Evil/Suffering

“bright as yellow” by David Schrott | Reform & Revive

/ napoleonsays / Leave a comment

One of my best friends and favorite writers (and photographers), David Schrott has finally broken his writer’s block to write another gem for the magazine.  So head on over to Reform & Revive and enjoy his prose and honesty.
Here’s the link to the article:

http://reformandrevive.com/2009/08/04/bright-as-yellow/

Remember to leave comments and send this link along to others!  Also remember that we’re always looking for submissions to the site so feel free to get in touch with me if you have any ideas.

For those wondering how my job is going . . .

/ Paul Burkhart / 3 Comments

unemployment. . . well, it’s not.

In May, I wrote about my journey in looking for a job.A month and half later(ish) I wrote of having found a job.My start date was July 1st.

But July 1st was the appointed day for another reason: it was the official first day of a new fiscal year for many companies, churches, and governments (federal, state, and local), therefore, of course, it was the day that new 2009 budgets went into effect all across the country.

Well, at least, when those budgets were supposed to go into effect.

The State of Pennsylvania is embroiled in an ever-increasingly heated battle over its State Budget that was supposed to be done and go in effect July 1st.The company I got my job with gets most of its money from the State Health Department, so this poses a problem for them, seeing as the State Health Department has no 2009 money allocated to them by an effective budget to give to my company any money to hire me – so they’re under a hiring freeze.Did that all make sense?

So, in short, I’ve been waiting for over a month for Pennsylvania to pass its own budget, after which I can start my job.Assuming of course that my usual luck doesn’t come into play and my job decides to drop me for some reason.I don’t know.Pray this doesn’t happen.It seems the budget problem is this: there’s a huge gap in the budget between income and expenses.So they either need to get more money or make more cuts.The Governor has suggested a very small increase to the income tax to cover this, but Republicans have cried foul.Democrats have said they’re not “wedded” to the idea of a tax increase and are open to any ideas, but Republicans have been both unable to suggest any new ideas and unwilling to make any cuts in their various localities, insisting further cuts happen at the State level.So, tax increases are being forbidden, no new ideas being brought forth, no new cuts being suggested, and no one willing to budge.Therefore, I have a job, but don’t – all at the same time.

It’s an excellent object lesson in the angst and tension in the Biblical idea of things “already being accomplished, but not yet fully realized”. By the way, last Friday was the last day State employees were actually getting paid.now they’re getting I.O.U.’s. Ugh.

I am trying to find odd jobs to hold me over, but may be looking for a more stable job here shortly, and eventually if I need to, I may look somewhere else entirely for a “real” job (any ideas or possible work is more than appreciated).I hope I don’t have to move on, for as I have said, this job is my dream position, but if I need to, I need to.

God certainly deals with us strangely, confusingly, and mercifully. So much opportunity in this time of “unemployment” to draw near to my God and serve are currently being wasted day to day due to my inherent lack of discipline. He really desires more of me in this time, and I fear I haven’t taken advantage of these moments to learn my neediness and His presence.Pray I learn these lessons well in the “already but not yet”.

And pray that Pennsylvania passes a flippin’ budget already (and that I still have a job waiting for me when they do)!

From the iMonk: Mary Consoles Eve

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

I found this at the site of Michael Spencer (a.k.a. The Internet Monk).  This guy is having an increasing amount of influence and inspiration on my thinking as a Christian in this world.  You find him at The Internet Monk. Anyway, I love this piece of art and the poem.

Crayon & pencil drawing by Sr. Grace Remington, OCSO. Copyright 2005, Sisters of the Mississippi Abbey

_______________

O Eve!

My mother, my daughter, life-giving Eve,

Do not be ashamed, do not grieve.

The former things have passed away,

Our God has brought us to a New Day.

See, I am with Child,

Through whom all will be reconciled.

O Eve! My sister, my friend,

We will rejoice together

Forever

Life without end.

— Sr. Columba Guare copyright© 2005 Sisters of the Mississippi Abbey

_______________

This was found by Michael Spencer at Inside Catholic.

