Are we allowed to complain to God?

Jeremiah by Rembrandt

This is a short sermon which I gave to Ukrainian refugees at the Holy Trinity Baptist Church in Bucharest, Romania 16 September 2022

(The Russian text is below)

Biblical text 

Lamentations 3:1, 2, 7, 8, 17-26

1. I am the man who has seen affliction
    by the rod of the Lord’s wrath.
² He has driven me away and made me walk
    in darkness rather than light;

⁷ He has walled me in so I cannot escape;
    he has weighed me down with chains.
⁸ Even when I call out or cry for help,
    he shuts out my prayer.

¹⁷ I have been deprived of peace;
    I have forgotten what prosperity is.
¹⁸ So I say, “My splendor is gone
    and all that I had hoped from the Lord.”

¹⁹ I remember my affliction and my wandering,
    the bitterness and the gall.
²⁰ I well remember them,
    and my soul is downcast within me.
²¹ Yet this I call to mind
    and therefore I have hope:

²² Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed,
    for his compassions never fail.
²³ They are new every morning;
    great is your faithfulness.
²⁴ I say to myself, “The Lord is my portion;
    therefore I will wait for him.”

²⁵ The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,
    to the one who seeks him;
²⁶ it is good to wait quietly
    for the salvation of the Lord.

You have sorrows. Your land is at war. Your emotions are in turmoil. 

There are many examples of people in the Bible who have suffered from war or other terrible events.  One example is Jeremiah, the great prophet of Israel. Jeremiah lived just before Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it to the ground in 586 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar killed thousands of people and led the royal power of Judea into exile. He took away all the golden objects from the temple. He burned the ruins of the city before leaving to make him a place where no one could live. 

Jeremiah was told to prophesy of impending death, and therefore he was considered a traitor. He was thrown into the well and left to die. However, God delivered him. In the book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Jeremiah mourns the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of so many people and the loss of his former life there in Jerusalem. This cry or lamentation is a prayer. The Bible is full of different types of prayers. Some of them praise, glorifying God as he is, a sovereign God. Some of them are thanksgiving, prayers to thank God for giving us something or helping us. Lamentation is harder. Some laments seem incorrect, but the Bible contains many laments. Job's book is full of laments. He lost his health, his wealth and his family, and he appeals to God in tears. David, king of the Jews, wrote many complaints in psalms. He appealed to God about an unjust treatment, disrespect, that he was deceived. In the same way, here, in the lament of Jeremiah, we see the man of God, appealing to God and mourning his losses and grief. 

The point of this is to show us that lamenting, mourning or appealing to God in sorrow is not disbelief. God is large enough to stand our lamentations. The Bible does not try to make us pretend that terrible things did not happen, or to pretend that we are happy when terrible things happen to us. You must freely tell God about your feelings. He will hear you. He will answer, although perhaps not as you expect or want. 

There are no secondary reasons in the Old Testament. I mean that for the Saints of the Old Testament there was no excuse for God for letting them suffer, saying that someone else was responsible for this. We lived in Yugoslavia, Serbia, several years before and during the Bosnian war. We could say that in the war, Ratko Mladic, Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic were to blame. In the Old Testament, people believed that God controls everything. If Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, then it was pleasing to God. Thus, complaints and lamentations before God were justified. At the same time, the Bible tells us that God condemned Nebuchadnezzar for his cruelty. 

In this third chapter, of Lamentations, Jeremiah calls out from the bottom of his heart. He tells God exactly how he feels. He is in deep pain. He does not offer up pious prayers. He lays his heart bare before God. And God is great enough to accept this. Jeremiah sees that what happened to him comes directly from God. Jerusalem rebelled against God and practiced idolatry for a long time. Jeremiah in his prayer depicts God as a warrior, a judge who comes against him to punish him for his sins. He does not deny that he deserves punishment. This seems to us extreme, how could God do such things? Again, in the Old Testament, God is sovereign as a judge and a king. But this is not the end of the story. Although Jeremiah is unhappy and speaks of this to God, in the end, in verse 17 of Chapter 3, he begins to turn his eyes from his problems to his former hope in God. Although it seems that God has forgotten him or, worse, he is the one who punishes him, now He remembers that God is the hope of His salvation, His deliverance from this suffering. 

“My soul is deprived of the world, I have forgotten about prosperity. And I said: "My greatness and my hope for the Lord have disappeared." The Lamentations of Jeremiah 3: 17-18 New Russian Translation

He had not yet passed from his suffering to seeing God, but had already begun to turn his eyes to God. He remembers in the past how he looked to God with hope, with the hope of salvation, for the future. 

“The memory of this is strong, my soul has fallen. But here is what I say to myself, this is what gives me hope: “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness! ”” The Lamentations of Jeremiah 3: 20-23 New Russian Translation 

And, finally, after 20 verses, he begins to look up to God and remember his former hope in God and in salvation from God. His "powerful memory" of his former faith in God begins to reappear. He remembers the “love of the Lord” or “the grace of the Lord,” which is infinite. Here in the Hebrew text of this passage the word HESED is used. Hesed is God's love for his people, expressed in his covenant with Israel. Whatever they do, no matter how unfaithful they may be, God remained faithful to His covenant with them. He promised to bless them, if they obey, and he promised to punish them, if they disobey. And they disobeyed, and so he punished them. However, he promised that he would never leave them. His Hesed, his Covenant love was forever. 

