Dog meat, homosexuality, and moralizing

Would you eat a dog? You probably would not. If you walked into a room and your close friend was eating a dog that she had accidentally hit and killed with her car, would it bother you in any way? Or, would it be equivalent to walking into a room where your friend is eating, say, a ham sandwich? More than likely it would probably cause you some kind of uneasiness. The question is Why? Is it because it is immoral or because it is simply gross? These are two very different things.

These questions get at an issue in ethics that is referred to as moralizing. To moralize is to make a moral judgment about some action based on one's own opinion or preferences. In the case of eating dog meat, it is moralizing to say that it is immoral to eat a dog, because such a statement can be based on nothing more than either one's own personal tastes or the parochial attitudes of one's region. Regarding foreign nations, it is often said, "They eat dog over there," as if to exert some self-righteous moral superiority. Other than parochialism or personal disgust, one would be hard-pressed to find any reason to proclaim eating dog is immoral. How is it any different than eating a pig? Perhaps all of America could try dog meat and find that it is not all that bad and then parochial attitudes about eating dog meat would likely change.

Is the condemnation of homosexual acts moralizing?

What does this silly illustration have to do with homosexuality? Homosexuality, like eating dog meat, carries with it a certain "yuck-factor" for many people (though fewer people than it used to). For many it is an entirely foreign, strange, and incomprehensible act--the sort of act that just makes them cringe in disgust. But, the real question is: Is it immoral?

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, in 2001, Americans opposed gay marriage by a 57% to 35% margin. As of March 2013, Americans supported gay marriage 49% to 44%. Polling specifically among "Millennials" (those born after 1981) reveals a jump in support for gay marriage from 50% to 70%. Among "white evangelical Protestants" it jumped from 13% to 24%. [1] This is a fairly significant reversal in public attitudes within a matter of just twelve years. What can account for this shift? [2]

The answer may lie in moralizing. It may be that America's historic moral rejection of homosexuality had more to do with the "yuck-factor" than it did with any substantial moral grounding. It appears that America has simply gotten over the "yuckiness" of it all. What was relatively recently a very sensitive subject has become so mundane that it is in almost every single sitcom now running. Homosexuality has penetrated every level of American culture, and many Americans have simply gotten over it. When a culture learns to laugh at something, that culture becomes desensitized to it or even embraces it.

What do we learn about Americans?

Much of America, as it turns out, was never really standing on solid moral conviction in the first place. They were just moralizing--projecting their behavioral preferences on other people. Therefore, when cultural alarmists declare that America is suddenly staggering toward Hell because it has lost its moral compass, it may be that they are wrong. Perhaps America never had a moral compass or lost it many generations ago. America's morals aren't necessarily changing, but its tastes are.

Is there a bright side?

This exposure and downfall of the moralizing of America may or may not be a good thing. That is a blog post and debate for another day. However, this cultural change does provide Christians with some opportunities.

First, it is an opportunity for the Church to make a serious evaluation of its moral foundation. Why is the Church opposed to homosexual activity? If it is simply because it is gross, this is insufficient. In logic, this may be labeled as the fallacy of parochialism. Personal preference does not determine morality. This was the problem with the ancient Jews: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6, ESV) Though not in personal preference, the Church does in fact have a solid grounding for the moral condemnation of homosexual activity. It is grounded in the Scriptures. (see Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10) [3] Human sexuality is designed by God, and it is, therefore, God's prerogative to determine how it is used. Quite simply, God designed sex to be used as a means of deepening the marriage bond between one man and one woman. Any other use of sex is an immoral perversion, including but certainly not limited to homosexual activity. (For more on a biblical view of sexuality, see my post on The Song of Solomon.)