Philosophy & Theology {II} | “Christian” Existentialism [2]

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

A couple of days ago, I laid out some reasons why “Christian” Existentialism was not the end-all-be-all philosophical orientation for the Christian. But, as I explained in my first post in this series, Philosophy is not the enemy of theology. Rather, it can help us understand other finer points of theology by giving us new categories to think in. So, I proceeded to give three ways that Existentialism can inform our theology. The first way was that it helps us see sin in regard to our personal orientation to God. This post continues with two more ways:

Secondly, a big discussion in Existentialism the relationship between our “existence” and our “essence”.  I pointed out in the previous post that when god was asked by Moses “what’s your essence?” God answered “I exist”. This is the way it is with God. His nature and being are equated with His existence. He simply “is”. The big question concerning these two things in Existentialism is “which comes first?”. Classic Existentialism holds that our existence comes first and our essence is formed and shaped by our existence. This brings up some problems for the Christian. The Bible talks about our essences being known by God before we ever existed, but it also says that there’s something of our essence that is corrupt at its core. When God “knows” us before we exist, does he know our corrupted selves? Does God create us depraved? The Bible seems fairly clear in its representation of the nature of God that He doesn’t create and form our essences as corrupt, so it look likes the question is a bit more complicated than just “which comes first”.

Best I can figure, it looks like both essence and existence have narrative frameworks and are seen as whole things that are shaped through eternity past and future. In short, the story goes like this: God knows and forms our essence-1 (S1), which is pure and good in his sight. He then creates the world of existence-1 (X1) which is made good but then falls and gives way to a different realm of existence, existence-2 (X2).  At the moment this essence-1 enters into existence-1 (X1), it comes into the fallen world and becomes essence-2 (S2) which is corrupt. Christians, then, at conversion are changed at the very level of their essence such that they then become pure in essence (essence-3) living in a corrupt existence (existence-1 still). The rest of the life of the Christian is a slow work by God and others to bring more and more of this Christian’s life and existence in line with their now pure essence-3 (s3), to prepare them for existence-3 (X3). Existence-3 is when this created world/realm within which we exist is restored and glorified and finally our pure essences-3 are able to live in freedom and peace in pure existence-2 in glorified eternity.  Here’s what it looks like graphically:

__________

screen-capture

__________

Lastly, there is a very important service that Existentialism lends to the spirituality of the Christian life. In Existentialism, there is a loss of the objectivity of knowledge. All we know is our existence, and that is a very small sphere of knowledge indeed. What this tenet of the philosophy does is create a very strong sense of angst. Existentialists carry the reputation for being very depressed people, seeing as they can know nothing more than (1) they exist, and (2) they can’t know more than that. We can be sure of no other knowledge. This makes you feel very small in a world of chaos that you can do nothing to change. This sort of worldview should make people very despairing, and it has for people such as Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus. But for others, like Jean-Paul Sarte and Soren Kierkegaard, Existentialism seemed to create a humble sobriety that actually allowed these men to enjoy life in a way many Christians could learn to do.

The Christian life is angst. It’s messy. It’s sloppy. That’s why it’s lived by faith – i.e. “trust”. Reality is such that we will be forced to have to trust our Creator to save us, because there really are no objective grounds (that we can know) upon which His salvation is based. This is because God knows He is the greatest of all things and our tendency is to drift from Him. It’s His love that makes us need to draw near. But, when we do, it shows us even more where we fall short and we cry out to God more. He draws even nearer and we are able to experience that One for whom our soul was made. Faith is not neat. Faith is not tidy. Faith is not naive. Faith is not imbecilic. Faith is having the courage to admit your finitude and inadequacy in order to be joined to and in communion with the Joy of joys, Peace of peaces, King of kings, and Lord of lords.

As one friend put it: “I will not resolve to embody that kind of [naive] faith ever again. So, I will read Scripture, asking God to communicate to me what in me is broken, what is unreconciled, what needs restoration, liberation, salvation. And I will sit at the foot of the cross, in the pain of who I am. And I will ask God for reconciliation, restoration, liberation, salvation. On the other side of it all, I will trust Christ more deeply. This is sanctification. This is working out my salvation in fear and trembling. And then, hopefully I will have caught my breath, and it will all begin again.”

Existentialism helps us recapture the “fear and trembling” part of working out our salvation (hence the title of Kierkegaard’s famous work).

