Alex O'Connor's Contradiction (On Suffering)

Are you one of those crazy people who just love sitting down and watching a 3 hour debate on some theological discussion, or in the case of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (with his word salads) - a full 8 hours? Well, I am. From the philosophical debates about the existence of God and the problem of evil, I see that there has been a change of the guard since I was a teen and the level of public discussion has definitely increased in complexity and also sincerity. There have been many great debates - Sam Harris v Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig v Sam Harris, Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor etc. Trent Horn is definitely a significant force on the theist side and Alex O'Connor on the atheist side. Both are improving on or at least articulating old arguments in new ways that I find intriguing. For example, Trent is improving on the Kalam Cosmological argument (an infinite materialistic past is impossible), and Alex is giving credit where due - that human suffering isn't so much of an issue due to its allowance of higher order values, but he instead focuses on animal suffering (more on this later). I am not so convinced Alex is the "non-resistant, non-believer" he claims to be. 

Alex has a fantastic accent, sharp wit, and depending on the interview, he has a charming and genuine feel about his discussions. He purports to be a "non-resistant, non-believer" which gives the impression he is very open to believing in God. He even stated in one interview that the main idea that is keeping him from believing in God is the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. While holding this in mind, I do find it suspicious that he finds himself debating frequently against the resurrection of Jesus, the divine command for the Canaanite "genocide", and whether Jesus even claimed to be God. For someone who is non-resistant and has only one mentioned reason for not believing in God, he certainly is very actively opposing Him. There might be more to his story than he lets on. Alex seems to rely on a rather literalistic approach to what I call "lemon picking" which throws a lot of Christians off in debate. Lemon picking is a way of deliberately missing a point and looking at the negative. For example, many Christians use Galatians 3:28 to end slavery - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Alex doesn't believe we can use this passage because it would mean denying the literal existence of male and female. Alex clearly misunderstands the significance of this passage - that slaves and non slaves are equal in the eyes of God. Many of the reasons for slavery throughout history is that slaves are seen as worth less than free people. Galatians alternatively claims otherwise.  

This leads me to the main topic of this blog post... Alex's contradiction. 

Alex's main gripe is that he can't understand how a good God could allow unnecessary animal suffering. This is a fair point and shows that Alex has some keen sense of morals. It is a significant Biblical idea that we as imago dei are meant to have dominion and tend God's creations from early times. This means caring for animals is a deep God-given moral compass He has given us. I am glad Alex is using it. Alex likes to weaponize it in his debates. The Knechtles unfortunately appeared to have a rough time chatting with Alex in this short half-hour discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtajMlNcnw&t=7s. In it at 1:25 Alex says to Cliff that if Alex pushed a button turning Cliff into a random wild animal, Cliff would kill himself immediately because of how miserable his life would be. Essentially, Alex is claiming that there is no value in living the life of an animal. 

Is Alex consistent with this proposition? Let's find out. In a debate with a rather worthy opponent - Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Horn pressed Alex on his rhetoric around this issue. He posited to Alex to imagine that all humanity left earth to colonise another planet. Alex has the opportunity to wipe out all nature on earth after we leave with the pressing of a button. Alex essentially gets his wish. He can end all unnecessary suffering. Alex responded basically that he didn't think he would push the button but would rather choose a button that reduced suffering. He provided no metric for deciding at what point is too much suffering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1JgXOKDQ. Trent clearly drives this point home and moves onto why Alex cannot find that metric. Alex's utilitarianism gets in the way. 

Although Alex's concerns weren't really sufficient for determining how much suffering is too much, he did raise an interesting analogy about a deer being caught under a log and starving to death, even without knowledge by humans of this ever happening. This situation of suffering seems pointless to us. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there are possible areas that could be explored further regarding where justified suffering could be found within the experience of animals.

First, at a silly level, we might consider us living life without pain receptors in order to minimise suffering (much like zombies or lepers). Clearly, this would be an unpleasant experience. The feeling of a hard day's work is a genuinely good feeling even if I had risked injuring myself doing so (or I had to plan my day so that I wasn't carelessly smashing into everything). This seems like a frightful dream to consider the feeling of having no pain receptors. 

