[BBC List] wrath

[Mike Abendroth]

Do Modern People Have Room for the Wrath of God? 


by Vern Sheridan Poythress 

Jan. 17, 2007 

How do we think about disasters? On 9/11, disaster struck in the form of
plane hijackings, loss of lives, the collapse of the World Trade Center
Towers, and the damage to the Pentagon. A few years later, a tsunami struck
in southern Asia. Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. Some Christians
thought that one or more of these disasters were judgments from God. Let me
call them the doom-sayers. Other Christians quickly rose and criticized the
thought. Let me call them the comforters. This disagreement among Christians
raises the question as to how we will interpret the next disaster that
strikes.

I am writing as one who believes the Bible. The Bible does indicate that God
comprehensively controls the events in the world, including disasters (Lam.
3:37-38; Eph. 1:11; Amos 3:6; Isa. 45:7). That is not the question I wish to
discuss. Rather, I want to ask how we are supposed to interpret these
disasters. 

The comforters, that is the Christians who criticize the idea of judgment,
have pointed to several passages. They have pointed out that in Job, Job's
friends thought that the disasters that fell on Job must have come on
account of his sins. Yet the ending of the Book of Job indicates that the
friends were wrong (Job 42:7-9). Jesus' disciples wanted to know whether the
man blind from birth had committed some sin that led to his being born
blind. Or was it the sin of his parents? Jesus denied both suppositions
(John 9:1-3). Some people told Jesus "about the Galileans whose blood Pilate
had mingled with their sacrifices." Jesus' answer is recorded in Luke
13:1-5: 

Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other
Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you
repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in
Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders
than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you
repent, you will all likewise perish. 

In the context of modern disasters, the comforters have appealed to these
passages in order to make the point that God's ways are inscrutible. In the
Bible God provides certain cases where he directly tells us what his
purposes were. For instance, 2 Chronicles 36:15-17 and 2 Kings 23:26-27 make
it clear that the exile of Judah to Babylon took place because of the
people's sins. But unless we have such a statement from God, we cannot see
his purposes infallibly. We must not pretend that we can. If we presume to
draw quick conclusions, we may find ourselves doing the same thing that
Job's friends did. 

I agree completely with the main theological point here, namely that God is
God and that we are not. His actions in his providential rule are
mysterious, and we need to realize that he may have many purposes of which
we are unaware. 

But there is something peculiar about the way in which the comforters have
appealed to Luke 13:1-5. They have appealed to it in order to turn aside the
idea that God's judgment was being manifested in the particular disaster at
hand. Whether they intended it or not, the practical effect of their
argument was largely to assure their audience that the disaster was not
after all a judgment, and that we can all be comforted and spiritually put
ourselves to rest, knowing that the whole thing is just unaccountable, but
in any case has nothing to do with fears concerning God and his judgments
and his wrath. 

The peculiarity here is that Jesus' words in Luke 13:1-5 actually point in
the diametrically opposite direction. Jesus unsettles rather than comforts
his audience. According to customary thinking of the time, the Galileans
must have been terrible offenders to experience the judgment that fell on
them. So the audience think that they can comfort themselves that at least
they are not going to experience such a disaster. Jesus overthrows customary
thinking by saying that the Galileans were not worse. That is already
unsettling. But then he adds an ominous warning, "Unless you repent, you
will all likewise perish." And, to underline the point, he repeats it with a
second illustration concerning the eighteen people killed by the tower of
Siloam. Jesus uses both instances to heighten the threat of judgment for his
hearers. He accuses them of being guilty and needing repentance, and
counsels them that unless they turn to God they will perish. 

By contrast, in our modern situation the comforters appeal to Luke 13:1-5 to
dismiss judgment. Such use of Luke 13:1-5 is completely one-sided. If
someone were to emphasize only the mystery of God's providence, to the point
where nothing could be said about the present, then truly nothing could be
said. But in fact these comforters are not silent. They are loquacious
enough in quoting Job and John 9 and Luke 13:1-5, and they are confident
enough that these passages do have a lesson for the present. What lesson? A
lesson only of comfort, and never of judgment. But there is plenty of
evidence in Scripture that, if we are going to speak to the present at
all-which we must do in order to spread the gospel-we need to be ready to
speak of judgment and wrath as well as mercy and comfort. We are to do both
types of speaking in a biblically-grounded manner. In particular, every
disaster is a forerunner of the Last Judgment. It should be used as an
occasion to reflect on the transitory character of this life (1 Cor. 7:31),
on the fact that God gives us blessings that we do not deserve (Matt. 5:45),
and that if we are rebels against him we ourselves deserve the worst of what
the victims experienced. 

