail, in fact.

Does your worldview do anything for those children?  Again, almighty god’s post here is just one statement of this idea which I have seen many times.  I don’t know when I hit upon this question, but it was one of those times.  An atheist was asserting that belief in God in the face of senseless tragedy is untenable or even ugly, and he was asserting this as if something would be done for that tragedy (it would somehow reverse itself) if belief in God were abandoned.  But that is not the case at all.  If everyone simply abandons belief in God, nothing is going to change here; the tragedy will stand; those children will still be dead.  In fact, the only thing that can do anything for those children/these tragedies at this point is to maintain belief in God.  The God worldview asserts that these children will live again; yes, it is a tragedy, and one that God Himself does like.  But God will resurrect those children and wipe that tragedy away.  Sounds unsophisticated to many today, I know, but that’s the Christian worldview and it offers hope to these children.  What does the atheist worldview offer them?  What does it do for them?  Absolutely nothing.  Not only are those children still dead, but their death is irrevocable and meaningless.  They are simply unlucky whereas everyone else who didn’t die is lucky.  I don’t find that to be the more righteous, compassionate, prettier option here.  I find that to be the worst and ugliest thing of all.

Image result for there is a way that seems right to a man

As the proverbist says here, some things seem right but in reality are really wrong.  Such is the way with almighty god’s comment here.  It apparently seems right to him; right and wise and effective.  It apparently seems that way to him and to the many like him who keep offering these comments (again, on Christians blogs and posts for some strange reason).  Look at it a little closer, though, and its holes start to show.  This is no airtight argument against God or Keller’s comments about God.  This is nothing that makes any qualitative difference in life.  Denying God on this basis doesn’t solve anything.  In my opinion, it makes things worse.

Listening For Agreement

Tim Keller is one of the contemporary pastors/writers I really respect.  I don’t think I elevate him to any lofty position he shouldn’t have (I strongly believe that only Christ should be elevated and everyone else ought to be kept on the ground), I do appreciate and look to the wisdom he shares.  I think he has a lot of it.


And that, in turn, cause me a great deal of surprise when I saw how many people were fighting with him on Twitter.  Keller posts a lot on Twitter.  I don’t know if the things he posts are quotes from his writings or new ideas.  I don’t know if there is a unifying theme he is trying to achieve with his tweets or if he is just tossing out random notions.  But I know that almost every time I have checked, someone is disagreeing with him about something.   I try not to read comments; I learned pretty quickly that the comment section of any article, post, or tweet is likely to be a cesspool that will bring unhappiness into my life.  But I can’t help myself sometimes.  There are many times when I want to see how others are responding to Keller’s words, and there are just as many times when I see that they are responding badly, that they are disagreeing with what he said, fighting with what he said, even castigating him for what he said.

Image result for don't read the comments

Again, I don’t elevate Keller.  He is a man, and as Galatians 2 shows us, even good men make mistakes and/or fall into errors.  He is not infallible (I doubt he would claim he is) and he not above disagreement.  So it is not the disagreement that bothers me so much.  It is the fact that so many Christians (not the atheists, whom we would expect to cross swords with him, but the Christians, the disciples, the genuine followers of Christ) disagree with him.  And it is not just that the Christians disagree with him but that they disagree with him (and fight with him, and castigate him, etc.) in an illegitimate way.  It is often the case that they disagree not with what he says but with their own concocted bizarre twisting of what he meant, with some far-flung application of his words which was never what he intended to communicate.

What these Christians are not doing is what I call “listening for agreement”, by which I mean listening for what you agree with/is good not for what you disagree with/is bad.  I’m not sure where I got that phrase “listening for agreement”, but I’m fairly confident I got the idea from Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.jpg

I may have read this book in my latter years of Bible college, or I may have read it when a teacher at the high school close to my first church gave it to me.  In either case, I read it.  In it, I learned that one of the seven habits is “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”.

Image result for seek first to understand then to be understood

This, I believe, is what the Christians who are fighting with Keller (or any similar Christian teacher in any similar situation) are not doing.  They are not trying to understand what Keller is saying and how he expects it to be applied.  They are allowing themselves to misunderstand or, worse, concocting some possible misunderstanding.  That is ineffective, a Covey suggests.  That is counterproductive.  That is a missing of truths and a ruining of fellowship and a muddying of the waters and a dozen other undesirable things.

And it is also unbiblical.  I can imagine many of the same people who will fight with what Keller says on any given subject will fight me here, and a particular avenue for such a fight is to point out that Covey is not God and The 7 Habits is not Scripture.  True enough.  Seek first to understand is not a biblical phrase, nor is listening for agreement.  But here are a few that are biblical:



There are several others as well.  The Bible repeatedly tells us to listen and to not argue.  When we refuse to do that even in the cyber realm, when we ignore (unintentionally or otherwise) the good thing a fellow believer is trying to share and twist it into a bad thing and then argue ad nauseum about it, we are doing exactly what the Bible tells us not to do.

I’m not trying to defend Tim Keller, my friends.  I don’t think he really needs my help on this one or any other.  I’m not trying to defend any Christian teacher.  I’m trying to defend Christian unity and effectiveness.  I’m trying to find the way for God’s Kingdom to come and His will to be done.  I know that way does not involve psuedo or ego conflicts (which is what a lot of these online arguments are; they are not genuine or “simple” conflicts; they are misunderstandings at best and personality or jealousy at worst).

Image result for pseudo simple and ego conflict

Even Jesus couldn’t stop people from distorting His words and His applications into something He never intended.  No contemporary Christian teacher is going to be able to stop people from doing so, either.  The only thing which can stop this is the people themselves.  And we Christian people should be willing and able to do just that.  We should be able to be quick to listen and slow to anger (or maybe “righteous indignation”).  We should seek first to understand (even giving the benefit of the doubt when it is necessary to interpretation).  We should listen for agreement, not for disagreement.