Moving to another level, it is often said that suffering is necessary for higher order goods such as love, kindness, mercy, and compassion. I emphasise the "necessary". Jesus said that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If God wants to express Himself (as Creator) as the greatest expression of good, then this may be why God allowed/caused evil to enter the world in the first place - so that the greatest expressions of love could become a potential reality. God expressed this through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. There is a certain beauty with higher order goods that you do not get without suffering. I am glad that Alex acknowledges this in multiple interviews. However, one could imagine that suffering might be reduced so much that all unnecessary suffering ceases to exist and therefore maximising the good ratio. Though, I am not sure that this is possible.

If we wanted to witness the "greatest love" of someone giving their life for a friend, I suppose we could minimise suffering so that only one person needed to experience this, almost like a single exemplar of suffering for us all to observe and feel pity for. Maybe, there is an exemplar "murder" story we all "know" about. Although this scenario allows us to maybe understand or empathise to a small degree with the exemplar/s of suffering for each scenario, there feels like a certain travesty and arbitrariness about it that is difficult to explain. I would argue that the exemplars alone are not enough to qualify as producing that "higher good" within us. Much like merely seeing someone garden and consequently getting a sore back and limbs is not enough for us to enjoy the relief of putting their feet up and resting after the fact. Having the ability to participate or the potential to participate in a higher good holds its own value. It must follow that if we have this potential to experience a higher good then we must also have the potential to experience suffering.

The very existence of suffering just being around the corner (as horrifying as it may be at times) provides within us a feeling of a need to band together and to help each other that in itself is valuable. We don't know when suffering will impact us, but through compassion, mercy, and love, we can experience pleasure of being in unity with others in the face of  real potential of suffering. This is infinitely more valuable than minimising suffering to a mere exemplar and addresses the real difficulty of deciding what unnecessary suffering actually is. Minimising suffering doesn't produce a ratio of more good.

If this idea can work for people, then why could this not work for animals too? Alex frequently uses the deer being eaten by a lion as an example of unnecessary designed suffering in nature. I cannot speak as completely understanding (if at all) what the life of a deer may be. For a start, as many philosophers claim, there is a certain extra level of suffering a human can experience than an animal. An animal might experience suffering, but not the despairing self-awareness kind of suffering that true consciousness brings. They might feel pain, but not necessarily think, "I am in existential pain, and this is unfair". Animals don't have the ability to suffer as much as people, or at least they experience a different kind of pain to us. 

I wonder if a similar concept of the value of life and the real potential of suffering could be applied with deer as with people. Even though being hunted down and eaten by a lion is truly terrifying, could it be valuable for a deer to experience the safety of a herd instinct or comradery, even in the face of real dangers? A lion likewise, experiencing its own unique version of the herd instinct as they hunt together? These positive experiences of animal behaviour may be worth the suffering involved. This is the reason why when we step back, it would be difficult to push the button that exterminates all non-human life on a planet because there is something inherently valuable about nature and its own experiences. Many ultimate Sci fi movie villains attempt minimising suffering through extermination... we all know this is wrong and is actually destroying all that is good with it.

If animals may garnish some form of good through the real risk of wide spread suffering as people do, people can also experience higher order goods from animal suffering. Many people such as the SPCA here in New Zealand exist so that they can exercise a higher order good of caring for at risk animals. They cannot reach and save every animal from every situation, but the very knowledge that suffering is happening outside of their perceived control motivates them to creatively act to minimise "unnecessary" suffering. In a way that makes the unnecessary suffering a necessary part of motivating the greater good of SPCA's mission. Without the sense of a natural world run by natural laws where real risks and the potential of suffering exists, we can never experience these higher order goods.

This argument can be placed into a polly syllogism:

1. If God embodies the highest form of goodness, then His nature necessitates self-expression through creation.
2. In creating the world, God actualised the potential for widespread animal suffering as a means to manifest essential goods.
3. The existence of widespread animal suffering is necessary for cultivating higher-order virtues in humanity, such as compassion, mercy, and concern.
4. Additionally, this suffering plays a role in fostering lower-order goods in animals, such as the herd instinct, which contributes to survival and social cohesion.
5. Therefore, the actualization of widespread animal suffering within creation is justified as a means of producing both higher and lower-order goods.