I’ll end with perhaps my favorite set of quotes I have ever read. These have had such a profound impact on me and so reflect how I understand these things to be. These words are from the poet Joe Weil in an interview with Patrol Magazine. I leave you with these words that could have been written by the most quintessential existentialist:

“I once described faith as something I got on my shoe and can’t kick or wash off. I’m stuck with it. My poems are the trespasses and blasphemies of a malpracticing Christian, one who can’t stop ogling an attractive leg, or wanting to be first, who is venial, foolish, seldom at peace, horny and lonely, and so far from the kingdom of God that his whole life becomes the theme of that distance, someone knowing he is in deep shit. It’s the perfect place to be, where you can’t fool yourself into thinking you’re on the right track…The only thing I have to offer God is my sins. I am interested in mercy when it appears in places where you would never expect it. I am interested in love that shovels shit against the tide. I am interested in grace…It is better to be annihilated and crushed by God, if you are in love with God, then it is to have no relationship at all. Better God smite you then merely be absent. God does not ‘tolerate’ me. God loves me.”

Philosophy & Theology {II} | “Christian” Existentialism [1]

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

In the past few days, the idea of Christian Existentialism has been brought up to me as some sort of viable marriage between philosophy and theology. As I said in my previous post, I think this is a bit misguided.

I think there is a slight danger in the concept of Christian Existentialism. The entire point of Existentialism is that we look inside ourselves for ultimate truth and meaning for existence. Starting at this place causes a lot of problems. I’ll mention three here: sin and Scripture (briefly), and the nature of Christianity itself. “Christian” Existentialism has to define sin in two incorrect ways. First, it would have to say that what makes a sin a sin is the action itself evaluated in light of its consequences. This flies in the face of the Bible which screams that it is in the heart where sin dwells and shows itself, not the actions; and, most sins committed by humans never reach the will anyway, much less have evaluative “consequences”. Second and more Existentially unique, is the idea that sin is anything done that results in the losing of the “true authentic self” of Existentialism (I’ll say the fault in this shortly). And lastly, when it comes to the Bible, Scripture is seen more as something to submit to our experiences rather than to submit our experiences to.

The ultimate fallacy (and what I see to be the most frustrating) in all this is the idea that all things pertaining to God find their meaning, purpose, truth, righteousness, and value in how they relate to us humans. Existentialism would say that we only know anything by seeing where it lies relative to us. I’m sorry, but this whole Christianity thing is not about us. It never has been, nor will it be. It is about Christ and His glory. The more we dive inside of ourselves, all we will see is our depravity and darkness. Any other finding is due to inauthentic searching and subsequent blindness to the true state of one’s soul. Self esteem and self knowledge is not the root of mental health, soul value, and practical empowerment, in spite of what the gurus of our age tell us. It is by looking to Christ, not ourselves, and esteeming and delighting in Him alone that we are made into His likeness at every level, and find meaning, purpose, value, and insight into how this whole thing is supposed to be worked out.

But yet . . .

as I said in my previous post, Philosophies can help provide us with answers to theological dilemmas and categories. Existentialism helps us in questions of sin (in spite of what I said earlier, ironically enough), the relationship between ontology and the Sovereignty of God (our nature vs. God’s providence), and the nature of Christian spirituality.

The most famous “Christian Existentialist” is probably Soren Kierkegaard. But more precisely, though, he probably laid the foundation for what later became full blown Existentialism. Nevertheless, his fingerprints are all over Existentialist though, Christian or otherwise. In his work, “The Sickness Unto Death”, Kierkegaard defines sin as primarily about one’s position in relation to God. This is the difference between “error” and “sin”. Sin is against God and affects our relation to him. He argues against the view of Socrates that sin is merely an act stemming from ignorance. Kierkegaard vehemently denies this because this turns “sin” into a negation – merely a lack. Kierkegaard points out that sin isn’t just negation but it’s a position and posture towards God. How is this still Existentialism? Well, sin is still defined in terms of our position before God – it’s necessarily tied to and defined in terms of our existence before Him. But what makes this Orthodox is that it is not an existence divorced from the backdrop of God Himself. It is intricately linked and fused together as one. Our existence is only existence insofar God Himself is exists. As Paul would say (quoting Greek poets): “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

I wrote out the other two points, and they made this article far too long. I really think these next two points are of utmost importance for the Christian to understand, so rather than just putting them at the end of a post and people not really reading it, I’m going to make them their own post tomorrow. In the last two points, I try and use existentialism to help come up with a Christian answer to the age-old question of Existentialism: which comes first: your essence or existence? You’ll see that because of the Fall, these things become quote complicated. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Existentialism helps the Christian see that all of life (especially the Christian life) is anything but neat, orderly, nice, and naive. It is full of uncertainty, angst, frustration, and doubt. But, more on those tomorrow.

