Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Monday, September 30, 2013

God and (Secondary) Infertility

No.

Not again. Please, not again.

These were my thoughts last month when my wife informed me her cycle had started, again.

Normal, At First (and Two Qualifications)
January 28, 2010, was one of the happiest days of my life. After 40-plus hours of labor (and an impromptu cesarean section), my wife and I met our daughter. What an incredible experience.

At that point, everything seemed normal. I found out my wife was pregnant with our first child as we prepared to leave for a short first-year-of-marriage anniversary trip. In fact, it still felt normal after we began trying for a second pregnancy. It’s not an anomaly for couples to try for several months before conception. However, after about 30 months with no success the questions begin:

What now?

Where’s God in this?

Is he in this?

Is God good despite our “suffering?”

Before moving forward, it’s important to qualify two points: our first child and suffering. My wife and I are blessed beyond measure with our first child – she is a delightful gift from God. Still, some might read this and feel frustrated that I’m “complaining” about not being able to conceive a second child while you are still struggling with initial conception. Maybe you’re thinking that I’m greedy or unappreciative. At times, you might be right. Even so, although our stories are different, it is my desire to empathize as best I can with anyone struggling with fertility (my story just happens to be about secondary infertility). Some might also be frustrated with my use of the term “suffering.” In our current contexts, we often consider “suffering” as those starving for food, in desperate need of clean water, living in war-torn countries, or losing their lives for the cause of Christ. However, if suffering means the bearing of pain or distress, then this term also works for my situation. My wife and I have borne the pain and distress of secondary infertility. It’s not equivalent to the former examples, but it is still “suffering.”

Early Groundwork
I sat across the table from a spiritual mentor of sorts about eight years ago after experiencing the tragic death of someone close to me. My hope was that this person’s death would cause a “ripple effect” for the Kingdom. In fact, I insisted that it must. With great patience and wisdom, this mentor pointedly asked, “If there are no professions of faith that are a direct effect from this death, is God still good?”

This question knocked me to the floor both emotionally and spiritually. My hope (and insistence) for the last few months was that God would surely bring people to faith through this story. Over the next few months I wrestled with this question, eventually coming to the conclusion that God is still good even if no professions of faith are made as a direct effect of this death. But now the question needs to be reformatted: Is God still good if he doesn’t allow my wife to get pregnant again?

Where Are You?!
My wife and I have asked many questions over the last 30 months. Our theology becomes practical in these moments. What do we actually believe about God? Are we able to extricate our theology from the coffee shop to the real world?

It hasn’t been easy.

Romans 8:28 has become somewhat of a stumbling block for us. And yet, if the Bible is true in all it affirms, then it must also be true here; namely, our secondary infertility is being worked out for our good. If the goodness of God is his kindness and benevolence, his holy pleasure in the happiness of his people, then embracing this truth is rejoicing in that goodness, rather than sulking in suffering. This is accomplished by basking in the glory of God’s ubiquitous sovereignty. He is sovereign over the tiniest atom and the largest supernova (1 Sam 2:6-7; Ps 103:19; 135:6-7; Matt 5:45; 6:25-30; Rom 8:28; Gal 1:15-16; Eph 1:11). All is his; all is under his control (1 Chr 29:11).

Including conception.

So where is God? To be sure, he’s in the smallest detail of our lack of conception. He’s in our pain; King over our questions; Lord over our frustrations.

Now What?
Despite our inability to understand what God is doing with us through secondary infertility, we must trust him, for he is good.

Even if we never conceive again.

Perhaps the way forward for my wife and I is to focus on the daily mercies God bestows upon us (Ps 100:5; 145:9). Each time my lungs fill with air; each beat of my heart; each moment I don’t drop dead is a demonstration of the goodness and mercy of God.

“[T]hough he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love…Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”

Rest in this truth (Lam 3:32, 38).

Friday, November 9, 2012

Headed to Milwaukee


I’m heading to Milwaukee on Tuesday for the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.

It should be a good opportunity to spend time with friends I don’t often see, perhaps network a bit, and sit in on a few papers (and hopefully be intelligent enough to engage the presenters).

I’m really pumped about the following papers:
  • God and the Mind/Body Problem: A Critique of Selected Christian Physicalists
  • The Atonement as Vicarious Victory: Understanding the Warfare-Oriented Relationship between Penal Substitution and Christus Victor
  • The Logical Euthyphro: Laying Out the Options for God and Logic
  • Truth - Who Needs It?
  • Way Outside the Box: Why Paul's Doctrine of Justification Was Risky, Offensive, and Unparalleled in Early Judaism
  • Adam's Duty: Evolution and Human Responsibility
  • Can't We All Just Get Along? Friendly Atheism and the Epistemology of Religious Disagreement

Is anyone else coming?

If so, what papers are you interested in listening to?

Also, if you’re coming, let me know, maybe we could grab a meal, ale, or coffee together!

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Brevity and Frailty

Fall is here.

Pumpkins, cider, donuts, autumnal parties, and college football. In many ways, it’s a great season.