In the end, it is difficult to separate the necessity of suffering from higher and lower order goods. In Scripture, God went into a long monologue with Job challenging Job to understand his own limitations of insight. Job was humbled by this monologue. Ultimately, we cannot see all the necessities of any single event, but because God is good, we can trust that He has a greater plan for good that sometimes only He is aware of. This is infinitely more reassuring than the purposelessness of an atheistic view on suffering. We can speculate, but ultimately it is His prerogative to run this universe as He sees fit.   

Spiritual Gifts: Their Meanings and Structure

Here are some snippets from my book.  If you would like more, let me know.  If you want the whole thing feel free to follow this link to Amazon:  Spiritual Gifts: Their Meanings and Structure.  If you do not have an Amazon account, please leave comment and I can send you a copy at the same price, $9, no shipping costs.  I have limited supply.

• From Introduction chapter:  Why do a study on the spiritual gifts? Because the gifts are something that the church was supposed to be using and I feel that we are falling short of what was expected. Without the gifts being used the church is not fulfilling all of its potential. We wonder why we are not reaching all the lost souls in this world, yet we are not doing all we need to do be doing. We are not doing the one thing that each of us has been called to do.
• From Cessationism vs Continuationism chapter: One major problem with understanding the gifts is that we have to know if the gifts are still available or not.  Some believe that the gifts have died out when the Apostolic Age ended.... When did Scripture end?  Was it perfected in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple like Preterism claims?  The Futurists think that Revelation, the last book in the Bible was written about 85 to 90 A.D.
• From the main part of the book:Why did the early church need apostles? They needed someone to carry on the miracles and message of Christ. The message of Christ was new to everyone. The whole world did not know what following Christ meant since He ascended into heaven. The apostle (lower cased) had to be the deliverer of the word and to take care of people who wanted to follow Christ. They chose local leaders to carry on the functions and leadership of congregations while they were away. They started churches and watched over them. They handled problems of doctrines and teachings. They gave authenticity to others. With this in mind let us define in detail the gift of apostle..... Greek-“apo” plus “stellos”. Apo means “from somewhere”. Stellos means “send out”. The word means someone who was sent from somewhere.  Hebrew- “shaliah”.  It means emissary or one sent on a mission, such as a missionary.  Clarification and meaning of this gift: One chosen by God to be sent out with a unique mission. A specific mission might be starting a church, acting and speaking on His behalf.

Each chapter is dedicated to a different gift and follows the same pattern; why did the early church have it, why does the church still have it, what are the types of this gift, what personalities and issues happen with this gift, the etymology, clarification, and some misconceptions.  Loaded with a full inventory at the end.  Great for class studies or personal growth.

For more here on my blogs:  Spiritual Gifts Overview and Gift of gifts

A Systematic Understanding of Universalism-Part 7

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism

Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism

Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism

All right, it has been nearly two years since I last added to this series. Thanks to a reminder from a reader on a previous part, I was reminded of the fact that I had not finished it! Life tends to get in the way, but hey, that is what life is about after all.

So far we have discussed problems with Arminianism and Free Will, problems with Calvinistic predestination, then we talked about the many scriptural evidences for Universalism as a viable option. Now I would like to look at how Universalism could work as a narrative. 

As you can probably tell by reading through the series, I do tend to subscribe to a deterministic understanding of Universalism due to the many reasons outlined in previous posts. However I must note that many, many people who believe an evangelical Biblical-focused version of Universalism do accept the notion of Libertarian Freewill. But, how is that possible? I mean, if God does not have control over whether all people get saved or not, then how can you be a Universalist? Well, they basically say that although there is a lack of certainty that God will save everyone, they believe that in the aions of eternity God will not give up – His love for and pursuit for us is forever. Basically, if you roll the dice for infinity then you will eventually get the odds you were hoping for and all people will be convinced over to God’s side.

Anyways, that is not the type of Universalism that I will be talking about in this post. I don’t believe that Libertarian Freewill makes functional sense and therefore alternatively I will attempt to pull together an understanding of how a deterministic interpretation of Universalism could fit together.