Derek Webb’s new free song about Fred Phelps

/ Paul Burkhart / 6 Comments

Untitled[EDITOR’S NOTE:  there was apparently a 12- hour window in which to download this song.  That window having passed, I have made the song available on another post on this site.  Continue reading if you want the story behind the song. Click here for the article.]

If you don’t care about background, story, or mystery, and just want free music and lyrics, you can skip down to the asterisks.

Okay, for everyone else, there are two things you should know about that would really help you enjoy this post.  The first thing is who Fred Phelps is.  He’s the “pastor” of Westboro Baptist Church. This is the church that protests dead soldiers’ funerals with the signs reading “God hates fags.” Most of us Christians don’t like Fred Phelps at all.

Including Derek Webb.

Which brings me to the second thing you might want to know about. It is Derek Webb‘s recent “Lost-style” mystery/game/scavenger hunt/fake-controversy thing.  Long story-short: email’s went out to fans from Webb saying “my new album’s controversial, my label doesn’t like it, I’ll figure something out.”  These emails had a code in them which led to the discovery of a website, twitter account, and other strange things (type “kickdrum”, then look right under his left eye, go to the site, type “youneverknow”. This is what use to pop up.). The unofficial hub of speculation has become the comments section of this article on Patrol Magazine.

Anyway, through his site and twitter account, Webb puts out “instructions” (i.e. “scavenger hunt clues”) for various cities in the the country.  People find the clue, email the code to him, and he releases a zip file of small 1 or 2 second sound clips.  No one has any clue what these sound clips are for.  Supposedly you’ll be able to put them together, but with how long they’ve been so far, there won’t be enough audio for even one full song, much less an entire album.  This has been going on for a couple of weeks with people finding these parts and no major updates happening.

***Until today.***

About 45 minutes prior to me writing this post, Derek Webb posted on the Twitter account a couple of messages that when decoded read “redownload stem 2”.  When you do that on this site, inside the zip file is the first song released off of Derek’s new album “Stockholm Syndrome”.  [NOTE: The song can now be found here] It’s called “Freddie, Please” and it is all about Fred Phelps.  It’s a really good song and it makes me really excited about the rest of the album.  It’s not the now-infamous “sh*t” song that will be on the album, but it’s one of the other anticipated songs.  Every one of Webb’s albums has been a completely different style and it looks like he’s taking a more ambient/drum machine/lounge-techno/postal service-style approach to this album.

Anyway, the song pretty much justifiably kicks Fred Phelps in the face.  Best I can tell, it’s from the perspective  of Jesus asking Phelps “How could you tell them you love me when you hate me?”  In the song, Jesus affirms his love for those despised in the world and says that when Phelp’s is picketing these funerals he is in essence “picketing my grave for loving the things you hate.”

Good for you, Derek.  So go download stem 2 at www.ParadiseIsAParkingLot.com and listen to this great song.  [NOTE: the song is no longer there. Instead, go here to download the song] Here are the lyrics:

Freddie, Please

Freddie, please
how could you do this to me?
How could you tell them you love me
when you hate me,
Freddie, please?

You know I’ll love you honey,
and i’ll bleed you dry with money
I’ll talk where I know you can hear.
Cause Freddie can’t you see,
brother, you’re the one who’s queer?

And the stone’s been rolled away
but you’re picketing my grave
for loving the things you hate.

Then why do you seek the living among the dead?

Freddie?

The big news . . .

/ Paul Burkhart / 5 Comments

Nope, not engaged.

Several people here in Philadelphia know this, but I realize hardly anyone in Richmond does, so here I am writing this now.

I won’t be coming back to Westminster next year.

Long story short, my undergraduate loan payments have been steadily increasing and are now getting to a place where my parents can’t handle it alone – nor should they (before you all ask: no, this isn’t the kind of loan that waits until I’m done to require payments; no, my parents can’t consolidate it; yes, we’ve thought through it all).  I’ve decided to take at least a year off from graduate studies to get a full time job somewhere and help pay some things off.I’m focusing in Philadelphia, and trying to stay here, but I’m also looking at jobs in other places (especially Richmond).