Secondly, as the Church finds itself becoming desensitized with everyone else to the "yuck-factor" of homosexual activity, it is an opportunity to look at those living in it as real human beings who bear the image of God. It is just easier to love someone (a sinner) when you don't recoil in personal disgust upon seeing him (no matter his sinful choices). It is often said that "all sins are equal," and yet we don't respond to all sins the same. [4] In fact, we don't respond to some sins at all. We've been desensitized to extra-marital sex, adultery, divorce, and other sins for decades. Perhaps that is the outcome of the "Sexual Revolution" of the 1960s. We simply don't recoil in disgust toward couples having continual premarital sex the same way that we do toward a gay couple. How many blockbuster "romantic" movies feature premarital sex? This is an opportunity to put away the hypocrisy of almost entirely ignoring some sins while elevating others. The Church should have a holy distaste for all sin and a holy love for all sinners. Loving sinners (all sinners) means seeking them out in love and guiding them toward true, moral holiness.

Scriptural morality rather than personal moralizing

The Church must stand firm on the apostles and prophets--the authors of the Scriptures--whose cornerstone was Christ. (Ephesians 2:20) The Scriptures are clear on God's design for sexual activity. It is for people who commit to one another in monogamous, heterosexual marriage. The problem is that discerning between moralizing and true moral grounding in the Scriptures is not always easy. Moralizing leads to hypocrisy and alienation. Scriptural conviction leads to love, compassion, and maybe even reconciliation.

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

[1] http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/ (accessed 3/25/13)
[2] I realize that these statistics are about homosexual marriage and not homosexuality per se. I suppose it is possible that someone can believe that homosexuality is immoral but still support gay marriage for other reasons (e.g. a commitment to the states' sovereignty). However, the statistics still reveal a shift in overall public sentiment regarding homosexuality more broadly.
[3] For the sake of length, this post is not intended to be a biblical exposition on why homosexual activity is a sin. That is a worthy and needed post that will have to come at a later time. The point here is simply to get the reader to base a morality of sexuality on God's revelation, rather than on personal preference.
[4] I actually don't believe all sins are equal. While any sin (even as small a sin as eating a fruit one is told not to eat) separates us from the holiness of God, I can't say that a person having sexual relations with his sister is the same magnitude of sin as having sexual relations with his girlfriend.

Things I Wish Others Understood About Introverts Like Me

Because I'm a high school teacher, people often assume that I'm a "people person" who loves--no, thrives on--social interaction. What magnifies this expectation even more is that I teach the Bible. I'm a Christian and a minister of sorts. How could I be anything other than an extrovert? Well, I'm not. On the temperament spectrum from introvert to extrovert, I'm solidly on the introvert side. Extended social interactions leave me exhausted and used up. Family reunions, Christmas parties, weddings, and parent-teacher conferences can be disorienting for me. That's not to say that I don't value such events and occasions, but, like a feat of major physical exertion, I require a bit of preparation for them.

What is an introvert?

All people need to recharge and reorient themselves from time to time, but not everyone does this the same way. Those on the introvert side of the spectrum collect themselves by being alone with their thoughts. Introverts are disoriented by too much social stimulation. The problem is not necessarily people, as much as it is external stimuli. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by stimuli, including human stimuli. As children, introverts were the kids who "overreacted" to noises and sudden changes in the environment.

Extroverts, on the other hand, are energized by social interactions and stimuli. They crave the stimuli. Famous extroverts, like President Bill Clinton, become emboldened lions as social events go on. Introverts like myself, however, become run down and will often need to find an early escape.

It's no secret that the U.S. social structure is one that favors extroverts. They're the go-getters, the bold, the courageous, and the movers. They are people persons. In my experience, the church and Christian ministry is not much different. Though there are signs that this is beginning to change, introverts are misunderstood and undervalued. It has weighed on my quiet mind for some time that I'm often misundestood; therefore, I have composed a list of things that I wish others understood about introverts like me.

