After Nicholas Carr’s book the Shallows I have been thinking quite a bit about reading slowly. So slowing down to read James Smith’s “The Good and Beautiful God” has been good for me. Letting his idea of the transformation triangle seep into my thinking has been helpful – and I have been “trying it on” as a filter for thinking about a whole range of things from evangelism, faith transmission to young people to twitter and klout use.
So it was with some anticipation that I allowed myself to read chapter 2 of the book.
The qualification of suffering
This chapter is mainly about the “adopting the narrative of Jesus” or the intellectual side of the transformation triangle. James gives another side of his own narrative explaining about the tragedy that his family has faced and this helps me grow in respect for him as an author. I have come to realise the value of insights from those Christians that have had to deal with tragedy have a faith that has been tested and proven true in the furnace of affliction. It’s relatively easy for a young idealistic author to write a book about the goodness of God – but someone who has lived with persecution, faced the loss of a child or a debilitating ilness can give another kind of insight into the character and faithfulness of God.
The Need for Control
The stand out idea for me in this chapter was the explanation of why the narrative of that says “suffering is always a direct punishment from God and blessing is always a direct reward from God” is so pervasive. Smith argues that it is all due to control. We can understand even control a God who rewards us for good and punishes us for evil. It is a way not of admitting the sovereignty of God but actually asserting control over him. Smith cites helpfully John 9 and the man born blind as a case in point of this kind of legalistic direct action God, when Jesus disciples come across a man born blind ask Christ who sinned? This man or his parents? Smith could have dissected the book of Job for the same kind of logic.Sadly recent years have seen this kind of sub biblical thinking when prominent Christian leaders have claimed. For example Teleevangelist Pat Robertson speaking about the Haitian earthquake disaster:
Something happened a long time ago in Haiti. And the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another — desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people — and the suffering is unimaginable.
Similarly John Piper argued that a Tornado that hit a Lutheran church in Mineapolis was a direct punishment for their views on Homosexuality.
The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
But Jesus explains that God “sends the sun to shine on the righteous and wicked” Matthew 5:45 and so refutes the nonsense of Robertson and this time of Piper. The argument in John 9 was that this man’s blindness was not the direct result of his sin or his parents. Those of us familiar with the book of Job will be wary of attributing suffering too quickly to the direct judgement of God – because there are too many times that innocent people suffer and Job’s “comforters” are held to account for their faulty mechanistic theology.
Strangeness of Silence
There was something strange about this chapter though and it rang an alarm bell for me for the next one. I admit I find silence difficult – as an extrovert I am keener to fill a silence than enjoy it. Smith argues – on a half a Bible text that we ought to have more space in our lives for silence and asks us to spend 5 minutes in silence each day as an exercise. But it is not silence to pray or to reflect but silence “just to be.” I get all jumpy at this kind of vagueness and would love more of a theology of silence. I guess I would have had more time for an encouragement to silence to meditate on scripture.
This is where, and I want to be careful here, so forgive me if I am being harsh. I have no idea what it must feel like to lose a child – to have a two year old daughter die and to have to plan her funeral must be heart wrenching. But Smith hears a voice from his dead daughter encouraging him that she is in heaven now. This is the turning point in the chapter and the dominant reason why Smith believes he can believe that God is good even in suffering. If it had been me hearing a voice from the dead – i would have been more likely to have believed it was my imagination than a voice from beyond the grave. I am not sure encouraging readers to seek solace in hearing back from dead loved ones has a biblical precedent – ( Saul and the witch of Endor getting Samuel back from the dead is the only example I can think of – but that is told in a way that you are in no doubt this was a bad move). Our hope comes from the resurrected Christ surely, the unchanging character of God, the prayer of Habakkuk that he will keep trusting God even if his worst fears come into being. I just felt uncomfortable with this part of the chapter. What do you think – am I over reacting?
This is a blog as i read post – so am really open to being “put right” or given a fresh perspective. So feel free to comment.
Any way lots of food for thought. Must admit I enjoyed chapter one more than this one.