Academically, what does this mean?Well, so far I’m still signed up for one counseling class next semester in the evenings, but I’m going to start applying to various Ph.D. programs and seeing what happens.There’s a program at Princeton I’ve fallen in love with in “Psychology and Social Policy”.I’ve realized that I was seeing seminary somewhat as a potential aid in getting into a Ph.D. program, but frankly, it’s seems to only be hurting my chances (on many levels).So, I’ll see if I can get in without it and then go back to Westminster afterwards if I want.

Practically, this means a lot more time and freedom to read what I want, write what I want, minister in different ways, and just generally feel like an actual member of society.I’ve already started writing a little bit more, doing more web stuff (Reform & Revive has been amazing recently!), and (I can’t believe I’m admitting this now), I’ve started a podcast which I’ll write on more later.

Spiritually speaking, what does this mean?Well, the answer to that question deserves a whole post in its self.I’ve been encouraged that as the workload lightens and I seem to be leaving seminary in a sense, I find myself driven more to prayer and the Word of God than while I was in seminary.They don’t tell you that seminary is not a secluded spiritual resort, but rather the darkest front lines of battle.This has been the most intense spiritual year of my life.I’ve had some of my darkest nights and moments this past year.I’ve gone my longest stints ever without drawing near to my Lord in any way.In short, it’s been rough.In short, it’s been painful.In short, I think I came to seminary too soon.I came too young.I wasn’t ready to handle the weight that this institution would hold.I have not developed the maturity and cultivation necessary to have an anchor in my soul beyond my sheer white-knuckled will.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this past year has been amazing.It’s also been the best year of my life, I think.That’s generally how God works.Very Dickensian: the best of times, the worst of times . . ..I wouldn’t give this past year back for anything.My love, affection, and knowledge of my Lord have grown exponentially.If I never go back to seminary I will forever be grateful to the Providence of God for giving me these two semesters.

God has always dealt with me in such a way that I had a very good sense of what the future held for me.This is the first time in my life that he has allowed everything to really fall apart all around me in a matter of weeks.And this is his mercy to me.This is his love for me.It is his commitment to make me need him, because he himself is what I need the most.He is my anchor.He is my certainty.He is my Lord, and my God, and I love him.

So, we’ll see what life holds.God has still been gracious to me in this time. I have great friends and my church (though still going through so much turmoil) has still been healthy and amazing.  I’ve even realized that my life as it was wasn’t very financially sustainable.  I couldn’t continue into my mid- and later-20s still asking my parents for rent money while working 15-hour work weeks at various low hourly rates.  I should have decided to so this regardless of money.

I feel it’s appropriate I’ve written this entire post while I sit in what may be my last seminary class ever, Medieval Church.Which is a appropriate, I suppose.Just like this strange period in history, and more specifically where we are in this last class, I sit here with my Rome having fallen, some dark ages having passed, standing on the cusp of my Reformation, waiting to rediscover the nearness of my Lord.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have.

An Atheist, Africa, and Missions vs. NGOs

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

In the TimesOnline, a European Online Magazine, prominent Atheist Matthew Parris wrote the following thought provoking article a few days ago. Please read the article and leave your thoughts. Hopefully this will spurn some meaningful conversation. Below are my favorite excerpts.  Here’s the article.

——————————–

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset

. . . [T]ravelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa . . . But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing. . . .

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I’m afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

——————————–

Enjoy, and let the debates begin!

[By the way, for all those on facebook that are friends with Tim Hoiland, I had a draft of this post done a few days before he posted his, so don’t think I just copy other people’s posts!  But still, read his blog]

Severe Mercy

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

This song has been my obsession this past couple of weeks as I round out my first semester in seminary.  I hope it stirs you as well.

