 |
| Vancouver 2015 |
This story was mentioned in a sermon, I attended, Sunday morning. This is a brief and very non-exhaustive discussion. I relate to Richard's frustration with God, but my conclusions are different.
Amazon
December 7, 2005: By Erik Olson
Cited:
'Years ago, Philip Yancey was contacted by a young theology student named Richard. One of his professors had encouraged Richard to expand an exemplary paper about Job into a book. Mr. Yancey was impressed with the draft, and even agreed to write the forward for publication. But by the time it reached the publishers, Richard had lost his faith. He no longer believed what he'd written. "Disappointment With God" was born out of several frank conversations between Mr. Yancey and Richard about the nature of suffering and what God should be doing about it.'
Despite Richard's prayers and service to God, his life had come unglued. His fiancée dumped him, a job fell through, his health declined, and so on. Richard felt betrayed, and finally broke from God.'
End quotations
With Richard, 'a job fell through'. I can relate to this situation as an academic that has also studied the problem of suffering and is not presently employed in academia or related. I am progressing with professional employment advisement and have volunteered at a local megachurch.
'His fiancée dumped him.' On Sunday it was mentioned that Richard's fiancée (paraphrased) would not discuss the issue and 'burned the bridge'. This contributed to his eventual loss of faith and break from God. Perhaps, if his fiancée would have openly and thoroughly discussed her reasons, this would have been less painful for Richard? Perhaps he would have accepted it?
A 'burning bridges' approach creates the possibility of what I label 'rejection remorse', that is rejection done in haste where the rejecting person or group (A) has significant doubts and regrets in regard to rejecting (B). Working in corporate security, at a trillion dollar corporation, I have learned that terminated employees are not informed by corporate representatives, but by a hired third party (C) that escorts the terminated employee from the building. I reason this is done to alleviate corporate fears of a potential confrontation, but also eliminates the possibility of employer/terminated employee discussion where the employer may be influenced by reason and evidence to reconsider the position taken. I was informed of one episode where an angry terminated employee returned to the building with his/her lawyer and were secretly rushed into a side room where employees could not witness the scene. Could this have been handled more optimally with employer/employee discussion earlier?
Similar fears lead to lack of discussion in many personal issues of the heart as well.
Is this not the case in many religion, worldview and political discussions?
I have often stated that a person is not significantly objective, unless willing to change a position if led to that conclusion by rational reason and evidence.
My former pastor stated (paraphrased): A person has few regrets in his/her twenties and thirties, a person has some regrets in his/her forties and fifties and a person has many regrets in his/her sixties.
Provided (A) and/or (B) is not highly irrational and/or confrontational is not a rational reasonable 'bridge-building' approach and conclusion to issues more optimal?
Richard's 'health declined, and so on.' During my studies I suffered with sleep apnea, my condition now greatly improved through surgery and treatment. I also had several eye surgeries to make me supposedly 'more beautiful', and more importantly improve my vision in my less than optimal eye.
'Richard felt betrayed, and finally broke from God.' My position is God has sovereign, providential control of existence and reality as documented through prophets, apostles and scribes in Scriptural religious history. Romans 8:26-30 is an important passage with the idea (28) that God causes all things to work for good for those who love God, called according to his purpose and (29) those he foreknew and predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ.
Within my compatibilistic position, God remains perfectly good in his permissible and perfect wills. Calvin writes that God’s motives remain pure in the simultaneous willing of human actions that are sinful and evil. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).
I conclude
It is a logical and reasonable presentation that God is true based on religious history in Scripture. Therefore, if this is accepted, God's infinite and perfect nature and promises to those in Christ, including everlasting life in a perfected realm, would not change regardless of suffering and the level of that suffering in this present fallen and imperfect realm.
The very significant problem of suffering does remain practically in this realm for all of humanity.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. <