WHY UNIVERSALISM?

Putting aside the Scriptural evidences for it in previous posts, Universalism for me provides a beautiful narrative that carries the hope that all people will be restored to God and that we can one day live in harmony with each other. It also makes philosophical sense in that Everything can be united in God and His goodness - the original Cause (this is probably another series in itself). Everything needs to have its beginning and end in God, for all things are from Him, through Him and for Him (Romans 11). It makes no sense to me that Evil and death would rule in a “Universe” consummated in God and His goodness. Universalism also can explain why evil could exist at the same time as God’s goodness without diminishing the power of God and His subjection to the will of man.

WHY DETERMINISM?

In short, The reason I subscribe to a deterministic understanding of the world (other than scripture) is due to my belief that a causal chain or web (“this” caused “that” and so on and so forth) is the most logical way to view the world. Eventually everything must stem from the uncaused Cause i.e. God. Libertarian Free Will as some kind of reality distinct from the uncaused Cause just doesn’t make sense in any way to me as illustrated in Part 3. The only alternative I see at this stage is determinism. 

In this article I illustrate how a Deterministic Universalism narrative could work in three areas pertaining to Christianity. I have chosen these three distinct areas because they answer how I believe Universalism has a better way of narrating the world we live in than Arminianism or Calvinism. These three areas also address potential objections to Deterministic Universalism which you may find useful. These areas are:

• Molded Over Time. Looking at who deserves to be saved and who doesn’t, and exploring how God works on us over time.
• The Greater Good. Here I focus on addressing the “problem” of evil and why the existence of evil is necessary and valuable. 
• Responsibility. Am I really responsible for evil if God caused me to be evil?

MOLDED OVER TIME

I would like to begin with a thought experiment - What or who defines who we are?

Are you the you 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Or are you the real you right now? Or are you the you of past, present and future forms of yourself all at the same time? Some people may consider others like Hitler (Yes I have heard it) never being worthy or able to be saved because of how horrible he was. Yet, who is “Hitler”? Hitler the boy? Hitler the adult? Or Hitler in 10,000 years-time, or something else?

My point is, only God our Maker knows the ins and outs of the fabric of our being, that is, who He determined us to be through the aions of time and also our potential. Who are we to say who at any point in their lives are not worthy of or able to be saved? Are we their Maker therefore knowing all their potential? Definitely not!

Could it be that God has designed people like Hitler to be a prime example to themselves and others as a recipient of grace and mercy in action - the greatest good? I mean, sometimes wicked people become the greatest helpers in history. Take the New Testament Paul or even people like John Newton. It is often their stories that inspire others to do and value what is good. Could not God be continually working on those not yet saved, through the aions of time, weaving their own unique story that only they could be the protagonist of?

Our unique strengths and weaknesses that make us who we are ensures that we are truly individuals as God has deemed us to be. If God only made the people with “good” characters, then there would be less diversity because the people with more “difficult” characters would not exist. 

All people are worth saving, not just the “good” ones. Jesus said that he did not come for the healthy but for the sick. God made you… and me, as we are. We would not exist as we know ourselves if evil did not exist – we would not be us. 

Romans 9 illustrates a helpful picture of how God works with us. God is seen as a potter moulding vessels (us) on a potter’s wheel. Some of us may spend a longer time on the potter’s wheel depending on the raw materials God has created our unique essence to be, but all are valuable. God has made us unique like none other. It is through a process of time, like a potter moulding clay, that God is forming us into His perfect image. It could be that our nature at creation will determine the methods and tools necessary that God will use to form us into the vessel He aims to make, with all the intricate detail that makes up who we are. 

Basically, we ourselves would not exist as we know it (or not at all) if evil did not exist – we would not really be us – who we are today.

THE GREATER GOOD

I cannot talk about the above without talking about this aspect of Universalism. Yes, “the greater good” sounds like a catch phrase from Hot Fuzz, but it is something that we all implement in our lives. We sacrifice something for a greater good. Suffering can be much the same. 

