Between Two Worlds

Tsunami, Sovereignty, and Mercy

“The waves of death encompassed me,

the torrents of destruction assailed me. . .

This God—his way is perfect”

(2 Samuel 22:5, 31).

After the loss of his ten children owing to a “natural disaster” (Job 1:19), Job said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). At the end of the book, the inspired writer confirms Job’s understanding of what happened. He says Job’s brothers and sisters “comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). This has several crucial implications for us as we think about the calamity in the Indian Ocean.

1. One is that Satan is not ultimate, God is. Satan had a hand in Job’s misery, but not the decisive hand. God gave Satan permission to afflict Job (Job 1:12; 2:10). But Job and the writer of this book treat God as the ultimate and decisive cause. When Satan afflicts Job with sores, Job says to his wife, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10), and the writer calls these satanic sores “the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). So Satan is real. Satan brings misery. But Satan is not ultimate or decisive. He is on a leash. He goes no farther than God decisively permits.

2. Another implication is that even if Satan caused the earthquake in the Indian Ocean the day after Christmas, he is not the decisive cause of 60,000+ deaths, God is. God claims power tsunamis in Job 38:8 when he asks Job rhetorically, “Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb . . . and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?” Psalm 89:8-9 says, “O Lord . . . you rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.” And Jesus himself has the same control today as he once did over the deadly threats of waves: “He . . . rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm” (Luke 8:24). In other words, even if Satan caused the earthquake, God could have stopped the waves.

3. Another implication is that destructive calamities in this world mingle judgment and mercy. Their purposes are not simple. Job was a godly man and his miseries were not God’s punishment (Job 1:1, 8). Their design was purifying not punishment (Job 42:6). But we do not know the spiritual condition of Job’s children. Job was certainly concerned about them (Job 1:5). God may have taken their life in judgment. If that is true, then the same calamity proved in the end to be mercy for Job and judgment on his children. This is true of all calamities. They mingle judgment and mercy. They are both punishment and purification. Suffering, and even death, can be one or the other.

The clearest illustration of this is the death of Jesus. It was both judgment and mercy. It was judgment on Jesus because he bore our sins (not his own), and it was mercy toward us who trust him to bear our punishment (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) and be our righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). Another example is the curse that lies on this fallen earth. Those who do not believe in Christ experience it as judgment, but believers experience it as, merciful, though painful, preparation for glory. “The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope” (Romans 8:20). This is God’s subjection. This is why there are tsunamis.

Who suffers from this fallen world of natural disasters? All of us, Christians included: “Not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). For those who cast themselves on the mercy of Christ these afflictions are “preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). And when death comes, it is a door to paradise. But for those who do not treasure Christ, suffering and death are God’s judgment. “It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).

For children, who are too young to process mentally the revelation of God in nature or Scripture, death is not the final word of judgment. God’s commitment to display his justice publicly means that he does not finally condemn sinful people who could not physically construe natural or special revelation (Romans 1:20). There is a difference between suppressing revelation that one can mentally comprehend (Romans 1:18), and not having a brain sufficient to comprehend it at all. Therefore, when small children suffer and die, we may not assume they are being punished or judged. No matter how horrible the suffering or death, God can turn it for their greater good.

4. The heart that Christ gives to his people feels compassion for those who suffer, no matter what their faith. When the Bible says, “Weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15), it does not add, “unless God caused the weeping.” Job’s comforters would have done better to weep with Job than talk so much. That does not change when we discover that Job’s suffering was ultimately from God. No, it is right to weep with those who suffer. Pain is pain, no matter who causes it. We are all sinners. Empathy flows not from the causes of pain, but the company of pain. And we are all in it together.

5. Finally, Christ calls us to show mercy to those who suffer, even if they do not deserve it. That is the meaning of mercy—undeserved help. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). Therefore, pray earnestly for Scott Purser and his team as they investigate the best way that the Global Diaconate can mercifully respond with the love of Christ to the calamity around the Indian Ocean.

In the merciful hands of Almighty God,

Pastor John

(2004-12-20) -- Forensic DNA testing has revealed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not personally lick postage stamps on letters to families of troops killed in Iraq.