1. I'm not passive. I don't often "take the lead" because doing such a thing usually requires a great deal of social stamina, which I don't possess. I sometimes envy extroverts for this. But, this should not be interpreted as passivity. Doing such a thing on a regular basis is simply not an ability that I have. What I can do well is focus intensely on a project. Also, if given space, I can put my mind to solving problems. Introverts are loyal team players. I don't mean to say that introverts are incapable of leadership, but, when they do lead, it is quieter kind of leadership. For a discussion of such leadership, check out the Forbes.com article "Introverts No Longer the Quiet Followers of Extroverts" by Karl Moore.
2. I'm not shy. My lack of words and social interaction is not about anxiety, fear, or self-consciousness. I just don't want to say anything. Excessive shyness, I think, is something of self-centered malfunction. Quietness, on the other hand, can be a virtue. On the outside, to an extrovert, these may be indistinguishable. The difference, on the inside, is that I'm very confident in who I am. Confident introverts don't feel self-conscious in social settings; they feel run down.
3. I deeply value a small number of relationships. There are only a few people in this world that I consider to be close friends, and these relationships run deep and last a lifetime. I've shared my deepest feelings and anxieties with these people, and they really know me. If I have only a few good friends, I don't feel compelled to establish new and intimate bonds. For this reason, I don't have what would be considered an "active" social life.
4. I'm a good listener. Because I'm not saying a lot, I have time to listen to others. In my experience as a teacher, introverted students don't say much in class. They may even be doodling, but they are listening and enjoying it. Even as an introvert, I'm still amazed when my quietest students come to me at the end of the school year and genuinely express to me how much they liked my class. "But, I didn't think you cared at all," I think. I'm the same way. I could sit in a small group of people and just listen to them discuss something for hours. One thing I've learned that I need to do better is to give physical or verbal cues (feedback) to speakers to show them that my mind is engaged and that I appreciate their work. Introversion is no excuse for being rude to a speaker.
5. I hate parties but would love to get coffee with you.  Actually, I don't drink coffee, but "going out for coffee" makes more sense than "going out for a Pepsi." I'm energized by deep and intimate conversation with people I know. As long as I haven't had some kind of social function every other night of the week, I'd love an invitation to get a bite to eat with you.
6. I need space. When I'm asked to go out for some social function and I am already feeling depleted, I often feel compelled to make up some excuse. "Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I already have plans." or "I'm not feeling well." Lying is neither moral nor healthy for a relation, so I've learned to just be more honest. "No, I think I'm just going to stay in tonight. But thank you for inviting me." It's not you; it's me (really, this time).
7. I'm an effective teacher in a setting in which I really know my audience. I've been a teacher for ten years, and I think I'm good at it in my setting. When I get the privilege of teaching the same students for several years in a row as I do now, I can excel. This is because I develop close bonds with them. I really like and love my students; therefore, I develop a good rapport with them. This does not mean, however, that I'll be as effective or comfortable when you ask me to come in and teach your small group, preach at your church, or lead faculty devotions.
8. You need introverts in your ministry. Introverts are good disciple makers. While leading the masses will quickly burn out an introvert, they thrive in a discipleship environment, both as the teacher and the learner. Introverts bring a lot to the table when it comes to interpersonal communication. They listen well, think deeply for prolonged periods of time, and they develop deep, lasting relationships.

Although a spectrum does not allow for always-neat categories, a number of famous people have clearly been identified as either introverts or extroverts. Famous extroverts include: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy,  George W. Bush, Steve Jobs, and Winston Churchill. Famous introverts include: Bill Gates, Larry Page, Barack Obama, Albert Einstein, Warren Buffet, Gandhi, Steven Spielberg, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt.

An exhortation to fellow introverted Christians

While it is spiritually healthy to accept that God has designed us to work the way we do, it is also necessary for us to practice self-sacrifice. Modeling the self-sacrifice of Jesus often means absorbing discomfort and alienation for the well being of another. I'm uncomfortable in groups and with strangers, but I still have to hold it together for the Gospel. I obviously can't make disciples of the nations if I'm unwilling to be vulnerable and uncomfortable. Don't let your introversion be an excuse for disobedience.

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

Time Magazine published an excellent article on introverts ("The Upside of Being an Introvert" by Bryan Walsh) in February 2012.