There were many people in Israel who could be called "righteous sufferers." They themselves did nothing wrong, but they suffered along with the people. These people were like Job, who did nothing wrong, but still suffered. Jeremiah was among them. In the end, he recalls two things that allow him to endure his pain and look forward to the future. First, God is his portion, his inheritance. In the Old Testament, all 12 patriarchs / tribes of Israel received part of the land when they captured Palestine. The only tribe that did not receive land was the Levites. They were priests. God was their portion, their inheritance. They had an eternal and eternally reliable legacy, God. For many people, a plot of land is an inheritance. This is especially true in an agrarian society. But we know that this world is not eternal. It will pass away. How much better is an inheritance in heaven that cannot be stolen or spoiled? Jeremiah also remembers that his hope of salvation is in God. In the end, we will all die. Our future is not in land, wealth or glory. Our future is safe only in God, In eternal life with Christ. 

So, some conclusions. First, you can pour out your heart to God and tell him exactly what you feel. He knows everything and he wants you to be honest with him. Secondly, you may well be a righteous sufferer. You may have done nothing wrong to have earned this suffering. You can insist on your innocence in the current conflict. You are not the reason. At the same time, we all know that we have all done wrong. The Bible calls this sin - intentional disobedience against God and actions which are unjust and harmful to others. The Great Hope of the Bible is Jesus, the Son of God, a perfect righteous sufferer. Although Jesus did nothing wrong, He died in our place to pay the price for our sins. The Bible says that no one can pay for their own sins, because we are all sinful. Jesus did not sin and, therefore, was able to offer Himself in our place, to pay our debt. Some may even see a foreshadowing of Jesus in this chapter 3 of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. 

If we confess our sins and give our lives to Jesus, we will receive an eternal inheritance in heaven that cannot be spoiled or taken from us. If we ask Christ to take our lives, we will become members of His Eternal Kingdom and members of the Covenant Community, where God's Hesed, His Covenant love, will be ours. So, mourn, pour out your pain and grief to God, but also look up, turn to Jesus and find peace, hope and future in God and His love.

+++++++++++++++++++

Плач Иеремии 3:1, 2, 7, 8, 17-26 НРП

Библейский текст

“Я человек, испытавший горе от жезла гнева Господа. Он погнал меня и ввел во тьму, а не в свет.”

“Окружил меня стеной, чтобы я не мог выйти, заковал меня в тяжелые цепи. Даже когда я взываю и прошу о помощи Он не обращает внимания на мою молитву.”

“Лишена душа моя мира я позабыл о благоденствии. И сказал я: «Исчезло величие мое и надежда моя на Господа». Помню лишь о страдании и скитании, во мне лишь горечь и желчь. Сильна память об этом, поникла душа моя. Но вот что говорю я себе, вот что дает мне надежду: «Милость Господа никогда не иссякает, сострадание Его не истощается. Они обновляются каждое утро; велика верность Твоя!» Я сказал себе: «Господь – часть моя, потому я буду надеяться на Него». Благ Господь к тем, кто уповает на Него, к тем, кто ищет Его. Благо тому, кто молча ожидает спасения от Господа.”

Плач Иеремии 3:1, 2, 7, 8, 17-26 НРП

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

У тебя есть печали.  Ваша земля находится в состоянии войны.  Ваши эмоции обеспокоены.  

В Библии есть много примеров людей, которые страдали от войны или других ужасных событий.  Одним из примеров является Иеремия, великий пророк Израиля.  Иеремия жил как раз перед тем, как Навуходоносор, царь Вавилона, осадил Иерусалим и разрушил его до основания в 586 г. до н.э.  Навуходоносор убил тысячи людей и увел в изгнание королевскую власть Иудеи.  Он унес все золотые предметы из Храма.  Он сжег руины города, прежде чем уйти, чтобы сделать его местом, где никто не сможет жить.

Иеремия было сказано пророчествовать о грядущей гибели, и поэтому его считали предателем.  Его бросили в колодец и оставили умирать.  Однако Бог избавил его.  В книге Плач Иеремии Иеремия оплакивает разрушение Иерусалима, смерть стольких людей и утрату своей прежней жизни там, в Иерусалиме.  Этот плач или стенание есть молитва.  Библия полна различных видов молитв.  Некоторые из них восхваляют, прославляя Бога таким, какой Он есть, Суверенный Бог.  Некоторые из них - это благодарения, молитвы, чтобы поблагодарить Бога за то, что он дал нам что-то или помог нам.  Плакать тяжелее.  Некоторым жалобы кажутся неверными, но в Библии записано много жалоб.  Книга Иова полна жалоб.  Он потерял свое здоровье, свое богатство и свою семью, и он взывает к Богу в слезах.  Давид, царь Иудейский, написал много жалоб в Псалмах.  Он взывал к Богу о несправедливом обращении, о неуважении, о том, что его обманули.  Точно так же и здесь, в Плачах Иеремии, мы видим человека Божия, взывающего к Богу и оплакивающего свои потери и горе.

