Categories
children Christians faith injustice jesus love patience religion Saint Paul Satan spiritual life theology

God Is Not In Control

Share

Well, of course, God is in control. He’s the supreme being, the maker and ruler of the cosmos. How could he not be in control of what he has made? It depends somewhat on what you mean by “control.” Does God determine everything that happens? Is he responsible for earthquakes and tsunamis, witch hunts and revolutions, murders and rapes? Does he get some kind of twisted delight out of tragic accidents or childhood cancer or Covid-19 deaths? If he does not cause disaster and evil, then does he permit it? And if he permits it, isn’t that the moral equivalent of causing it?

These are deep questions, and I am ill-qualified to answer them, but like many others, I can’t help trying to come to terms with them. As a Christian who trusts God and believes he is all good all the time, it does not sit well with me to imagine he created terrible evils or permits them. Perhaps, then, he allows evil because he can’t put a stop to it. In other words, God is not in control.

I’ve written already about who rules the world. Here I would like to introduce another bit of evidence, this time from the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus taught his followers to pray, “Your name: be hallowed; your kingdom: come; your will: be done. As in heaven, so on earth.” Yet who prays for what they already have? If God’s name is already highly esteemed, if his kingdom is already manifest throughout the world, if his will is already being done, then why make a petition of it? Christians pray for God’s will to be done because it’s not being done. How is it that omnipotence cannot do whatever it pleases whenever it pleases?

One conclusion that many people come to is simply that there is no God. This view has several advantages—a simplified morality where nothing is Good or Evil in some universal, cosmic sense but merely good or bad to or for particular outcomes in particular situations; a sense of intellectual superiority to the vast majority of mankind who throughout history has believed in some kind of god; freedom from arbitrary rules about how to live and behave; and the seductive promise that the pain and despair of existence can’t last forever.

It has disadvantages, too. Without God, there is no ultimate justice. The uncaught murderer will forever go unpunished. Without God, the longing we all have to be fully comprehended and to be loved can never be satisfied. Without God, we each and also collectively face the daunting task of deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil. Without God, there is no lasting life, no meaning to everything. We can only look forward to the heat death of the universe and perhaps—if some models are correct—an endless cycle of new universes that come into being, grow old, and die over unimaginably vast stretches of time and space.

At this point, I think it is helpful to introduce a distinction between power and authority. Power is the ability to act in a situation or context. Authority is the right to act in a situation or context. To act in a way that is good and right requires both power and authority. For example, a police officer might respond to a call about a domestic dispute and discovers that one of the participants is an undocumented immigrant. However, her city is a sanctuary city, and the police are specifically prohibited from detaining undocumented immigrants unless they are in violation of a city ordinance. The police officer has the power to act but not the authority.

The opening chapters of Genesis reveal a God who, in the act of creating, made creatures enough like himself that he could commune with them and love them. He subjected the world he had made to their authority, and when they rebelled against his good governance, they ceded that authority to God’s enemy. Thus Satan became the ruler of this world, and by his schemes and deceptions he has brought much evil into the world.

If God were like us, his judgment would have been swift and severe. He would have overpowered and immediately crushed the serpent, slain Adam and Eve for their disobedience, and restarted the whole project afresh. But God is not like us. He responded with love like a parent with disobedient children. He gave them consequences for their actions and waited to see what they would do. Would they repent and seek to re-establish the communion they had had with him? Or would they continue in rebellion? Throughout history, some have chosen repentance and some have chosen rebellion1Of course, the Christian understanding is that everyone defaults to rebellion, but some choose repentance and life. In his efforts to persuade rebellious humanity, God even sent his own son as an emissary, not with violence and threats, but with gentleness and love, to persuade the rebels to lay down their arms and surrender. He commissioned his church to the same task, calling them out from their accustomed lives to live a new life in obedience to God by displaying his own loving character in their words and deeds.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9

For this reason, those who claim to be Christians but act with judgment and condemnation toward others have not rightly understood the mission of the church. The church has not been tasked with making society righteous by advocating for laws that reflect Bronze Age values from the Law of Moses. Indeed, Paul taught that the Law no longer held sway over those who commit themselves to Christ2Read just about any of Paul’s letters but especially those to the Romans and the Galatians. Therefore, when Christians spew forth vituperation and anger toward those whose political views differ from their own, they are revealing how much their own hearts and minds are still in bondage to the sinful nature. They are still in rebellion against God, who is patient with everyone but especially with those who have never known his goodness and love. Just as parents are gentle with young children who have not yet learned how to behave but harsher with older children who certainly know better, so God has more patience with sinners who have not known him but has less patience with those who have tasted his mercy and forgiveness.

The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

Brennan Manning, attributed
Share
Categories
bible faith guilt injustice jesus religion righteousness self sin spiritual life struggle theology

Being Right

Share

Of all the desires that motivate human beings, the desire for personal righteousness—wanting to be right—is the most pernicious. There is no evil, no matter how unspeakable, we will not commit if we can convince ourselves that what we are doing is for the greater good. We will put up with caging children at our borders, turning away the poor and sick, righteously stifling our own sense of mercy in service to outrage at some injustice. The desire to be right makes us spin our own actions, not only to impress others, but to burnish the image we have of ourselves. We willingly deceive ourselves about ourselves in order to preserve an image of ourselves that is noble, caring, even kind while approving and even performing acts that are cruel and selfish. The desire for personal righteousness makes us remorseless and unrepentant. After all, repentance requires acknowledging sin in our own lives. Sometimes, we willingly acknowledge some acceptable sin in an effort to cover up a deeper, more entrenched sin to which we are culpably blind. No wonder Jesus talked about picking specks out of others’ eyes while being unaware of the plank in our own eyes!