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

Devotional: My Beautiful Daughter and A Christ Identity

Everyday I hold my daughter in my arms, I look her in the eyes, and I tell her that she is beautiful--that God made her with big beautiful cheeks and beautiful squinty eyes. God designed her magnificently like the master artist that he is. Now, my daughter is much more than her beauty, and I don't want her to be defined by her beauty. But, do you know why I tell her this every day?

My beautiful daughter

I tell her everyday, because she is different than the vast majority of kids around her. She is Korean. My wife and I adopted her, and she now lives her life in the mostly-white American South. I know that, one day, she will come home from school broken-hearted, because someone has made a joke about her Asian features. They will laugh at her narrow squinty eyes and her supple cheeks. That is why I tell her that she has beautiful eyes and beautiful cheeks. I tell her that, because I believe she is beautiful, but also to protect her--that the schoolyard insults won't crush her, that they won't make her question her identity, that they will not shatter her self-image, that she will not grow to despise her beautiful eyes and cheeks.

I want her to be so secure in her father's love and approval that the condemnation of other kids will not crush her. For now, until she meets Christ, I hold her identity secure. Her identity is protected by the two people on this earth who love her more than anyone--her parents.

Who holds your identity?

Like the mean, insecure kids on playgrounds across the world, there is one (the ultimate bully) who would love to tear you down. He would love to make fun of you, to make you question your value, to convince you that you are worthless. His name is Satan, and he has a host of bullies working for him, those wretched beings who were cast with Lucifer from the splendor of God's presence and have committed themselves to destroying God's good work in the cosmos and in believers.

Satan is full of such hate, animosity, and vengeance that he "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8) Unlike the bullies on the playground, however, he has the gift of being able to make you think his accusations are your own--his whispers so quiet (and yet so clear) that you think that they are your own thoughts. He devours us with thoughts that lead to depression, self-hatred, self-loathing, legalism, and feelings of general worthlessness. He consumes our joy with worry and our confidence with self-consciousness. He destroys us with mind games.

I protect my daughter's thoughts and self-image from bullies. Who protects us from the accusations of Satan?

The love of a father

Like my daughter, when we seek refuge from the lies and accusations of Satan, we must return to our Father who loves us--the Father who says our features are perfect. He is the Father who protects our identity in the palm of his mighty hand.

I tell my daughter that she is beautiful. What does God say about his children?

• We are chosen. (Eph. 1:4, 11)
• We are created and recreated masterfully in his image. (Gen. 1:27; 1 Cor. 15:49)
• We are his beloved children. (John 1:12; Rom. 8:15-16; 1 John 3:1)
• We are justified no matter what we do. (Gal. 2:16)
• We have become Christ. (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:25)
• We are secure. (Rom. 8:31-38)
• We will have new bodies. (1 Cor. 15:42-49)
• We are conquerors over death. (1 Cor. 15:22, 26)
• We are conquerors over Satan and his fellow accusers. (Rom. 8:37; Rom. 16:20)
• We are defended by Jesus. (Rom. 8:34)
• We are princes and princesses, heirs to a royal inheritance. (Rom. 8:15; Eph. 1:11)
• We are fully justified (declared completely innocent). (Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:1, 18; Rom. 8:33; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 1:4)

Christ as our advocate

Paul reminded the Roman Christians (Rom 8:31-39) that Jesus stands before the Father and pleads our case, interceding on our behalf. This means that, from a Trinitarian perspective, God is both our judge and our defender. The case is rigged in our favor. We can't lose!

³¹ What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 What is bothering you?

Whatever is bothering you, bringing you down, or causing you stress, put it in proper perspective. Renew your mind by keeping an eternal perspective. Someday you will have dwelled in the "eternal weight of glory" for 10,000 years with an eternity more to go, and the problems of this life will seem a distant memory of a "light and momentary affliction." (2 Cor. 4:17)

In light of your perfect security in Christ, how big do your problems seem? You are beautiful. You are complete. You are loved.