"We're still looking for a positive DNA match on the stamp saliva," said an aide to Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE. "We've asked to swab the cheeks of dozens of Pentagon office staffers."

This new evidence of Mr. Rumsfeld's psychological detachment from the war in Iraq follows his admission that letters he wrote to families of soldiers and Marines included a facsimile of his signature, rather than a unique one done with his own hand each time.

Mr. Hagel could not be reached for comment, the aide said, because "the senator is busy handwriting a news release on the topic."

I recently bought the DVD (for only $7.50 at Target!) of the movie Rudy, which, as Michael Medved has said, is “without a doubt one of the finest sports movies ever made.” The first thing I did was watch an interview with the real Rudy Ruettiger. The real Rudy basically has one message: you can do whatever you want to do or be whomever you want to be—just follow your dreams. (And hey, now he’s making $17K a speech with that message, so perhaps I shouldn’t knock it!). But to be honest, while a great story, Rudy’s interview was pretty sappy. And I hate to break it to him, but his life motto just isn’t true. Joe Carter puts it well in today’s Evangelical Outpost:

Admittedly, it’s a well-intentioned fib, meant to encourage the young and prevent them from placing unnecessary limitations on themselves. The problem, though, is that it often works too well. Children, who lack experience of their own, tend to trust adults about what possibilities are open in the world. But ambition and hard work cannot always compensate for a lack of ability or aptitude. As much as I may dream of being a doctor or NFL linebacker, the fact that I am 5’10”, 170 lbs, and faint at the sight of blood, prevents me from pursuing those occupations. Recognizing these limitations, though, can help us discover our natural talents. By realizing that not every pathway is open to us, we are able to find our true “calling.”

Amen. But this got me to thinking about another common saying: “God’s love for you is unconditional.” Like the “you can be anything you want to be” saying, most of us say this without giving it much thought. But if it’s not true, and is misleading, then the implications are far worse than telling a student who gets C’s throughout all of his schooling that he can grow up to be President of the United States. (Okay, bad example.)

About 10 years ago, one of my favorite authors—David Powlison—wrote about this question of “unconditional love” in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, vol. XII, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 45-48. The article has since been revised into a booklet, called God’s Love, which you can purchase for $1.

Powlison suggests that people who use the term often have good intentions, wanting to affirm four interrelated truths:

1. “Conditional love” is bad—unconditional is shorthand for the opposite of manipulation, demand, judgmentalism.
2. God’s love is patient—unconditional is shorthand for hanging on for the long haul, rather than bailing out when the going gets rough.
3. True love is God’s gift—unconditional is shorthand for unearned blessings, rather than legalism
4. God receives you just as you are: sinful, suffering, confused—unconditional is shorthand for God’s invitation to rough, dirty, broken people

These are true—and previous. But Powlison offers several responses. (I can only summarize and paraphrase here—buy the booklet to see the arguments in full.)

First, Powlison suggests that “there are more biblical and vivid ways to capture each of the four truths just stated.” “People currently employ a somewhat vague, abstract word—unconditional—when the Bible gives us more vivid and specific words, metaphors, and stories.”

Second, it’s not true that unmerited grace is strictly unconditional. Jesus Christ opened a way for us to experience the biblical love of God by fulfilling two conditions: a life of perfect obedience to the moral will of God, and a perfect substitutionary death on our behalf. Powlison writes: “Unconditional love? No, something much better. People who now use the word unconditional often communicate an acceptance neutered of this detailed, Christ-specific truth.”

Third, God’s love is more than conditional, for it is intended to change those who receive it. “Unconditional” often connotes “you’re okay.” But there is something wrong with you. The word “unconditional” may well express the welcome of God, but it does not well express the point of his welcome.

Fourth, “unconditional love” carries a load of cultural baggage, wedded to words like “tolerance, acceptance, affirmation, benign, okay,” and a philosophy that says love should not impose values, expectations, or beliefs on another. In fact, humanist psychology even has a term for it: “unconditional positive regard” (Carl Rogers).