For the Arminianist, the greater “good” is that people have Free Will even though it fosters evil in themselves and those around them. Evil is seen as an unfortunate by product of Free Will. Free Will is the ultimate good, not “goodness”.

For the Calvinist, God’s sovereignty and symbolic judgement of evil is what is the greatest good. Although in some sense this is an apparently honourable view of God, like when Faramir bravely followed orders and rode against the hordes of orcs in the Lord of the Rings. However, it leaves much to be desired in order to be convinced that Faramir was in fact truly “good” for leading his soldiers on a suicide mission. 

I have a rather different understanding of what the greater good could look like through Deterministic Universalism. It involves trust in our Creator, much like Faramir trusted his father, but not without attempting to understand what may be the reasons behind God’s actions in light of eternity.

Some of you may be thinking like the above section “If God wants to create robots that expressed His goodness then why not only create good people? Why make people with the potential to be evil at all?” Yet, If God is wanting the greatest expression of what is good, then in theory He would (by natural and necessary reflection of His nature) create a world where the greatest possible good can be a reality. 

If you imagine a perfect world, it commonly would include a world without suffering and sadness… a world without evil. But, what is missing? In fact much is missing from this imaginary world. It is not just evil that is missing, but also good. Without the existence of evil, we would not have greater forms of good such as – Mercy, Forgiveness, Self-Sacrifice and love in the face of suffering etc. They would not even exist. We would not experience the sensation of being forgiven or forgiving others which can build deeper and more meaningful relationships with others.

Jesus said in Luke 6 “32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” 

Take one of the most popular songs (by John Newton) in the western world: 

“Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see…”

Notice what Jesus and John Newton are expressing? 

The song Amazing Grace was written by John Newton - an ex-slave trader - who when he realised what he had done wrote this song. It resonates in many of our souls today because we all have done things we regret and are able to appreciate the mercy bestowed on us by God… and others. 

What I am saying is, is that it is NECESSARY for evil to exist for the GREATEST FORM OF GOOD to exist. We wouldn’t have the greatest love story of Jesus Christ dying on the cross as an example for us to live by if there were no evil. Through the existence of evil we now can experience the true value of goodness in our lives. We even see this in our day to day cares. We experience being hungry which can be an uncomfortable feeling. Only once we have experienced being hungry do we truly value eating food. Likewise, if we have never experienced evil, then how can we truly experience or value what is good.

RESPONSIBILITY

So some of you may be wondering how we can be responsible for our wrong doings if God determined us to do them.

I think the problem comes with an age old understanding of responsibility in the context of Free Will. We tend to think that an evil act must be paid for because a person has freely chosen to do something evil and therefore must be punished in order to appease an abstract justice system.

I tend to interpret responsibility more as an identification of where something or someone has gone wrong. Instead of seeing an individual as having freely chosen to do an evil act, I must ask what brought them to choose to do such and act. Doing this will hopefully get to the root issues, rather than issuing justice through a form of using fear-based punishment. A more sincere world would be where people choose to do good because they saw the value in it and wanted it, rather than doing it because they have to. 

So if we have done evil, then yes, we are responsible. Not because we freely chose to do it, but because it is something in our character that needs to be addressed. It may be that a form of punishment is necessary for correction, but not because of some arbitrary sense of justice that has to be appeased. Looking at human responsibility like this helps me to be more empathetic towards others, while at the same time not overlooking the need to change unhelpful behaviour.

CONCLUSION

The Universalism I am advocating pulls together the logical prowess of Calvinism, while also grasping the Arminianist understanding that God wants to save everyone. Which I feel provides us with the best of both worlds. 

It may be difficult for many to come to grips with a deterministic understanding of the world, simply because of the cultural messages about Free Will/Freedom we have all been subjected to through various movies and songs. It may take some time for us to look anew at scripture passages that we have been taught to read in a particular way. It may take some time for us to explore for ourselves the possibility of Universalism being a reality – please do so. 

I do not pretend to have wiped away all problems of evil. I do not know why God would allow certain horrible situations to happen where I cannot see a possible justifiable greater good to come from it, but it at least provides hope through the darkest of times. 