A Primer on the Four Types of Biblical Eschatology (End Times Theology)

Friends and students ask me occasionally about biblical eschatology, and I've often found that they lack the proper categories to have a clear discussion on the topic. Therefore, I have below developed a basic primer on the most common interpretations regarding the end times.

Each of the category's names (premillenial, postmillenial, or amillennial) is a description of where the return of Jesus occurs in relation to his 1,000-year reign (the millennium), both of which are prophesied in the Scriptures. The first step in understanding basic eschatology is knowing some basic terminology.

The terminology (as defined broadly in Protestantism):

"millennium" -- This is the period of time prophesied in the Scriptures, during which Jesus Christ will reign as King. Revelation 20: 2 indicates that this period will be 1,000 years, but some theologians take it to be figurative. In any case, evangelicals accept that Jesus reigns as king in some manner at some time. (Dan 2:44; Luke 1:32-33; Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-10; Zech. 8:3; 14:9; Rev. 20:2-7)

"second coming" (or "advent") of Christ -- The physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth for a second time. (John 14:3; Matt. 24:30, 36, 42; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:27-28) The following chapters and books are primarily about the second coming: Matt. 13; 24; 25; Mark 13; Luke 21; 1 & 2 Thess.; and Revelation.

"eternal state" -- After Christ returns and renews the heavens and the earth, it is the state in which all human souls will be restored to resurrected bodies and sent to dwell in either the new earth or in the Lake of Fire. Each is a physical reality, as all people will be in resurrected bodies. (Matt. 25:46; John 14:2; Matt. 8:11-12; Is. 65:17; Revelation 21:1ff; 22; Hebrews 12:22-24)

"Tribulation" -- A seven-year period (if taken literally) of God's judgment upon the inhabitants of the earth that takes place during the end times. (Revelation 6-19; Daniel 7:25-26; 9:27; 12:7)

Illustration of the major eschatological views produced by www.joshbyers.com.

1) Dispensational Premillennialism

John MacArthur

Dispensationalism is a theological position that encompasses far more than just eschatology; however, it does contain a very clearly defined eschatology. The main feature of dispensationalism that has bearing on its eschatology is its discontinuity between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). In other words, the church of the NT is not a continuation of Israel in the OT. They remain two separate entities, and God's unconditional promises to Abraham (and his descendants) in Gen. 12:1-3 for a land, a ruler, and a spiritual blessing still remain in effect, despite the fact that ethnic and national Israel largely continue to reject Jesus Christ. It is believed that, during the Tribulation, national Israel will be restored to God by coming to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord (just as the Church had already done), and the promises of land, ruler and spiritual blessing will be fulfilled in the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ that follows the Tribulation. Christ will sit on the throne of David (Isaiah 9:6-7) literally in the city of Jerusalem and reign over all the nations of the world, of which Israel will have preeminence. In the meantime, the Church (which contained both Jews and Gentiles) will have been raptured and taken to Heaven. (1 Thess 4:17) There is some disagreement within dispensationalism about when the rapture will occur (pre-Tribulation, mid-Tribulation, or post-Tribulation).

The second coming of Jesus, therefore, happens in two phases. The first phase is his partial return just before the Tribulation period to take up all believers into the sky (called the "Rapture"). This happens without warning. The second phase is his return to the earth as ruler to inaugurate the millennial reign. This is preceded by many signs and wonders that take place during the Tribulation.

Dispensationalism is sometimes criticized for its across-the-board literal hermeneutic, even in prophetic passages. Non-dispensationalists argue that some portions of the Bible should be taken figuratively or allegorically.

Proponents: John N. Darby, C.I. Scofield, J.D. Pentecost, Hal Lindsey, Charles Ryrie, John MacArthur, Darrell Bock, J.F. Walvoord, Jerry Jenkins & Tim LaHaye (authors of the Left Behind series of books and movies); Moody Bible Institute; Dallas Theological Seminary.