The Cut by Jason Gray

My heart is laid
Under Your blade
As you carve out Your image in me
You cut to the core
But still you want more
As you carefully, tenderly ravage me

And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
They say the cut makes me whole

Mingling here
Your blood and my tears
As You whittle my kingdom away
But I see that you suffer, too
In making me new
For the blade of Love, it cuts both ways

And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
They say the cut makes me whole

Hidden inside the grain
Beneath the pride and pain
Is the shape of the man
You meant me to be
Who with every cut now you try to set free

CHORUS…
…With everyday
You strip more away
And You peel back the bark
And tear me apart
To get to the heart
Of what matters most
I’m cold and I’m scared
As your love lays me bare
But in the shaping of my soul
The blade must take it’s toll
So God give me strength to know
That the cut makes me whole

taking it with me

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

My hero, Matt Chandler, just put up a new blog post.  It so stirred me, that I left this comment on the blog, which you can find here: dwelldeep.net

As a young single man in seminary whose father struggled and miserably failed at fighting the sins of his father and grandfather, I wrestle with this often.  As I grow older, I see more and more in me that which I hate in my father.  From a young age, I began hoping against hope that the Grace of God would be upon me such that this curse would end with me- that I would be the first real man of God my bloodline has seen in generations; that my mother’s sacrifice to stay with my father and endure hell at his hands for the sake of her children would not be in vain; and most importantly, that my God would be seen and shown as worthy, lovely, more beautiful, and more desirable than the curse and sin of passivity, anger, and pain so inflicted upon us.

So yes, this makes sense and resonates in me as I hope to maintain this heart towards my True Father long enough to have the same mind as you with the love of my life and my children to come.  Thank you for this.

–paul

yeah, i want to be kind of a big deal

/ Paul Burkhart / 4 Comments

paul-09-12

I fight with pride a lot.As I was telling a friend today: if you take a guy that is fairly smart, can put disparate concepts together, can talk well, and you make him a Christian, you get something very dangerous.He starts believing the press others say about him and begins to think he is much more mature than he actually is.This is me.My entire life people have set me apart for “something big for God.”Being able to understand and communicate even the deepest truths of God and His Word doesn’t equal maturity one bit.Seminary has certainly been showing me just how independent I try to be from God.

But nevertheless, something does resonate within me when I think about my place on the national/world stage.I feel like I’m being tailored by God for big, visible things out there in the world.I don’t know for sure what this means, and I’m fine with it not coming to pass, but I feel like I’m being prepared for a weight I could not bear apart from prior work by God.

But that’s not the point of this post.Now, like I said, I was grabbing coffee with that friend of mine – a friend who is quite visible on the national and international stage.But he’s been struggling with something recently that really struck me.He pointed out that no person ever used by God for really big things ever did it apart from great levels and displays of suffering.His problem was that he shirks from suffering while seeking comfort – the very thing that is antithetical to what he’s called to.I have a similar problem.

I’m only 22 and I feel like I haven’t suffered much.Some really dark family stuff, spiritual dark months of the soul, and severe emotional pains (loneliness and heartache, mainly), but really no classic forms of real suffering.Yet, in spite of this, God has given me a very developed theology of suffering and God’s Sovereignty within it.This terrifies me.I can not get away from this haunting sense deep in the recesses of my mind that severe trials lie ahead of me.So severe that God needs to prepare me now to survive the pains to come.

In one sense this reaffirms my desire to be well-known, influential, and in front of many people.On the other it sobers me, realizing (perhaps for the first time) what it means to “count the cost.”So perhaps all those that have been praising and building me up for big things in the future have actually been painting a target on my soul for the refining pains and trials of God.

So for those of you out there seeking renown, fame, and exposure.Know that if you really are doing it to God’s Glory, then no servant is greater than his Master, and you should expect nothing less than fulfilling in the body the sufferings of Christ, that His life might be seen through your death for your good and God’s Glory.

[I love this hymn right now]

/ Paul Burkhart / Leave a comment

Thou Lovely Source of True Delight

1. Thou lovely source of true delight
Whom I unseen adore
Unveil Thy beauties to my sight
That I might love Thee more,
Oh that I might love Thee more.