Philosophers like Voltaire and Bertrand Russell may have a problem with this way of looking at things. They critiqued philosopher Leibniz’s idea that God has created the best of all possible worlds. They claimed things like – there is too much evil in the world to deem it as being the “best”; and if evil exists in the best of all possible worlds, then why should we even try to combat evil? After all, evil is a part of God’s best of all possible worlds. 

Poignant thoughts… yet, on the contrary, believing that God created good and evil does not necessarily mean that I value evil (or the amount of it) in and of itself, but instead value the Process of overcoming evil which then allows the greatest forms of good to come into effect.  

Seeing the world in a more deterministic hopeful way enables me to trust God more than I ever did before. God is not at the mercy of mankind’s Free Will, nor am I at the mercy of my own or other’s “Free “actions. Instead, I am free to be who God made me to be. It helps me to feel more compassionate for others and to remain more positive in negative situations. It also gives me more confidence to share the good news of the gospel, because I am not sharing it through a sense of imminent defeat. Ultimately, I can confidently do God’s work knowing that each and every small and large action, do actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you have enjoyed the series. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

Seeing Beyond a Story

Christian Renewal Church has recently initiated a blog where myself and several fantastic authors are going to write/type once a month to encourage and challenge one another.

My latest post written for the blog is looking at narrative theory (Story telling) and how it impacts how we view ourselves and others around us. Story telling is something we all do regardless of how open minded we think we are. In contrast Jesus often broke past the walls of stories we built up around ourselves and around others. Jesus changed the linear plot in many people's lives and also changed how we can see the world.

You can find the Christian Renewal Church website and subsequent blog by clicking the link here - ENJOY!

Matthew 20 - An Unfair Story Made Fair

I recently came across in a Bible reading one of the most potentially abhorrent and unfair passages in scripture - Matthew 20. It is where Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God being where the first will be last and last will be first - He ultimately treats people unequally. 

But is it really unfair?

The story is about a master who goes out in the morning and hires workers for a day's wage. However, the master continuously goes back to the market and hires people to work for him that same day. The master even goes out in the late afternoon to hire more people (who were standing around looking for work). At the end of the day, the master pays all his workers the same day's wage that he agreed upon with the workers he hired in the morning. The morning workers were upset that they didn't get paid more than those who arrived at the end of the day (naturally). The master simply replied that he was able to do with his money as he pleased and that no agreement was broken between him and the morning workers. The master merely decided to pay the late-comers the same as the morning workers out of generosity.

So what is Jesus trying to say that the kingdom of God is like?

This passage could be seen differently by capitalists (who generally look out for equality) and socialists (who look out for equity). From a capitalist perspective, Jesus emphasised the freedom of choice that the master had with his money. The master didn't need to pay anyone more and is free to run his business as he pleases. On the other hand, from a socialist perspective, Jesus may be telling us something more about the Kingdom of God. He may be saying that the master is free to use his money as he wishes, yet advocating a mindset or value system more in line with socialist ideas of equity. 

The story suggests that there was not enough work for people in the market place, and the master who was able to supply a living wage to these people also felt compelled to do so out of grace. The master chose to endorse more equitable values in order to produce equality among workers. In the West we tend to celebrate "freedom" of choice (along with economic freedom) to decide our own future and make our own paths. However, Jesus here seems to be talking about a Kingdom where our economic wealth and "freedom" is used to put in place means by which those with less can have more and likewise also be free from poverty.    

Thus equity is necessary to bring about equality, and necessary to treat the first last and the last first - A Kingdom where concern for the well being of others makes the world go around.

How do you think the Kingdom of God is pictured from this passage?     

God, Justice and Love

Have you ever wondered what is the purpose for Justice?

Is it an arbitrary consequence for a broken law... or is there more to it? What is God's idea of justice from His perspective? Have we settled for a far simpler version of justice than God intends?
It has been a tendency of societies to punish people without the intention of restoring them - i.e. through imprisonment and capital punishment. Not only that, but often Christian doctrine upholds a punishment concept of justice instead of one focused around love and restoration. Often concepts of justice seem to seek to satisfy some abstract idea of justice, and to force people to be "good" through fear and compulsion. 