2) Historic Premillennialism

Charles Spurgeon

Like dispensationalists, the historic premillennialist believes that Jesus will return before his millennial reign begins. Unlike dispensationalists, however, they do not hold a theology of discontinuity; they believe that the Church is the fulfillment of OT Israel. Essentially, they interpret Romans 2:28-29 as saying that the Church is spiritual Israel. That being said, however, they do interpret the prophecies regarding Israel's future political kingdom as literal. Romans 11:26-27, which states that "all Israel will be saved" (NIV), reveals to them that there is a future for the nation of Israel, and that future kingdom will be fulfilled under King Jesus in the millennium.

Because this position does not draw a spiritual distinction between the Church and Israel, they do not believe there is a rapture of the Church in order for God to deal with Israel according to a separate program. All people will face the Tribulation. After the Tribulation, Jesus returns to take his throne in Jerusalem, making Israel preeminent among the nations.

Proponents: George Ladd, J. Barton Payne, M.J. Erickson, Craig Blomberg, Charles Spurgeon

3) Postmillennialism

Bejamin Warfield

This is a particularly optimistic view, because its proponents (mostly from the 19th c.) taught that the Kingdom of God would penetrate the world through the proclamation of the Gospel and usher in a time of unprecedented peace and godliness on the earth. This time of peace and godliness would gradually lead into the literal 1,000-year period of time in which Jesus is said to rule the world. After the millennium, Jesus will return to His already established Kingdom to judge all and then restore the perfection of the heavens and the Earth, commencing the eternal state.

This position's optimism is its weakness, with regarding to keeping adherents. After World Wars I and II, this position has been almost entirely abandoned, because few can be convinced that the state of the world is progressing toward godliness and peace.

Proponents: Charles Hodge, Lemuel Haynes, William Shedd, Benjamin Warfield, A.A. Hodge, David Chilton, Rousas Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen

4) Amillennialism

Louis Berkhof

The prefix a- (meaning no- in Latin) negates the literal millennium, but that's not to say that amillennialists don't believe in the reign of Jesus as king. Jesus' reign is described in more spiritualized language--he does not sit on the literal earthly throne of David in Jerusalem (as seen in dispensationalism). Jesus is enthroned in Heaven, to which he ascended in Acts 1:9-10, and this heavenly enthronement is said to fulfill 2 Samuel 7:16. His current reign has now persisted for over 2,000 years; therefore, it is called "a thousand years" in the Bible (Rev. 20:2, 4, 6) only in the sense that it is a long period of time.

Among the interpretive systems, amillennialism is credited with being the simplest. Jesus came to earth, died, resurrected, and then ascended physically into Heaven (Acts 1:9), where he now reigns over the universe as king on David's throne. Someday in the future Jesus will return to the earth for the final judgment, and he will renew the heavens and the earth, establishing a perfect and eternal kingdom. This eternal state will be both morally and physically perfect.

Technically speaking, Jesus' return occurs after the millennium, but it's not called "postmillennial," because it holds a figurative or spiritual view of the reign of Christ.

This is the traditional view of Reformed Christianity, which generally teaches a direct continuity from OT Judaism to the NT Church. God promised the Jews that their Messiah would sit on the throne of David (2 Sam. 7:16; Isaiah 9:7), and that promise is being fulfilled right now, as Jesus sits on the throne in Heaven. Dispensationalists argue that, while Jesus may be sitting at the right hand of the Father (Matthew 26:64; Phil. 2:9-10), it is neither called a "throne" nor "David's throne" specifically, which would be an earthly throne in Jerusalem.

Proponents: Louis Berkhof, G.C. Berkhouwer, Augustine, Vern Poythress, Geerhardus Vos, J.I. Packer, John Murray.

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

The purpose of this post is not to arm you to have theological battles regarding our future hope. On the contrary, it is my hope that providing some basic definitions will allow you to have calm and reasonable discussions, without the frustration of confusing language. I welcome comments and corrections in the comments below.