2. Thy glory o’er creation shines
But in Thy sacred Word
I read in fairer, brighter lines
My bleeding, dying Lord,
See my bleeding, dying Lord

3. ’Tis here, whene’er my comforts droop
And sin and sorrow rise
Thy love with cheering beams of hope
My fainting heart supplies,
My fainting heart’s supplied

4. But ah! Too soon the pleasing scene
Is clouded o’er with pain
My gloomy fears rise dark between
And I again complain,
Oh and I again complain

5. Jesus, my Lord, my life, my light
Oh come with blissful ray
Break radiant through the shades of night
And chase my fears away,
Won’t You chase my fears away

6. Then shall my soul with rapture trace
The wonders of Thy love
But the full glories of Thy face
Are only known above,
They are only known above

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III, (Part 5b)

/ Paul Burkhart / 2 Comments

It having been a while since I posted on this, a refresher for some may be in order. About a year and a half ago, I listened to a sermon called “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” by John Slye of Grace Community Church in Arlington, VA. The content of the message shocked me in many ways and I have slowly spent the past year and a half responding point by point to his 7-point message. I do hope to take this content and actually put it into book form some time in the future. Anyway, point 4 was the point of Slye’s that frustrated me the most, so it has been separated in to three parts. Part 5a was about God’s Sovereignty and Present Authority over Sin, this one’s about Satan, the last one will be about God’ Sovereignty in Salvation.

Once more: Slye’s point and his scriptural support:
4. God is not on the throne.

  • “…Satan, the ruler of this world…” –John 12:31(Msg)
  • “Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, ‘If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.’” –Matt. 4:8,9(NCV)
  • “The devil who rules this world…” –2 Cor. 4:4(NCV)
  • “…the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19(NLT)

God’s Sovereignty and Present Authority over Satan

I hope this part doesn’t get too long. The origin of Satan is never explicitly spoken of in the Bible. Most of our understanding’s come from Milton’s Paradise Lost rather than the Bible. Classically, there are two texts used to try and give Satan a story. Ezekiel 28, which is a prophecy against both the “Prince” and the “King” of the country of Tyre. The passage in question is referring to Tyre’s “King,” so the text could be a poetic expression of Satan as the “true King of Tyre” or the real power behind the “Prince.” We don’t know explicitly, but Post-Milton, it’s been generally accepted as talking about Satan. The second passage is in the middle of Isaiah 14. There’s some disagreement among scholarship as to where the passage in question begins and ends, because it is in the middle of a prophecy against Babylon, where the subject is referred to in the plural, so right when you think it’s talking about Satan it refers to “their fathers.” Long story short, it’s ambiguous. The Bible obviously doesn’t think it is a great necessity to give us Satan’s origins. So we aren’t given very much concerning Satan in the Bible, but here is what we do know that reasserts Christ’s rule and reign over all created things including him:

  • Satan is created along with Hell and his demons. Jesus, upon His ascension declares that ALL authority in heaven and earth is His, not Satan’s (Matthew 28:18-20)
  • Satan is merely another angel. The Bible declares that believers will judge over angels. (1 Corinthians 6:3)
  • Jesus came (past-tense) to earth to destroy the works of the devil (Hebrews 2:14).
  • Whenever the BIble talks about any one fighting with the devil (be it verbal or physical), it’s always angels, not God or Jesus that are described as doing so. Including the end of time. God’s ultimate “enemy” is destroyed not by God Himself, but by God’s angels (Jude 1:9; Revelation 20:1-3)
  • Genesis 3:14-16 is what theologians call the “protoevangel.” It is the first preaching of the Gospel found in the Bible. And to whom is the Gospel preached first? Satan!
  • In Job, God orders Satan around and asks questions of him. In fact, putting Job through all those things was God’s idea! He mentioned Job’s name first (Job 1:7-8). In fact after it is explicitly said Satan does specific things to Job, Job turns around and attributes these things to God. The very next verse says: “In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:20-22)
  • Satan could not touch Job nor Peter without asking God (and Christ’s) permission first. (Luke 22:31)
  • The Spirit drew Jesus into the desert for temptation, Satan didn’t relentlessly pursue some showdown. Also, this time of tempting was necessary to bring establish Christ as the “Second Adam” who resisted temptation where Adam fell. So that time was preordained, planned, and executed by God, not Satan. (Mark 1:12-13, et al.)

So, this is all good and fine, but how do we resolve the very real sense of authority that the Bible seems to give Satan. I would say that Satan’s legacy is still seen in the fallen state of man and creation. But we see many examples in every day life of someone who has real authority over a given sphere, but is still answerable to one higher than themselves. Revelation 1:4-5 calls Jesus the “ruler of Kings on earth.” Another well-known name for Jesus is “King of kings.” This does not mean that there aren’t very real rulers and authority in the world, it just says that any authority they have is at the will and discretion of Christ to bring about His purposes! So does Satan have power, rule, and authority? Absolutely! But he’s on a very short leash only doing that which God allows him to do.