Смысл этого в том, чтобы показать нам, что жаловаться, оплакивать или взывать к Богу в печали не является неверием.  Бог достаточно велик, чтобы выделиться причитаний.  Библия не пытается заставить нас притворяться, что ужасных вещей не случалось, или притворяться, что мы счастливы, когда с нами происходят ужасные вещи.  Вы должны свободно говорить Богу о своих чувствах.  Он услышит вас.  Он ответит, хотя, возможно, не так, как вы ожидаете или хотите.

В Ветхом Завете нет вторичных причин.  Я имею в виду, что для святых Ветхого Завета не было оправдания Богу за то, что он позволил им страдать, сказав, что кто-то другой несет за это ответственность.  Мы жили в Югославии, Сербии несколько лет до и во время боснийской войны.  Можно сказать, что в войне виноваты, в частности, Ратко Младич, Слободан Милошевич и Радован Караджич.  В Ветхом Завете люди верили, что Бог все контролирует.  Если Навуходоносор разрушил Иерусалим, то это было угодно Богу.  Таким образом, жалобы и стенания перед Богом были оправданы.  В то же время Библия говорит нам, что Бог осудил Навуханезара за его жестокость.

В этой третьей главе Плач Иеремии взывает от всего сердца.  Он говорит Богу точно, что он чувствует.  Он в глубокой боли.  Он не придумывает благочестивых молитв.  Он обнажает свое сердце перед Богом.  И Бог достаточно велик, чтобы принять это.  Иеремия видит, что то, что с ним произошло, исходит непосредственно от Бога.  Иерусалим восставал против Бога и долгое время практиковал идолопоклонство.  Иеремия в своей молитве изображает Бога как воина, судью, идущего против него, чтобы наказать его за его грехи.  Он не отрицает, что заслуживает наказания.  Нам его язык кажется крайним, как мог Бог делать такие вещи?  Опять же, в Ветхом Завете Бог суверенен как Судья и Царь.  Но это не конец истории.  Хотя Иеремия несчастен и говорит об этом Богу, в конце концов, в стихе 17 главы 3 он начинает обращать свой взор от своих проблем к своей прежней надежде на Бога.  Хотя кажется, что Бог забыл его или, того хуже, тот, кто его наказывает, теперь он помнит, что Бог есть надежда его спасения, его избавления от этого страдания.

“Лишена душа моя мира я позабыл о благоденствии. И сказал я: «Исчезло величие мое и надежда моя на Господа».”

Плач Иеремии 3:17-18 НРП

Он еще не перешел от своих страданий к видению Бога, но уже начал обращать свой взор от себя к Богу.  Он помнит в прошлом, как взирал на Бога с надеждой, с надеждой на спасение, на будущее.

“Сильна память об этом, поникла душа моя. 

Но вот что говорю я себе, вот что дает мне надежду: 

«Милость Господа никогда не иссякает, 

сострадание Его не истощается. 

Они обновляются каждое утро; велика верность Твоя!»”

Плач Иеремии 3:20-23 НРП

И, наконец, после 20 стихов он начинает взирать на Бога и вспоминать свою прежнюю надежду на Бога и спасение от Бога.  Его «Сильна память» о его прежней вере в Бога начинает проявляться.  Он помнит «любовь Господа» или «милость Господа», которая бесконечна.  Здесь в еврейском тексте этого отрывка используется слово Хесед.  Хесед – это любовь Бога к своему народу, выраженная в Его завете с Израилем.  Что бы они ни делали, какими бы неверными они ни были, Бог оставался верным Своему Завету с ними.  Он обещал благословить их, если они будут подчиняться, и пообещал наказать их, если они ослушаются.  И они ослушались, и он наказал их.  Однако он пообещал, что никогда не оставит их.  Его Хесед, его Заветная Любовь была навеки.

В Израиле было много людей, которых называют «праведными страдальцами».  Сами они ничего плохого не сделали, но пострадали вместе с народом.  Эти люди были подобны Иову, который не сделал ничего плохого, но все равно страдал.  Иеремия был среди них.  В конце концов он вспоминает о двух вещах, которые позволяют ему переносить боль и смотреть вперед в будущее.  Во-первых, Бог — его удел.  В Ветхом Завете все 12 патриархов Израиля получили часть земли, когда захватили Палестину.  Единственным племенем, не получившим земли, были левиты.  Это были священники.  Их уделом был Бог.  У них было вечное и вечно надежное наследие, Бог.  Для многих людей участок земли является наследством.  Это особенно верно в аграрном обществе.  Но мы знаем, что этот мир не вечен.  Он проходит.  Насколько лучше иметь наследство на небесах, которое нельзя украсть или испортить?  Также он помнит, что его надежда на спасение в Боге.  В конце концов мы все умрем.  Наше будущее не в земле, богатстве или славе.  Наше будущее безопасно только в Боге. В вечной жизни со Христом.