Sermon Notes: What I Learned About Pain And Suffering From Jesus' Raising of Lazarus

[Note: This post is based on the notes for a sermon I guest-preached at Evanston Baptist Church on March 17, 2013. This was my church home for the five years I lived in Chicago/Evanston, IL.]

Allesandro Magnasco's The Raising of Lazarus (1715-1740)

The Apostle John's account of Jesus' raising of Lazarus is one of the most profound passages in the Scriptures, because it deals directly with the problem of pain and suffering, an issue that has dominated theological and philosophical thought for millennia. The expository preacher looking for a single passage to address the question How could a good God allow pain and suffering? will find a large part of it in John's eleventh chapter.

Given the literary context of the passage, it seems that John's point was a simple one--to demonstrate the power, authority, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Chapters 2-11 are a series of accounts of Jesus' miracles and teachings, each of which reveals Jesus' incredible authority, and each account is more incredible than the one preceding. This dynamic crescendo begins with Jesus turning water into wine (a trick possibly replicated by a magician) and reaches its zenith when Jesus raises his friend Lazarus four days after his death (something no one else can accomplish).

No expositor should make the claim that John 11:1-44 is about anything other than Jesus' incomparable power and authority. However, this passage does secondarily reveal a good deal of truth about pain and suffering and can minister to a congregation that is wading through the swamps of despondency.

The question this outline is meant to address is How could a good God allow pain and suffering?

1. Pain and suffering is a human reality that Jesus accepted. (John 11:1-3) This passage does not reveal the origin of pain and suffering, but it does deal with it soberly and clearly. The Scriptures are not the least bit escapist; God's inspired word is loaded with shocking, in-your-face accounts of suffering. It is a human reality that the Scriptures do not gloss over. Hedonism drowns it out with pleasure, while stoicism tempers it by mitigating the emotions. The biblical mind, however, can embrace its reality. [1]

2. Pain and suffering is ultimately for Jesus' glory. (John 11:4) After hearing about Lazarus' illness, Jesus says, "It is for the glory of God, so that the son of God may be glorified through it." The telos (end, purpose, or goal) of pain and suffering is the glory of Jesus, not the pain in and of itself. A god that inflicts suffering for suffering's sake is cosmic sadist, but the God of the Scriptures, embodied in Jesus Christ, has a higher purpose, and that purpose is not pain, but glory. [2]

3. Pain and suffering is NOT a sign that Jesus doesn't love us. (John 11:5) In the context of this passage, Jesus clearly has the authority to snap his fingers and heal Lazarus immediately from afar. However, he chooses not to do so. One might be tempted to conclude that Jesus did not love Lazarus or his sisters. However, John tells us, "...Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." It is a false logical step to conclude that Jesus doesn't love us, because we experience pain and suffering. (see footnote [2])

4. Pain and suffering is intentionally wielded by Jesus. (John 11:6-10) Verse 6 is a remarkable passage. Jesus was out of town and was asked to go to Bethany to save his beloved friend Lazarus from his terminal illness. And yet, "when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer..." How can this be? In that two days, Lazarus died. Why would Jesus do something so terrible? This passage reveals that Jesus' delay (and consequent death of Lazarus) is no accident. It is not as if Jesus did the best he could but, due to human free will and sinfulness, it just wasn't enough. Jesus intentionally delayed his arrival, thereby sovereignly permitting (causing?) the death of Lazarus. Jesus is sovereign over our problems, not wringing his hands in worry from the sidelines.

5. Pain and suffering is something that Jesus was "glad" about. (John 11:11-16) This is perhaps the most perplexing element of the account. Jesus says to his disciples, "Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe." Let Jesus' words sink in. Is this not incredibly insensitive? Jesus is "glad" that Lazarus died? Keep in mind that this is the last great miracle (other than Jesus' own resurrection) that is listed by John. The disciples had to get it. They had to understand, because, if the disciples don't understand, the world doesn't hear the Gospel. Lazarus' death was one of the most influential moments in the disciples' lives, because it caused them to realize that Jesus is not just a miracle worker. He is the resurrection and the life. (Jn 11:25) Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters, but God's outworking story is about more than Lazarus and his sisters (and us).