I’ll end with this: Does this make God responsible for what Satan does? Ehh . . . yes and no. Everything in the universe (God included) acts in accordance to their nature (Matthew 7:16-20; James 3:12). Satan is no different. His nature being corrupt and standing against all that God is and loves, Satan will only act in line with this. Thus God merely allows Satan to do what he is already inclined to do when evil or suffering enters this world. So God doesn’t make Satan be evil, BUT He does allow it for greater, better purposes that will always ultimately lead to the Glory of God and the joy of His elect.
Next, we will explore God’s sovereignty and present authority in the salvation of human souls, then move off of this point of Slye’s message.

The Sweet Taste of Sovereign Suffering, III, (Part 5a)

/ Paul Burkhart / 1 Comment

This post will consist of the first part (of 3) of my theological response to the fourth point of John Slye of Grace Community Church in Arlington’s message called “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” I can’t believe these posts are getting so long. I really could write a book about this.

Once again, for reference, his point and references:

4. God is not on the throne.
-“…Satan, the ruler of this world…” –John 12:31(Msg)
-“Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, ‘If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.’” –Matt. 4:8,9(NCV)
-“The devil who rules this world…” –2 Cor. 4:4(NCV)
-“…the world around us is under the power and control of the evil one.” –1 John 5:19(NLT)

I struggled for a while to know how to organize this, but I think I got it. This post will talk about God’s sovereignty and present authority in (1) Sin, (2) Satan, and (3) Salvation.

(1) God’s Sovereignty and Present Authority in Sin
For this I’ll focus on God’s role in (a) the first sin in the world, (b) the greatest sin in the world, and (c) a weird Old Testament passage

(a) The First Sin – Adam’s sin – was absolutely known, ordained, and planned by God. He did not do it or make Adam do it, but it was certainly part of the plan. Let’s go to Genesis 2. The first command God ever gave man, is found in verses 16 and 17: “And the Lord commanded the man, saying ‘You may surely eat eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it [alt. translation: ‘when you eat of it’] you shall surely die.” We all know the rest of the story. Adam did, and subsequently ushered in what we now call “The Fall of Man.” What part did God play in this? Notice that God did not say “you shall not eat, for if you eat of it, you shall surely die.” He said “when” you eat of it. In the Hebrew this is a statement of inevitability and foreknowledge. He pretty much says to Adam, “Hey Adam, tomorrow you’re going to eat of that fruit. Don’t do it.” God absolutely knew this was coming, and He ordained it so. Many will say, “yes He knew it was coming but because of His love for man, He let man freely decide to sin while He hoped and wished that man would not do it.” I think this is true – to an extent. Remember my last real post. God had been decreeing the Gospel from eternity past, before the world was created, and this Gospel is about saving sinners from themselves. People had to Fall according to the Will of God, that He might save them and receive Glory for it, all while God maintained His hatred for Sin.

(b) The Greatest Sin – So what was the greatest sin the world has ever known? Killing the Son of God. Surely murdering the Second Person of the Trinity – the Incarnation of all that is perfect, beautiful, and satisfying must be the most despicable act ever done. God brought it about. Isaiah 53:10 literally says of God’s role in the Messiah’s death: “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief.” Even more explicit is Acts 4:24, 27-28, where the believers all sing to God saying, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, . . . truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” His “hand,” symbolizing His exerted influence, did the predestinating here. Do not get foreknowledge and predestination mixed up. God brings about what he predestines, and most surely ordained (“anointed”) Pilate, Herod, Romans, Greeks, and Jews to freely kill the Son of God upon their own free accord, all the while being the Main Actor in the background bringing it to pass. How this works is a profound mystery I will not even pretend I understand.

(c) On a final note, I’d like to bring attention to 1 Samuel 2:25. Eli is rebuking his sons and he tells them to stop sinning against God. But verse 25 says: “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.” They sinned by disobeying the fifth commandment by not listening to their Father (Deut. 5:16), but the text says they sinned because God was willing to do something else. So, somehow, Hophni and Phineas freely sinned, but it was according to the will of God so that God could bring something about.

Next time (very shortly) we will discuss the relationship between the Sovereignty of God and Sata.