Here is Powlison again:

We can do better. Saying “God’s love is unconditional love” is a bit like saying “The sun’s light at high noon is a flashlight in a blackout.” Come again? A dim bulb sustains certain analogies to the sun. Unconditional love does sustain certain analogies to God’s love. But why not start with the blazing sun rather than the flashlight? When you look closely, God’s love is very different from “unconditional positive regard,” the seedbed of contemporary notions of unconditional love. God does not accept me just as I am; He loves me despite how I am; He loves me just as Jesus is; He loves me enough to devote my life to renewing me in the image of Jesus. This love is much, much, much better than unconditional! Perhaps we could call it “contraconditional” love. Contrary to the conditions for knowing God’s blessing, He has blessed me because His Son fulfilled the conditions. Contrary to my due, He loves me. And now I can begin to change, not to earn love but because of love.

…You need something better than unconditional love. You need the crown of thorns. You need the touch of life to the dead son of the widow of Nain. You need the promise to the repentant thief. You need to know, “I will never leave you or forsake you.” You need forgiveness. You need a Vinedresser, a Shepherd, a Father, a Savior. You need to become like the one who loves you. You need the better love of Jesus.

Amen. Let us drop the language of “unconditional love” from our vocabularies and embrace the more radical and biblical and conversation-starting language of “contraconditional love”! And let us especially celebrate it during this Christmas, as we ponder the fact that He came to live and die on behalf of those who deserve none of his love.

For example, let’s say you’re a 25 year-old female. You’ve been working full-time since 1998, and you currently make $45,000 per year. Under the current system, if Social Security remains solvent, you could expect to get about $1,950 per month when you retire.

Let’s say now that you are free to invest under a 10% plan. You invest in an even mix of stocks and bonds, with a modest return of 3% on bonds, and 5% on stocks.

Even with these low-ball projections, your monthly retirement income would jump from $1,950, to $3,215. What’s more, you’d have $466,000 in your retirement fund to do with as you please. You could bequeath it to family in your will. You could take a trip to the Seychelles. You could get front-row seats for the Stones, who undoubtedly will still be touring. Under the current system, you’d get $1,950 per month. But no money to leave to the grandkids. No Seychelles. No Rolling Stones.

Privatization would also benefit the poor. It would enable retirees to bequeath the wealth they’ve made by working and investing, thereby helping younger generations escape the cycle of poverty. And since only the first $85,000 of income is subject to Social Security taxes, a privatization program would disproportionately benefit the lower and middle classes. In short, private accounts would go along way toward addressing the growing gap between rich and poor.

Privatization would also benefit African-Americans, who have a lower life expectancy than the general population. Thirty-seven percent of black men fail to reach age 65. Under a private system, if a man should die before retirement, the Social Security he’s paid all of his life — and the yield it’s been collecting — could be passed on to his family. It wouldn’t be returned to the general fund, as it is today.

Women too would prosper. A recent Harvard study looked at 1,992 women who retired in 1981. Every woman in the study would have benefited from a private system similar to the one outlined above. Not one woman would have been worse off. On average, single women would have received 58 percent more than the current system allows, married women over 200 percent more.

Private accounts would benefit everyone, but the young, the poor and women, especially. So how can we bring this about? How can twenty and thirty-somethings roll back sixty years of Social Security bureaucracy?

Step one is to get interested. Step two is to get educated.

Take notice of what’s taken from each paycheck. Digest it. Allow yourself to get a little agitated by it. Consider for a moment how that money might multiply if you could invest it in a 401K, or in non-government bonds. Washington D.C.’s Cato Institute (for whom I work) has an online calculator (http://calculator.socialsecurity.org/) that will crunch the numbers for you.

Talk up Social Security to friends and neighbors. The system is by design an intimidating labyrinth of numbers and percentages and bureau-speak. Consequently, the only people who take the time to learn the issue are those with a pressing interest — retirees and those soon to be retired. Private accounts don’t interest them much. They’re ready to get paid. Younger people have more to gain. But we need to get informed.

The options present a stark contrast in outcomes: a public system that may not survive another thirty years — and will offer only minimal benefits if it does — or a private system that is destined to build wealth, contribute to the economy, and allow for assets to be passed on to future generations.

It’s time to get interested.