The Bible writers were well aware of how pervasive and pernicious is the desire to be right. That is why they repeated again and again, “There is no one righteous, not even one.” They wanted to assure their readers that no matter what they thought about themselves, the reality was that all their efforts at being right were worthless. As Isaiah puts it, “All our righteous deeds are like used menstrual cloths.” They are not merely rubbish, but the worst, most disgusting rubbish. (The Jews regarded a woman during her period as ceremonially unclean. She could not enter the temple or approach God. Whatever she touched would also become unclean. While laws regarding menstruation unfairly stigmatized women, they also protected the community from the spread of disease at a time when humans knew nothing about microbes.)

We cannot merely rid ourselves of the desire to be right, however. It is fundamental to our humanity. Though it deceives us time and again, it also makes us want to do better. It inspires us to keep trying to do good. What a quandary we are in—wanting to do what is good but lacking the capacity!

Therefore God has imputed righteousness to those who put their faith in Jesus. He satisfies our desire to be right without requiring us to be sinless. Because he has shown us such mercy and grace, he enables us to likewise show mercy toward those who are also trying—and failing—to do what is right.

Everyone is a hero in their own story. While some tell their story to evoke pity and others admiration, we all mitigate our sins to ourselves. We all make excuses for ourselves and seek forgiveness for our worst blunders. “If you only knew what it was like,” we say, and we are quite right to say it. None of us knows anyone better than ourselves. We know how hard we try. We know how often we fail. Despite this knowledge and the free gift that God offers of his own righteousness, we remain unwilling to acknowledge before him just how much we need what he has. To do so, we would have to admit we were wrong.

Share
Categories
abuse of power current events injustice law politics

More Thoughts on the Mueller Report

Share

Robert Mueller was in a quandary. On the one hand, qualified legal opinion prevented him from prosecuting a sitting President for criminal acts. On the other hand, his investigation had uncovered compelling and substantial evidence that the President had sought to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses in multiple federal investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. Even determining that a crime had been committed could potentially weaken a future case against the President because it could be argued that the President was unfairly slandered when there was no official venue for him to clear his name or defend his integrity. Mueller therefore did the only thing he could do. He reported the facts and evidence in his investigation into obstruction of justice by the President without drawing a conclusion about whether his actions constitute a crime.

Mueller offers four reasons for conducting a thorough investigation without prosecuting the President or even determining whether he committed crimes.

  1. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Justice Department issued an opinion that a sitting President could not be prosecuted because it would undermine his ability to fulfill the duties of his office. Since Mueller’s investigation was for the Department of Justice, he chose to abide by that opinion. The Constitutional duty of determining whether the President committed crimes and prosecuting them falls on the Congress, with the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment and the Senate acting as a judicial body for the trial.
  2. The OLC’s opinion still permits an investigation, and Mueller had broad authority under the Department of Justice to pursue his investigation wherever the evidence might lead. Since the OLC’s opinion applies only to a sitting President, charges may still be brought once he is no longer in office. A thorough and comprehensive investigation now preserves the evidence for later prosecution. This gives new meaning to Trump’s reiterated wishes that he might be President for life.
  3. Since no charges could be brought, it would have been unfair to determine that the President had committed a crime. Under normal circumstances, prosecution and public trial provides an opportunity for the person accused of a crime to explain their actions and present exculpatory evidence. The courts have held, for example, that naming persons in an indictment without also charging them violates their right to clear their name in a public trial.
  4. Despite being unable to bring charges or determine that a crime was committed, the investigation was unable to find that the President did not commit obstruction of justice. If they had, they would have said so. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The facts and evidence presented in volume 2 of the report show that the President repeatedly and consistently sought to interfere both in the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election and in the special counsel’s subsequent investigation. He sought to influence FBI Director Comey’s conduct of the FBI’s investigation, eventually firing him because he could not obtain the result he sought. He also sought to curtail the Mueller investigation and urged witnesses to lie to investigators. The evidence is substantial and well-documented. The President even made public statements about his intentions.

The case against the President is serious and substantial. Charges stemming from it—if they are ever filed—would constitute federal felonies. Some members of Trump’s campaign and administration have already been charged with similar crimes and pleaded guilty or been convicted. Some are currently serving terms in federal prison. The question still to be decided is, “What are we, the People, going to do about the President?”

For many Trump supporters, of course, none of this makes any difference. They have already doubled-down on their support for him so many times that they are now blind and deaf to any fresh allegations of crimes he may have committed. It is all a conspiracy by the deep state. Even a cursory examination of Robert Mueller and his investigation, however, shows that such ideas are utterly unfounded. It would be hard to find a man of greater integrity in the conduct of his office. His investigation was thorough, painstaking, and by the book. If you have any doubts, read his report. Of all men living, only Trump could slander Mueller and be widely believed.

For the rest of us, our elected representatives in Congress have been handed a detailed case for impeachment. The only impediment to starting impeachment proceedings is political. Democrats have both a hope and a fear. They hope to win enough Senate seats for a majority in the Senate. They fear that impeachment proceedings could sway the election next November in Republicans’ favor. They might also be holding impeachment in reserve in case Trump wins a second term. If he does not win, he very probably will face charges in federal court. There will be no opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel to hold back federal attorneys from prosecuting him.

Share