Strangely though, it’s also a time of death. Leaves fall dead to the ground. They crunch beneath our feet, calling out from the dead. Those living in Northern climates understand this transformation. They understand that one morning they will walk outside and see their breath (if they haven’t already).

Early this morning, as I began my commute to work, I noticed the fog coming out of my nose as I exhaled.

I also noticed how quickly it vanished.

Our lives are like that, too.

It’s been just over a week since a young life vanished. A dear friend was tragically killed when a motorcycle struck her as she crossed the street. She was young, talented, beautiful, and strong. But, she was also frail. Her life was, indeed, a vapor. The fog (i.e., her life) vanished in a moment.

James provides certain helpful insights into this tragedy, namely the brevity and frailty of life. To be sure, James is frustrated with the arrogant attitudes demonstrated by his hearers and readers, but this is not my point here. My point is simply that life is brief and frail. It can, and has, been snuffed out in a moment.

James 4:14-15 employs the imagery of a vapor to describe our lives. What he means by this, at least in part, is that our lives are both brief and frail. His exhortation is to not live as though you are sovereign over your own existence, for, ultimately, your existence rests in the hands of a mightier King.

So, the next time you step outside and it’s cold enough to see the fog from your breath, exhale and watch how quickly it vanishes. It appears only for a brief moment and then disappears. Exhale again and wave your hand through the fog. Notice how easily it dissipates.

Our lives are like that.

Brief and frail.

Thankfully, in this situation, we are able to rejoice (in small measure through the tears) because we know the eternal destination of the departed. And yet, I can’t help but think that if she was here she would urge those of us still living to embrace what James was urging his audience to heed. Your life is brief (despite how long you think it will last); your life is frail (despite how strong you think you are); and Jesus is sovereign King over your existence.

May we look forward to the return of the King.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Peter, Paul, and Inspiration

Peter Enns has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University, has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) for 14 years, was a Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation, and is currently on faculty at Eastern University teaching courses in Old and New Testaments.

In other words, Enns is no slouch. In fact, I have appreciated the limited interaction I have had with him. He is cordial and helpful, as well as intellectually honest (which has left me asking many questions). To be sure, the depth and intensity of these recent questions have been rivaled only by my introduction to Calvinism many years ago, and my (sort of) recent interactions with hell (if so inclined, you can also read my review of Rob Bell’s Love Wins).

Part of the recent din surrounding Enns is the discussion over the historicity of Adam. This discussion has undoubtedly held a prominent place within the blogosphere over the last few months (not least by Enns, Scot McKnight, and Kevin DeYoung). And yet, amongst these various discussions, I have not yet read anything on the doctrine of inspiration as it relates to Pauline and Adamic studies (which I know could simply be my own oversight).

What might be most helpful is to define inspiration:

By inspiration of Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.[1]

And, of course, inspiration is a consequent of revelation:

God created thoughts in the mind of the writer as he wrote.[2]

Therefore:

While revelation is the communication of truth from God to humans, inspiration relates more to the relaying of that truth from the first recipient(s) of it to other persons, whether then or later. Thus, revelation might be thought of as a vertical action, and inspiration as a horizontal matter.[3]

And, herein lies a critical question: If we believe Paul’s writings were inspired (2 Tim 3:10), that they were supernaturally influenced, are we not attributing error to God if we attribute error to Paul? This question stems from Enns’s assertion in The Evolution of Adam that Paul’s assumptions about human origins might not necessarily display a unique level of scientific accuracy (95). Simply put, if Enns thinks Paul was wrong about the historicity of Adam, is this not also an affirmation that man’s error can supplant God’s sovereignty in revelation and inspiration?[4]

It seems that this is where Enns is headed. In his writings on inspiration, a major theme is accounting for the incarnational aspect(s) of inspiration (i.e., the human-ness of the authors). Accounting for the human element is necessary (God is not a puppet-master), and yet, I feel a sense of unease focusing too much on the humanity of scripture (although we must understand that the text was written in a specific historical and cultural context). For instance, it seems most appropriate to affirm that God himself took on human form rather than a man becoming divine.

Paul Helm puts it nicely:

[I]f the account of his deity is controlled by data about his humanity – including his physical and mental growth, his bodily weakness, his ignorance, his emotional life – the result may be a Christ who is very different from a Christ whose divine nature is given priority.[5]

This is also, at least for me, the appropriate interpretive process for the Bible; namely, the Bible is breathed by God and authored my humans. Bruce Waltke, in his review of Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation, states, “To be sure, the Scripture is fully human, but it is just as fully the Word of God, with whom there is no shadow of turning and who will not lie to or mislead his elect”.[6]

So, what are we to think?

Is Paul wrong?

Is Enns Wrong?

What do we have the right to conclude about the nature of revelation and inspiration?

How should revelation and inspiration affect our interpretive process?