Итак, некоторые выводы.  Сначала вы можете излить свое сердце Богу и рассказать Ему, что именно вы чувствуете.  Он все равно знает и хочет, чтобы вы были честны с Ним.  Во-вторых, вы вполне можете быть праведным страдальцем.  Возможно, вы не сделали ничего плохого, чтобы заслужить это страдание.  Вы можете настаивать на своей невиновности в текущем конфликте.  Вы не стали причиной.  В то же время все мы знаем, что когда-то мы поступали неправильно.  Библия называет этот грех умышленным неповиновением Богу и поступками несправедливыми и вредными для других.  Великая надежда Библии — Иисус, Сын Божий, совершенный праведный страдалец.  Хотя Иисус не сделал ничего плохого, он умер вместо нас, чтобы заплатить цену за наши грехи.  Библия говорит, что никто не может расплачиваться за свои грехи, потому что все мы грешны.  Иисус не сделал греха и поэтому смог предложить Себя вместо нас, чтобы оплатить наш долг.  Некоторые могут даже увидеть прообразы Иисуса как совершенного праведного страдальца в этой главе 3 Плача Иеремии.

Если мы исповедуем свои грехи и отдадим свою жизнь Иисусу, мы получим вечное наследство на небесах, которое нельзя испортить или отнять у нас.  Если мы попросим Христа забрать нашу жизнь, мы станем членами Его вечного Царства и членами сообщества Завета, где Божий Хесед, Его Любовь Завета, будет нашим.  Итак, да оплакивайте, изливайте свою боль и горе Богу, но и взгляните вверх, обратитесь к Иисусу и обретите покой, надежду и будущее в Боге и Его любви.

True Manhood

A wag in Florida reacting the testicular tanning craze wrote: “We could designate part of our beaches as NUT (Natural Unrestricted Tanning) Zones”.¹ When we lived in Belgrade there was an island in the Danube River called Ada Ciganlia. There was a family friendly beach, and then if you wandered too far you reached the “Naturist” beach ,where the nudists sunbathed.  The nudists tended to be fat, old men.  Maybe their testicular tanning caused Serbs to have a higher testosterone level.  Maybe it led to their tendency to start wars.

Of all the silly ideas about how to bring “real manhood” back, this has to be the most silly.  Of course the sillier idea is that the level of a man’s testosterone level determines whether he is a real man.  The very same video, which announced this miraculous solution, featured “shirtless men throwing around weights, wielding axes, doing pushups and wrestling each other.” Sounds like one of Putin’s birthday videos. How long will we persist in thinking that masculinity has to do with a testosterone level? This means that any man older than 60 is not a man.  

The biblical view of manhood has little to do with the American worship of action heroes. What matters in the Bible is not whether a man is “virile”, but whether he follows God with all his heart. A true man submits first to God and then to anyone else, name your favorite politician. A true man’s behavior is measured by the fruit of the Holy Spirit in his life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. Gal 5:22 A real man’s relationship to his wife is defined by the Apostle Paul’s admonition: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”. Eph. 5:24 Don’t confuse this with Bruno Mars singing “I’d fall on a grenade for ya.” A woman doesn’t need a man to promise stupid things that he’d never need to do. A woman needs and wants a man who honors her and puts her above himself, just as Christ put the church above himself when he died for her.  Doing chores to help your wife would be more useful than these “masculine” rituals (unless you still heat your house with a wood burning fire).  A real man is not worried about being seen as “submissive” to his wife.  Before the specific verses  of instructions to individuals Paul says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Eph. 5:20 Those who are quick to assert “male headship” are slow to see how these verses, which follow, define such “headship”. A real man, a true man’s man, should love his wife, be faithful to her and kind to her. He should seek her good above his own.  

If one’s testosterone level and sex is all marriage is about, it has no point past the prime of youth and the propagating of the race. Just as we are humans not merely because we have two eyes, two ears, a nose and mouth, so we are not men merely because our testosterone level is high.  Perhaps the fire has to burn lower for reason to win the battle between stupidity and wisdom.

A man’s true masculinity can be seen also in his relationship to his children. “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4 Fathers who are real men do not choose career over their children.  They do not exasperate their children by putting them last of all their priorities.  I truly believe that the reason many people do not accept Christ or that they leave the church is because of the poor example set by their fathers, whether absence in attending church or in abandoning their families/getting divorced and giving in to their desires. A true man’s “virility” is not seen in his conquests, but in his devotion to his family.

So now, besides taking Viagra, we are encouraged to tan our testicles.  What a ridiculous idea! Why not take hormone supplements? Probably because this device to tan the testicles costs $1,649.00.  How much did the host get for his percentage?  The article we began with also said that the video promoting testicular tanning has “a scene of a naked man tanning his groin in front of an infrared panel of lights as a soaring orchestral rendition of ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ plays in the background.” Ah ha, the Blond Beast! I knew Nietzsche was in there somewhere. The Superman! The man who makes the law and doesn’t submit to anyone else’s law. I wonder if Nietzsche tanned his testicles?

On screeds

 Once again I write to my Evangelical brothers and sisters. I am provoked by our nastiness when we engage with those with whom we disagree.  I am not opposed to the positions being taken. I am pro-life and pro-family.  I am a straight man who has been monogamously, faithfully married for nearly forty years.  I have three children and two grandchildren.  I have “skin in the game.”

While I am upset, even deeply troubled, by things that are happening, I am nauseated by how some Evangelical Christians attack those with whom they disagree.  You may disagree, but having lived through one country I was in going to war and seeing another country I loved attacked, I must ask what is the price we will pay for demonizing others?  People may be egregiously wrong.  Their opinions may nauseate us. We certainly have the freedom to work against decisions or legislation we disagree with.  What troubles me is the extremity of the language being used.