From Time's Man of the Year press release and the current issue:

“Michael Moore’s got to be the worst for me,” former President George H.W. Bush tells TIME’s Hugh Sidey when asked about the low point of this last term. “I mean, he’s such a slimeball and so atrocious. But I love the fact now that the Democrats are not embracing him as theirs anymore. He might not get invited to sit in Jimmy Carter’s box (at the Democratic Convention) again. I wanted to get up my nerve to ask Jimmy Carter at the Clinton thing (the opening of Bill Clinton’s library), ‘How did it feel being there with that marvelous friend of yours, Michael Moore?’ and I didn’t dare do it.”

"Blog" is short for "Web log"—an online site with time-dated postings, maintained by one or more posters, that features links and commentary. But that is like saying a car is a means of transportation featuring four wheels. Millions are changing their habits when it comes to information acquisition, and the blogosphere has appeared so suddenly as to surprise even the most sophisticated of analysts. In Blog, best-selling author Hugh Hewitt helps you catch up with and get ahead of this phenomenon.

Up until now no influential blogger has written a definitive book about this phenomenon. Since Hugh Hewitt's blog site—HughHewitt—was launched in early 2002, more than 10 million people have visited this site. Why does this visitor traffic matter? People’s attentions are up for grabs. If you depend upon the steady trust of others, suddenly you have an audience waiting to hear from you. The race is underway, though, to gain mindspace and to be part of the blogosphere readers’ habits and to position yourself as well as your business or organization at the forefront of this information movement.

No Matter How Thin You Slice It, It's Still Baloney
Topic: Book Review

I am working my way through a new book, and I cannot wait until I am done before recommending it. Entitled Reclaiming the Center, this book does a number on all the postmodern hooey that is afflicting contemporary evangelical types. The subtitle is "Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times." The hooey is decked out in different ways, as with the absurd moniker postconservative, and the contributors to this volume promise to give this nonsense the thrashing it deserves. Of course, from what I have read thus far, it appears they will deliver said thrashing in a courteous, gentlemanly way.

For myself, I could stand to see a good deal more fur fly. What are we to make of postmodern evangelical accommodationists? My tentative judgment is that this is a movement that is straight from the Pit of Hell, old Slewfoot himself is the chief philosopher involved, and all the adherents of this movement, head for head, are all headed straight for the Bad Place. Of course, this initial assessment may need to be nuanced somewhat.

Wounded GIs get front-row Mavs tickets

By BOBBy ROSS JR.
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DALLAS -- About 140 U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will get a courtside view of the action at a Dallas Mavericks game Saturday night, thanks to season-ticket holders who offered their seats in a show of gratitude.

"It's a small way for me to show some appreciation for what they've done for us," ticket holder Jim Leslie said. "I still don't think it's enough."

The soldiers from Brooke Army Medical Center near San Antonio will fly to Dallas - on a chartered jet donated by American Airlines - to see the Mavericks play the Atlanta Hawks. They will be treated to free food and drink and have their pictures taken with Mavericks players, dancers and team officials.

Team owner Mark Cuban said in an e-mail: "This is a chance for these servicemen and women to feel the admiration and respect of 20,000 people, reinforcing for them that we as a nation feel grateful for what they have done for us."

Season-ticket holder Neal Hawks began offering seats to soldiers last season. This year, he approached other season-ticket holders and got 133 tickets worth roughly $150,000, all in the front row.

"Virtually everyone said I could have their tickets," Hawks said. "I even had a couple season-ticket holders who had already given their tickets away go and get them back."

Cpl. J.R. Martinez, 21, attended a game last season while recovering from severe burns he suffered when his Humvee hit a land mine in Iraq. He said many of the wounded soldiers are "probably in the depression stage."

"For them to go and be able to feel that energy, it's definitely going to help their morale," he said.

• Lion and Lamb
• infinite highness and low condescension
• infinite justice and infinite grace
• infinite glory and lowest humility
• infinite majesty and transcendent meekness
• equality to God and deepest reverence to God
• infinite worthiness of good and greatest patience in suffering
• supreme dominion over heaven and earth and a spirit of obedience
• absolute sovereignty and perfect resignation
• self-sufficiency and entire trust and dependence upon God
• Judge and Savior