These are some of the questions I am currently working through…


[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 225.
[2] Ibid., 213.
[3] Ibid., 225-226.
[4] Enns has appropriately pointed out that this syllogism only works if the above definition of inspiration is affirmed. But, converesely, Enns’s affirmation that God’s purposes in revelation and inspiration will not be supplanted by the human element is only true if we accept his definition of inspiration. 
[6] Bruce K. Waltke, “Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation,” The Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 1 (2009): 94.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Friday's Funny

When you see a John 3:16 sign at a sporting event, now you know how it started...



**credit goes to James McGrath

Monday, July 23, 2012

Don't Judge Me, Bro!

There are two things that contemporary people (or at least contemporary Americans) love: social media and autonomy. And what is frequently interesting, and sometimes unnerving, is when those two loves are coupled together. Often enough, this coupling is fleshed out (through Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, blogs, etc.) in three words:

Don’t judge me!

These three words are regularly used as the ultimate trump card in any discussion with opposing viewpoints.

Don’t judge me!

Autonomy at its best…

We all want to be the king (or queen) of our own little kingdom, completely sovereign over our affairs with no one to tell us otherwise (and definitely no one to tell us that we might be wrong).

We see Christians telling other Christians to stop being judgmental (to those within and without Christendom); we see non-Christians telling Christians to stop being judgmental (to those within and without Christendom). Frankly, it’s rampant.

But where is this coming from? What is the basis?

Most people, if not all (i.e., those within and without Christendom), look to Matthew 7:1 as the proof-text for affirming anti-judgmentalism (of course, it’s much easier to sledgehammer someone else with this text than it is to apply it to ourselves…).

I am going to quote Kevin DeYoung at length, because I cannot say it any better:

Judgmentalism is not the same as making judgments. The same Jesus who said “do not judge” in Matthew 7:1calls his opponents dogs and pigs in Matthew 7:6. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8). Disagreement among professing Christians is not a plague on the church. In fact, it is sometimes necessary. The whole Bible is full of evaluation and encourages the faithful to be discerning and make their own evaluations. What’s tricky is that some fights are stupid, and some judgments are unfair and judgmental. But this must be proven, not assumed…Strong language and forceful arguments are appropriate.

In other words, you can make judgments.

You do make judgments.

Everyday.

In fact, when Jesus tells us to “judge not, that you be not judged,” he follows that with “for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Jesus indicates that you should be cautious when you judge because this same judgment you render will be rendered to you.

Do not be afraid to evaluate.

But remember that when you evaluate, God is going to evaluate you with that same criteria.

Monday, July 9, 2012

The Christian and Alcohol

Alcohol (and the consumption thereof) is a major point of division amongst Evangelical Christians.

Over the past few years, as I have deliberated about alcohol (and the consumption thereof), and as I have talked with Christian peers, I have noticed an interesting trend. Specifically, those raised in “Christian” families tend to express their “freedom in Christ” and their desire to “redeem” alcohol, whereas those raised in secular families seem to be more wary (of course, no specific quantitative study was completed for verification – rather, this is simply a general observation).

For instance, my parents and I disagree on alcohol (and the consumption thereof).

My parents, raised in what I will simply term “non-Evangelical families,” had the difficult task of not only working out their own salvation, but also pointing our family to King Jesus. Part of this task included the decision to be completely abstinent from alcohol (as opposed to their pre-conversion lifestyles); therefore, we did not have alcohol in our home, nor have I ever seen my parents consume alcohol. To be sure, I owe much to my parents for praying, struggling, guiding, and disciplining me throughout my upbringing. And yet, as I enter adulthood, as I attempt to “make my faith my own,” I have come to disagree with them on this point of Christian praxis.

Several years ago, my family was sitting around a campfire and the topic of alcohol came up. Sparing you the details, my mother indicated that the main problem with Christians consuming alcohol is that you do not want to be liable for causing a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.

I have heard this argument before. I am sure you have too.

In fact, this argument left me so uneasy that I decided to write my seminary capstone paper around this issue.

My conclusion?

Paul’s point in Romans 14 – 15 is that if you are less scrupulous you ought not persuade your more scrupulous brother into doing something outside of his faith context. Conversely, if you are more scrupulous you ought not judge the less scrupulous for being such.

In other words, if you believe you can drink alcohol to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), please do not attempt to persuade your brother into also drinking alcohol if it is outside of his faith context. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Conversely, if drinking alcohol makes you operate outside of your faith context, then simply do not drink alcohol. However, remember that it is not your place to scornfully judge your brother (not least his Christian status) for the freedom he experiences. God is our judge, and we will all give an account before him (Rom 14:4, 12).

With that said, a few ruminations on alcohol:

First, alcohol (i.e., the substance) is not sinful.

Second, I am convinced that drinking alcohol is also not sinful. For clarity’s sake, “drinking” alcohol is quite different than being “drunk” on alcohol. This is a distinction that needs to be made.

Therefore, what can be sinful is the heart attitude behind this action (or inaction).

In short, do not persuade when you should not, and do not judge when you should not.

P.S. If you are interested in reading my paper in full, you can email me at danieljfick@gmail.com to request a copy.

P.S.S. Preston Sprinkle has a couple of interesting blog posts about alcohol.