So to speak only a message of comfort and to avoid thoughts of judgment is
not only one-sided, but hypocritical. It commits the same error that it
imputes to its opponents, namely that it presents an over-simple and
unbalanced view of how the Bible's principles apply to the present. 

Why then do the comforters use Luke 13:1-5 only for comfort? If we reflect
with honesty, some of the reasons are clear enough, but they are not
comforting. Christians speak as they do partly to counteract the effects of
the doom-sayers whom they criticize. In the context of modern American
culture, the dooming-saying brothers give Christianity a bad name.
Non-Christians and potential Christians can see their bad motives. They
think they can see that the doom-sayers are angry and impatient at the
people who do not agree with them, and so in their bitterness the
doom-sayers claim that God is on their side. They want God to condemn their
opponents or at least teach the opponents a lesson. Or the doom-sayers are
trying to scare people with talk of judgment, wrath, and hell-fire, in the
Elmer Gantry tradition, in order to manipulate them, get them under their
control, and get their money. 

Yes, such bad motives do occur, but they are not always there among those
who speak about judgment. And God's wrath does not become unreal merely
because some people's motives are bad (Rom. 1:18-32). 

We must also turn our eyes critically on the broader American culture. The
general culture has developed a strong tradition of dismissing all language
of judgment, and imputing bad motives to anyone who dares to use such
language. In other words, it has developed excuses and spiritual barriers to
avoid thinking about the wrath of God. One of the primary barriers is in pop
psychology, which says that everyone needs to have high self esteem, and
that guilt feelings are to be avoided in order to increase self esteem.
People want to avoid thinking about the wrath of God, because if they do
they will feel guilty, and that is not only unpleasant in itself, but bad
for self esteem and mental health. Accordingly, Christians are seen as a
plague on society because they keep bringing up guilt and making people feel
bad. 

In addition, the politics of tolerance condemns as uncivil anyone who
proclaims a message of guilt (because it depreciates the guilty), and who
proclaims an absolutist message, such as the message of coming judgment must
be (Acts 17:31). 

So the comforters who use Luke 13:1-5 to dismiss thoughts of judgment are
doing a service to mainstream culture. They are helping the mainstream avoid
thoughts of judgment and wrath. And they are also doing a service to
themselves, by assuring mainstream culture that they, the thoughtful and
sensitive Christians, are tolerant and civil, not like those other
mean-spirited Christians. Only by befriending the mainstream will they be
able to make positive relationships grow, and at the far end of those
relationships they hope to witness to their non-Christian friends concerning
the attractiveness of Christ and of the Christian faith. Attractive, yes.
But it will be attractive because it has conveniently dispensed with all
that is offensive. The real Jesus, by contrast, would be a total "turn-off"
to mainstream culture, not only because he speaks of hell-fire, but because
he makes hard demands: 

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, "If anyone
comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and
children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be
my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be
my disciple." (Luke 14:25-27) 

In fact the gospel is two-sided, containing attractions, promises, and
benefits on the one hand and offenses, warnings, and serious obligations on
the other. We cannot choose just the part that we like. 

I think we can draw several lessons from these reflections. First, we
repeatedly confront the danger of compromising the Christian faith in an
effort to match the cultural norms of tolerance and civility. Second, we are
in danger of muting the note of judgment and wrath in the Christian message,
because that note is not only unpopular but not tolerated. Third, biblical
Christianity is deeply offensive to mainstream modern culture, and we might
as well get over as quickly as possible the idea that we can make it
palatable. "You will be hated by all for my name's sake" (Luke 21:17). 

  _____  

Copyright (c) 2007 by Vern Sheridan Poythress.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the
license can be found at the Free Software
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html>  Foundation website. 

 

 

Thanks.

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

 

"The typical modern Christian breastplate is a little paper bib.  Absolutely
useless!  It's made up of a system, or a method, or a program... 10 to 12
sessions with a counselor.  That's not what you need.  What you need is
about 10 or 12 hours in the presence of God until you sort out the unholy
characteristics in your life and get right with Him." John MacArthur, The
Believer's Armor, Study Notes. Eph. 6:10-24, pg. 33.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20070207/64665f24/attachment.htm