Author Description
There are 2 comments. Add yours
Hi Krish,
Great blog post. Unfortunately I am not reading along with you as I had just started going through Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline with a friend a few weeks before you started and like you am trying to read it slowly and put into practice some of its disciplines. So I can't comment on the bit about his daughter, although I would guess he could just be saying he is receiving assurances not literally from his daughter but from God through the Holy Spirit in a medium that will most reinforce God's presence and God's grace and protection for his little girl. As I say I haven't read the chapter and so don't know if this is a possible interpretation of what is said but would seem to fit with what else I have read from the contemplative tradition, i.e. God speaking to us through the Holy Spirit using our facilities like our imagination and although there are certainly risks in this and what we hear/ are told should be checked within a community and against scripture, it seems a more lively and vibrant idea of the Holy Spirit than I was brought up with.
Similarly I've been in exactly the same place regarding the silence aspect. There has been an idea germinating in me regarding a theology of silence which is ultimately tied up in theology of Sabbath. (I am not sure if this is my idea although I think it proabably came from Eugene Peterson) It is very telling that God SPEAKS the creation into existence, and on the sabbath he is now silent. Our rest is linked with silence. I think that in our modern world where I have my I Pod plugged in continually, where I am bombarded by images and sounds on the tv, radio, advertisements, facebook and beyond I think a theology of Sabbath must include in it a theology of silence. Meditating on Scripture is a wonderful practice as well don't get me wrong, but I think the uncomfortable experience of sitting in silence for 5 minutes trying to rest in God's presence and to perhaps hear his still small voice amidst the chaos can be a truly refreshing activity, and I have found it rejuvenating even if very unnatural. Long winded way of saying Theology of silence a small part of a theology of Sabbath, particularly in our modern setting!
Hi Krish, thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the strength of this chapter is his personal story of struggling to see the goodness of God even amid suffering. He is right to attack a simplistic narrative of God's punishment/blessing.
I also agree with your reservations about silence. Actually, so far he has given us three disciplines: sleep, silence, and enjoying creation. All of these are good things, but none of them point us specifically to the God that Jesus reveals. I find this trend a bit troubling. However, maybe he sees this as a good way to start for people who are intimidated by Spiritual disciplines.
I'm actually not troubled by the idea that his daughter could speak to him. Is this necessarily unbiblical? There is, after all, a "great cloud of witnesses all around us." A standard theological belief about worship (and especially communion) is that we are joining with all Christians who came before us.
Paul claims to be "absent in body but present in spirit"--and this presence is real enough that he can "pass judgment...just as if I were present."
We believe that James's daughter lives eternally; why couldn't she speak to him? One objection might be: why did God not just speak directly? However, God often uses other people to communicate with us. James clearly received exactly what he needed.
What happened was also very different from practices that try to manipulate the spiritual realm by summoning the dead, something that is clearly forbidden. The difference is control. As an analogy, we are forbidden to engage in fortune telling and other practices to divine the future; however, God sometimes reveals the future in prophecies.
One thing that did bother me about the chapter: Smith is right to refute the simplistic narrative that everything that happens is a sign of God's punishment or blessing. However, he seems to go beyond this and actually deny that God is angry, "judgmental", and punishes sin. In fact, Christians traditionally have believed that God is angry at sin and injustice; God is a judge; and God will punish. Perhaps Smith really does believe these things, and he was just imprecise. However, I think it needs to be said clearly, because this is a major blind spot in modern Christianity. We talk about grace, but we forget what grace means when we forget what we have been saved from.
Jesus never toned down themes of God's judgment; in fact, he did just the opposite, raising the standard of what is sin in passages like the Sermon on the Mount.
Traditionally, Christians have considered a heightened awareness of one's own sin to be a key part of Spiritual growth. Great spiritual theologians of the early church even suggested meditating on God's judgment and punishment as a spiritual exercise. I'm not necessarily recommending this, but I think there needs to be a balance between God's grace and God's righteous judgment in our theology and our spiritual development.
One final thing, on page 48, the author talks about the translation of Galatians 2:19-20. He claims it should be "the faith of the son of God" rather than the more traditional "faith in the son of God". He then essentially says that it is because of bias that the translators don't put it that way. In fact, this is a major dispute in the study of Paul. The Greek is ambiguous here; both versions are equally faithful to the grammar. Scholars prefer one or another based on how they interpret Paul's theology. I happen to think that Smith's preferred interpretation is wrong, for a variety of reasons. In any case, it is not as simple as he makes it sound.
Perhaps this is nitpicking, but I think we need to take the truth very seriously. A lot of sermons and even commentaries make interpretations of convenience--what we want it to say, rather than what it actually says. This is a pet peeve of mine.