Once we have demonized someone we feel less reason to be civil to them.  Civility is not merely a political convention.  For a Christian how we talk to others, the names we call them, the invective we use shows whether we are following Christ or not. Paul says that our speech is to be seasoned as with salt. In other words we are not to use harsh language and attack people.  We are to stand for the truth, but part of our truth is that we care for people. We are to love people as Christ loved them, which means we are to love the most unlovely and the most disgusting. Before we received grace we were the same.  Paul says, “And such were some of you…” This phrase follows a list of disgusting sins.  As Christ has forgiven us, so we are to forgive others.  As Jesus was dying on the cross, he said, “Forgive them for they do not know what they doing.”

The attitudes I read in the various tirades I read here are not Christlike.  We are to emulate him and that is harder when we disagree with someone, but neither he nor we should demonize people.  We probably cannot look into the eyes of people we are disagreeing wiith.  When we read articles in our favorite news source and then excoriate someone we have never met, we hide behind our fortress and do not engage with that person. 

The well known theologian Miroslav Volf wrote a book called Exclusion & Embrace. I particularly liked the first half.  Volf engages in a long reflection on the parable of the prodigal son.  He wrote parts of this book during the Bosnian War.  Volf is from Croatia.  He noted that you cannot embrace if you’re holding a gun.  To put down your gun is risky. You might be shot.  However, you can’t hug someone if you hide behind your gun and the safety you feel from it.  Volf spent a lot of time talking about the older brother.  In this parable we Evangelical Christians are the older brothers. We are angry and self-righteous.  We may be right, but there is no forgiveness and no redemptive attitude. We don’t seek the salvation of our opponents, just their “destruction”, whether metaphorical or real. (I think, for instance, of the men who are being tried for planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan.) We use violent language and then we wonder why some of us become literally violent.

As Evangelical Christians we use the argument from the image of God to defend cherished views.  We do so rightly.  Because a fetus in in the image of God, it deserves the right to live.  Because an elderly person suffering from Alzheimer’s without any memory even of their family members is still created in the image of God, he or she deserves to live and not be euthanized.  We are so valiant for this truth that all are created in the image of God, we use it all the time, and rightly.  However, we don’t see the image of God in our opponents whether theological liberals or political liberals whom we suppose to be anti-Christians.  We don’t see them as human.  They become demons in human form.

This sort of demonization led to the Srebrnica massacre.  This sort of demonization led to the current atrocities in Ukraine.  Though not a Christian version of demonization, this sort of demonization led to Syria’s brutal repression of a different sort of Muslim.  Hindu nationalists persecute Christians and burn churches. But how are we different.  Serbs are Orthodox Christians.  They believed that they were fighting for their homeland when they fought for Kosovo.  Many Russians believe that they are freeing Ukraine of “Nazis”. They are also fighting for their homeland (Kievan Rus).  We all have good reasons for our hate. But Jesus says, “Love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you! Pray for those who spitefully use you.” As Christians we do not have the luxury of hating their enemies.

What are we doing to be winsome towards those we disagree with? I’m not saying take your children to movies you object to. (Some of our Mennonite friends don’t believe in movies at all.) Don’t patronize Disney. Fine! But what are you doing to reach these people for Christ?  Is your behavior winsome?  Paul says that we are an aroma of death to life for those who are perishing (dying without knowing Christ) and an aroma of life to life for those who are being saved. Are we a stench or a pleasant odor?  When people meet us and leave us, do they say, “What a kind person! That person is so different than I expected them to be!” Or do they say, “What a creep! Such self-righteousness! Such a blow hard!”

Democracy means the majority determines the law.  I am all for democracy, but if we Evangelical Christians fall into the minority, what is our stance: demonizing and being nasty or reaching out and being loving.  You will say that I don’t know the enemy.  I do.  We are our own worst enemies.  Our vitriolic, our meanness, our lack of love for our opponents mark us as mean spirited and unkind.  We must be kind and loving, even to and especially to our opponents. Are we “e pluribus unum” or not”? Are we working for change or just trying to stymy the other side and wait but our time as a minority?

I don’t engage in eschatological proclamations. However, of one thing I am sure: Christians will eventually be in the minority before Christ returns.  When Christianity began Christians were an illegal sect.  They were persecuted and killed for being atheists, for rejecting the Roman gods. They showed their superior moral quality not by haranguing and being nasty, but by showing love towards their enemies.  Peter says, 

14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 1 Peter 3:14-18

Peter is speaking here to people who are in danger of losing their lives!  Yet he cites the example of Jesus, who loved his enemies so much that he was willing to die for them.  Though they hated him, beat him and put him to death, he loved them even through his death. He died to save them.  Who were we before Christ died to save us?

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 6

CS Lewis on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

      In this article “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” as found in God in the dock, chapter 4, Lewis is not directly taking aim at capital punishment.  Rather he is taking aim at the idea of punishment, and specifically how we can know whether the punishment fits the crime.  In fact he says that the “Humanitarian” [atheist?] view, as he labels it, says that punishment should be either a cure or a deterrent.  Lewis believes that jurisprudence should be committed to a justice view of crime and punishment.  The punishment should fit the crime, but we cannot know whether punishment fits the crime, if we do not have an absolute, moral standard of justice.  We do not merely want anyone or someone punished.  We want the person who committed the crime to be punished.  We can’t even begin to know what punishment (or as he puts it the “dessert”, what you earned) fits the crime, if we do not know what is wrong and what is right.  Scripture or moral code can tell us what is wrong and what is right, but if the wrong and right are not part of the penal code, punishment becomes either a cure or a deterrent.