Yet, there is another way of looking at justice. If we look at justice from the perspective of love ("God is love" - 1 John 4:8) it brings a different perspective for the purpose of justice. By seeing justice through love, ideally we can seek after a practical restoration of wrongs where all parties experience compassion and love. Such a practical restoration could be where the wrong done is made right, both within the wrong doer and with the victim. I ask, is it really enough to try make people "good" through arbitrary judgements? Does it even "work"? Shouldn't our aim be to restore the conscience of a person to the point where they want to do good, not out of fear, but out of courage? Surely that would produce a more wholesome society. 
It is interesting that studies show Restorative Justice is more successful than punitive punishments on many accounts such as reducing recidivism, reducing post-traumatic stress amongst victims (including revenge), and both offenders and victims are more satisfied with Restorative Justice than conventional criminal justice. (See Restorative Justice: The Evidence)

We were having a heartfelt and thoughtful discussion with Cindy Skillman over at the Evangelical Universalism forum on the subject "Post-mortem punishment and the perfect love of God". She had this gem to share which I thought was so well put I had to post it here on the Benevolent Hecklers. She compares human justice with God's justice. She ultimately asks what God's attitude is towards post-mortem punishment using a Biblical concept of love. Let me know what you think!   

"This is what God (through Paul) says love looks like:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

Some say that God would LOVE to save all people, but He cannot because they refuse to be saved. Love never fails. Some say that when we die in the flesh, God gives up on us. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. AND Love never fails.

Sure God can punish for the purpose of healing. Earthly parents do this, and we submit to it. How much more should we willingly submit to chastisement from our Heavenly Father who always does it for our good? Earthly parents who punish for the sake of punishing and NOT to heal and reform an erring child, are considered monsters--rightly. And THAT is only temporal, temporary, earthly punishment. Yet we think that our Heavenly Father will punish to no purpose other than revenge and so-called "justice," not for a short time, not to reform, not to cure, not to make anything right but ONLY to administer far in excess of Moses's limits of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--forever and ere.

Justice is NOT taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is only a limitation on excessive punishment. Justice is not eternal torment, whether or not eternal torment is deserved. Justice is not the chair for a murderer or prison for a lesser criminal. Those things are human attempts at justice, or human attempts at imagining ultimate justice.

Justice is making things right.

None of the punishments we could administer or imagine could ever make things right. Justice means you get your murdered wife back, and the man who murdered her becomes the loving brother to you and to her that he ought always to have been. THAT is making things right. Everything else is a poor, impoverished human attempt to prevent the criminal from having an advantage he denied his victim. Did he kill? Let him not live, for his victim is dead. Did he steal? Let him have nothing, for he has diminished his victims, forcing them to support him without their consent. THAT is the best WE can do. It is far, far from the best God can do."

God is With Us

Last Sunday I heard this great sermon from down here in New Zealand, preached by Matthew Guddatt. He is a Britain, come down to NZ and is currently a youth pastor.

So what is the big deal about this sermon?
I haven't often heard a sermon where God's sovereignty and power is connected to our daily lives.

Here is a summary of what the sermon covers:

- Matthew talks about the greatness of God and how we cannot limit God to one name, but He encompasses many names describing Him.
- He also talks about how the church today can have a tendency to go back to Old Testament ways by having super spiritual "priests" (pastors, and elders) who harbour spiritual connection with God for the lay people. Matthew points out that we are all called to be priests and all can access God.
- Lastly he talks about how God is omnipresent. I like how he says that God is in the very breath of the atheist, and that church is not the only place to find God. Matthew points out that God can be found anywhere and we don't need to chase conjured up feelings and emotions, but to know and have faith that God is with us anywhere.

Matthew has a good sense of humour and is easy to listen to. Click the link below to listen -

http://christianrenewal.org.nz/god-is-with-us-2/

Photo Retrieved from:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6gDvNsJRUMUMcJWOAGf2kzikQvzrJUIgNIwZ7J6IpGxid8USzNElMBDO_LZAEXL9EHgvutQXCaYRRCRzP9Jk2CMjgonXZKoo6rUdHl1haH3cpVy8WH29l0AXnDmIoPE_Od-WLziO2zq0/s1600/galaxy_universe-normal.jpg