6. Pain and suffering causes us to ask "Where were you, Jesus?"  (John 11:17-32) Three times, Jesus is reminded by those mourning for Lazarus that Jesus' presence could have prevented Lazarus' death. (John 11:21, 32, 37) The reader's immediate response is to judge those saying this as lacking faith. However, Jesus never rebukes them. At the heart of these statements is the assumption that Jesus can, in fact, heal a man. Martha even states that Jesus can have anything that he asks from his Father, including the revivification of Lazarus. These statements were made out of faith, not lack of it. Essentially, they aren't questioning Jesus' power, but rather his purpose. The Scriptures seem to invite us to ask God about his purposes, so long as we humbly understand that God is under no obligation to explain himself.

7. Pain and suffering was embraced by Jesus, rather than eliminated. (John 11:33-37) Because it is the shortest verse in the Bible, it is often treated tritely, but these two words could be an entire theological study unto themselves--"Jesus wept." (Jn. 11:35) [4] Jesus is the creator, sustainer, and Lord of the entire universe. He commands legions of angels. He has eternal being. He knows all and commands all. He could have prevented Lazarus' death, and he even tarried intentionally so that Lazarus would die. And yet, he weeps. This illustrates a major theological doctrine. Rather than taking away the pain and suffering of this world, Jesus entered into it. Why did Jesus weep? Because his close friend just died, and he is sad about it. He is broken. God is more than capable of taking away our pains and sorrows and yet he does not. Instead, he thought it better to leave them in place and join us in them--in a fellowship of suffering. [3] (see Hebrews 4:14-16)

8. Pain and suffering is told to flee by Jesus. (John 11:38-44) Pain and suffering is not the end of the story. In the end of this account, Jesus says, "Lazarus, come out." Jesus is in control always and forever. At the end of this, he commands death to flee, and this will be the case for all of us in Christ in the end. He will command death, addiction, pain, suffering, tears, depression, abuse, and misery to flee. Then, after we've spent 10,000 years in glory, we'll look back on this life and it will be little more than a small, distant memory. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:17 (ESV), "For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." If we can't see that the weight of our suffering now is "light [and] momentary," it is not because we don't understand our current suffering but because we don't understand the "eternal weight of glory." We don't need to escape the pain of this world, but we do need to think more of the weightier joys of the next.

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

I pray that this outline will provide hope to those in the midst of pain. Also, I hope that some teacher or pastor will find this to be a helpful scaffolding from which to construct their own sermon. If you have other insights or questions, please comment below.

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

[1] Likewise, good art embraces the dark side of reality and depicts it as it is. This is why "Christian" movies and visual arts are so often boring and one-dimensional--they escape the reality of pain and suffering in the world by not truly depicting it. It is understandable that someone hesitates to depict sin (the ultimate root of pain and suffering), but the Bible itself is loaded with it. Christians must learn to see and depict this world as it really is.
[2] Just to illustrate how a being can inflict (or permit) pain and suffering with a higher purpose, consider the parent who disciplines his child (with pain) for the higher purpose of lovingly training the child. Pain may be wielded out of love.
[3] A beneficial conversation to have with a congregation is to ask Why might God think it was better to join us in suffering, rather than just taking it away? What is gained by suffering with others, including God? Just by way of illustration, think of a child whose parents never allow him to fail or feel pain. His parents make sure that he only ever experiences happiness, success, and acceptance. What kind of child will he be? In my experience as a high school teacher, that child is usually miserable, scared, and weak. Could this be God's reasoning?
[4] Much ink has been spilled in effort to explain theologically why Jesus was weeping here, but it all seems to be unnecessary. Jesus is simply crying, because he is a human being whose dear friend has just died. It's that simple. I'm not sure why this is so so hard to accept, unless many are just afraid to let Jesus be too human. However, it has been the declaration of both the Scriptures and the Church that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.