     Some “Humanitarians” see crime as illness or sickness, which must be cured. If the person committing the crime is considered “sick”, punishment is a “cure”. The difficulty with punishment as a cure is that only specialists can know whether and how a person is sick, and the “punishment” is a cure, which again only a specialist can affirm has occurred. Some people don’t consider a crime something wrong in a moral sense, but something aberrant or defective.  A criminal must be cured of this defect or disease.  There is no way for anyone other than a specialist to know when and if a cure has occurred.

     The second way some “Humanitarians” see crime is as something to be deterred.  Many concepts like capital punishment are seen not only as a just dessert for murder, but as a warning, a deterrent to others not to murder anyone.  The difficulty is that anyone can be hung for any murder as long as the “court” assures the person is guilty.  In the worst case scenario a stacked jury would convict someone, and that person would be executed.  It wouldn’t matter who was executed, as long as the execution deterred other crimes.  When the Nazis controlled various areas, they would regularly round up ten people, it didn’t matter if any of them was guilty of the offense the Nazis wanted to stop, and they would execute these ten.  This was precisely using execution as a deterrent where those executed were not guilty.  It didn’t matter who they executed, as long as the execution stopped the actions the Nazis wanted to stop.

     The problem with the “Humanitarian” view is not just that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, but there is no way to know what behavior is a crime or not.  Instead of Scripture or moral code determining what is a crime, specialists determine who is ill or judges declare someone guilty for the purpose of scaring others.

     Lewis’ point about tyranny and robber barons is meant to say that self-appointed “Humanitarians” develop legal concepts without a moral basis.  The cures and punishments could go on forever as long as long as the “Humanitarians” choose or think there is a need to continue treatment or punishment.  The robber barons in his scenario could be compared to the Turkish empire, which was known as “cruelty tempered by incompetence”.  The point is that a group of oligarchs could just grow tired of punishing people or “keeping the law” and allow people respite from their “tyranny”, i.e. deciding whether they were guilty and of what.

     Lewis’ comment is meant to say that he wants neither tyranny nor robber barons.  He wants to make a case for crime and punishment to be grounded in a permanent, moral code or law.  He believes anything else is incoherent and subject to abuse by specialists.

In his response to criticism of the article he mentions JJC Smart, brother of Ninian Smart.  JJC Smart was a proponent of act utilitariaism “because there is no adequate criterion on what can count as a ‘rule’“. Wikipedia JJC Smart - Focus on rules leads to "superstitious rule worship". Again Wikipedia. Smart inspired such thinkers as Peter Singer.  JJC Smart was an atheist.  See the book Atheism and Theism, Blackwell, 1996 (2003) https://books.google.com/books?id=8F7jD-x07LYC&pg=PR3&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1 

Inside The Mind That Created Narnia | The Real Life Of C.S. Lewis | Absolute History

                                               

  

                                         GOTTSCHALK GAZETTE

JUNE 2021

 

Equipping leaders to reach Europe and the world with the Gospel

 

At Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam, NL

and Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary in Ukraine

 

Serving under Eastern Mennonite Missions

 

Last semester at Tyndale Theological Seminary

Linda and Phil were honored at a chapel service at Tyndale for her ten years on the staff and five years on the faculty and Phil’s twenty years on the faculty. 

We finished our courses: Linda – Modern Church History and Thesis Prospectus, Phil – Foundations for theology, History of Philosophy of Religion I (Pre-Socratic philosophers to Kant) l and Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Angels.

Linda served one last time as Thesis Supervisor guiding four thesis defenses.  She is still finishing some of her duties as Librarian, one of which has been to train her replacement who arrived in early June.

The last week of May we finished our last semester of teaching and working at Tyndale Theological Seminary. Tyndale Graduation on May 29^th was in many ways bittersweet. We were touched to be asked to share the Student Charge, the message to the graduates.

 

Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary, Ukraine

Phil has continued to recruit teachers and to teach at Zaporizhzhya (Ukrainian name of the town; I used to use the Russian name) Bible Seminary.  He taught the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in May via Zoom.  He continues to recruit teachers for the MTh program there and to coordinate when courses are taught. We are looking forward to moving there in June 2022 for a two to four year term.

 

Summer in … the Netherlands & the US

We are very pleased that our house here in the Netherlands sold for what for us is an incredible sum of money. The process of the “sale” is still in process.  The buyers have signed off that they will buy or face a stiff penalty.  On the other hand, the closing is July 14, 2021.  We were advised that we ought to remain in NL until the final sale due to tax reasons.

This has changed our summer plans.  We had expected to be at EMM’s Oasis retreat and be involved in a family vacation.  Fortunately, we have been able to change our airline tickets and other arrangements.

We are expecting to return to Pennsylvania to Lancaster, near our mission’s headquarters and our daughter, Beth, and her family.  We are looking forward to seeing our children, grandchildren, Phil’s siblings and Phil’s.

 

A year in the US

            We haven’t spent a full year Home Ministry Assignment in the US since 2005-06.  I, Phil, frankly feel much older and tired!  I am “owed” some sabbatical time (real rest, not academic sabbatical, which means writing, etc.). We will also spend a good amount of time traveling around to see our supporters.

            We hope to buy a house in Lancaster, PA which we will live in for the year in the US and then rent out during our time in Ukraine.  While in Ukraine we expect to rent a small apartment.

 

Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary Graduation

Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary in Ukraine also had their graduation on May 29^th. 

Please pray for several issues in the seminary and in the region.  First, Seminary President Vladimir Degtyaryov has announced that he will retire. Vladimir’s wife was diagnosed with cancer last fall and died one month after the diagnosis.  Vladimir has a son, daughter-in-law, grandson, and daughter in Zaporizhzhya, but it is still a great adjustment for him.

Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary Chairman of the Board, Mark Mackey, fell and had a serious brain trauma.  Once his condition was stabilized, he flew to Seattle, Washington for evaluation and treatment.  The doctors found that he needed a pace maker and had very low blood pressure, which had resulted in the fall.  Mark is doing well, but needs prayer for recovery of his health.  Mark and his wife, Joanne, live in the Seminary building in the “penthouse” apartment.  Mark has been the main fundraiser and guiding force in the school for many years.

Pray also for the Union of Christians Evangelicals Baptists in the Zaporizhzhya region.  There was a long discernment process to find a new bishop for the Union.  This past spring a replacement, Rev. Dr. Aleksei Ivanov, was chosen.  Pray for his assuming of these duties and for the Union as adjustments are made.  

 

Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary site

You can find English, Russian and Ukrainian pages of the ZBS site at this address: https://zbs.com.ua/en/  or on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/zbseminary

 

Entertaining Angels Unaware: Welcoming the Immigrant Other

Phil’s book about immigration was published in late January by Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf & Stock publishers.  In the book Phil tries to ease people’s fears of immigrants, address their false conceptions of immigrants, direct them to a biblical view of immigrants and our role in helping them.  

The book is in three parts. The first part addresses our fears and misconceptions. The second part discusses various countries and their attempts to integrate immigrants.  The third part contains stories of our own experiences with immigrants: as teenagers in church, as a seminary student in Chicago, as missionaries in Yugoslavia during the war, as seminary professors in Leiden and finally as teachers in Ukraine during the great displacement of people from East Ukraine when the Russians took the cities of Luhansk, Donetsk and surrounding regions.

 

A review of the book can be found at Entertaining Angels Unawares EMM review

 

You can buy the book at Entertaining Angels Unaware Amazon

 

            You can also find postings about the book at Entertaining Angels Unaware Blog and Entertaining Angels Unaware FB page

 

Thanks for your prayers, support and gifts!  

We would not be here without you!

 

Phil & Linda Gottschalk 

 

Serving with Zaporizhzhya Bible Seminary, Ukraine 

under Eastern Mennonite Missions

 

Contact information

pagottschalk@gmail.com

 

gottschalkstuckrath@gmail.com

 

Three types of thinking

As we, professors at Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam, the Netherlands, were discussing problems about how to help our students understand our subjects, I thought of David Hesselgrave's teaching about these two forms of thinking, abstract – logical and concrete - relational.

 

Actually he advocates three forms. (My memory of 40 years ago is probably failing.)

1) The "conceptual postulational thinking" of the Western world.

2) The "concrete-relational/pictorial thinking" of China.

3) The ''psychical/intuitional thinking" of India.

 

I have attached an article he wrote which explains these ideas and how they can be used in missiology (and teaching).

 

It was interesting for me after forty years to think back on this material.  We used Hesselgrave's first edition of his Communicating Christ Cross-culturally and his book on Dynamic Religious Movements which came out at the time.

 

I was struck that Russian thinkers are somewhat similar in their mindset to Hindus.

 

Nicholas O. Lossky, on whom I wrote my dissertation, had a three tiered approach to knowledge:

 

1. Sensual intuition - ("concrete-relational/pictorial thinking") which meant what Kant meant by our faculties, which process sense data and construct a "phenomenal" world.  Everyone is engaged in this type of knowledge production. It takes no special training or giftedness.  It is something everyone does "intuitively" without any thought.

 

2. Intellectual intuition - ("conceptual postulational thinking") Some, who are trained, can become logicians and mathematicians.  These people must also have a native ability for this type of thought, but anyone can also improve their grasp and use of this sort of knowledge with training. (He does not mean what Kant means by intellectual intuition, which only God would have: thinkings something creates it.)

 

3. Mystical intuition- (''psychical/intuitional thinking") Only a few adepts can reach this type of knowledge which we might call intuitionism.  Through spiritual exercises and asceticism, they reach a non discursive knowledge of God and spiritual things.

 

I think we as Western Evangelicals have traditionally focused on the 2nd tier.  We (like Norman Geisler, for instance) give arguments and expect people to learn to think this way.  (Geisler is actually using Thomas Aquinas' method.) Often average believers cannot follow such arguments. Fundamentalists eschew these arguments for a "simple preaching of the Gospel" or other theologians prefer some sort of fideism.

 

These days more Western Christians are enamoured of Eastern Orthodoxy and just these sorts of mystic experiences and exercises.  Many feel that there is much more than simple rationalistic arguments.  They hate apologetics.  Many are reading the works of mystic saints, e.g., Theresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, et alia.  Ignatian spirituality is gaining a lot of ground.

 

If Hesselgrave is right, we use all three types of thinking.  Our students from Africa and some parts of Asia are using Concrete relational thinking.  They tell stories and use discrete examples, simple examples.  They often do not understand making an argument and simply continue "circling" around an idea without drawing conclusions and don't see the need for an explanation or a structure.

 

Our attempts to give rational explanations or logical structures (XYZ statements a la Turabian) seem unclear to them, if not pointless.  We need to try harder to use concrete examples, but continue to teach logical argumentation and its importance.

 

Gary Habermas gave me a simple illustration to help people understand the cosmological argument. He would draw a caboose and a train car and ask, "What pulls the caboose?"  He would continue on with car after car and then ask, "But what pulls the whole train?" “The locomotive... This is God. He draws all things towards himself.”  (This is pure Aquinas, his First Way (proof) of his Five Ways; which is also Aristotle's Prime Mover argument.)

 

In Apologetics I would ask students to memorize the ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral or deontological and Francis Schaeffer's argument from the Trinity.  They would memorize like anything. However, they often couldn't explain them at all.

 

The idea of the teleological argument and the moral argument are clear enough and easily demonstrated. Who created the eye? Who is the judge of the moral law within? But still I couldn't get them past raw memorization.

 

North American students and European students (even those without a BA) had no problem with logical arguments or understanding these arguments (even if they thought that they were dull).  My children when they were in high school had a course called "Theory of Knowledge" at the Rijnlands Lyceum in Oegstgeest, the Netherlands.  It was, in fact, a course in argumentation.  They excelled in the class.  When asked how they knew how to argue so well, they said, "Our dad is a philosopher.  We argue this way every night at dinner." ;-)

 

Some professors give some assignments using mystic literature. But in general we as Evangelical eschew the "subjective."  If the subjective is rooted in the scripture, it is not a problem, but as evangelicals we have no authorities, no way to limit such experiences to say which are legitimate.

 

In the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church each monk or nun has a father confessor (a priest), a spiritual director (abbot/ abbess) and must submit to the rites of the church.  They must confess the creeds or symbols of faith.  They must make confession on a regular basis and do penance.  There is a "rule" or “anchor” which directs their days: 

• Matins (during the night, at about 2 a.m.); also called Vigil and perhaps composed of two or three Nocturns
• Lauds or Dawn Prayer (at dawn, about 5 a.m., but earlier in summer, later in winter)
• Prime or Early Morning Prayer (First Hour = approximately 6 a.m.)
• Terce or Mid-Morning Prayer (Third Hour = approximately 9 a.m.)
• Sext or Midday Prayer (Sixth Hour = approximately 12 noon)
• None or Mid-Afternoon Prayer (Ninth Hour = approximately 3 p.m.)
• Vespers or Evening Prayer ("at the lighting of the lamps", about 6 p.m.)
• Compline or Night Prayer (before retiring, about 7 p.m.)

This arrangement of the Liturgy of the Hours is described by Saint Benedict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours#Major_hours

 

There are also rules about working a physical job, a regular routine of the hours and taking the sacrament (Eucharist).

 

There are also the Pope and Magisterium which determine orthodoxy.  A mystic can be disciplined, if they do not follow their Rule or do not take the sacraments or refuse to say the creeds.  

 

In the end only the "profession of the lips" can be known objectively.  If they refuse to say the creeds or promulgate known heresy, they are disciplined.

 

Having a Pope and a Magisterium has been appealing to some who left Evangelicalism (e.g., Thomas Howard, Elizabeth Elliot's brother).  Others want an "Apostolic succession" and a bulwark against modernism (e.g., those who have become RC or EOC to protest ordination of women).

 

Since Protestant churches lack this sort of structure, mysticism is more dangerous and cannot be challenged except by appeal to scripture, though the interpreter can always be rejected (just start another church).

 

Some Reformed communities focus on creeds (and synodal decisions). James KA Smith is a member of a Christian Reformed Church NA congregation.  He manages to stay "orthodox" by submitting to the creeds (I guess), though he attacks logic and "Enlightenment Reason."

 

I think we can learn from Hesselgrave and Lossky.  Most people are on the Concrete - relational level.  They need examples, pictures and stories.  Some are Conceptual - postulational thinkers.  We must teach logic and argumentation, rational belief. We dare not become fideists, which will lead as Hesselgrave says to liberalism and universalism.  We can use psychical - intuitional thinking, but we must be sure to (as we do) ground students in the concrete - relational (OT stories, Gospels), but also insist on learning logical arguments and reasoning (Pauline epistles and apologetics / systematic theology).

 

We who call ourselves Evangelical apologists fall into two camps: Evidentialists and Presuppositionalists.  I am an Evidentialist (like Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, et alia (those who Smith calls the "California school" (Talbot))). We must be very careful to avoid giving the impression that anyone can interpret the Bible without a worldview (theism and a commitment to rationality, the laws of logic).  We must avoid in my opinion falling into the sort of fideism which Hesselgrave speaks of which lead to the demise of the Japanese Evangelical Church.