I have recently determined that there are several ways of asking why of God. “God, why is this happening to me?” is the simple question, but the intent behind asking reveals the heart and faith of the questioner.
“Why?” is frequently an accusation that God is being unfair to strap you with a particular problem or difficulty. You lose your job. “Why did this happen to me, God? I’m supposed to support my family, pay my bills, and pay my taxes. How am I supposed to fulfill my responsibilities.”
But “Why?” can be asked in a different way to mean “What do you want me to learn from this difficulty?” and “How will you get glory from this difficulty?” That is, “Why is this difficulty occurring to further Your kingdom and glory in me and those around me?” You lost your job. “Why did this happen, Lord? Were you trying to get my attention because I was doing something wrong, or are You trying to increase my faith, or do You have a better career in mind? Be glorified through Your provision for my family during this difficulty and in my reactions and trust in You. Bless my wife and children with provision and security. Bless those looking on with a sense of Your goodness to us.”
There is a third, mixed reaction to difficulty that involves asking “Why?”. I am reminded of the honest answer of the father in Mark 9:24, “I do believe, help my unbelief.” I can relate well to this response. I frequently respond initially with “Why…that’s not fair?” but then consider God’s goodness in times past and the Scriptures about His faithfulness and moderate my stance to “Why is this happening in this way for my instruction and Your glory?” In reality, it usually comes out in more colloquial language: “God, what are you up to?” or “What am I supposed to learn from this?” or “How do You get glory from this?”
I mark my progress in the faith largely by how quickly I move on to trust. And at times I am finding myself responding in faith immediately. Perhaps because of a sense of inability or defenselessness, I seem to respond in trust more immediately the more drastic the difficulty or disappointment. And that is the good in trials for us, learning to trust without accusations of “WHY?”
But lest you think I am saying that I have arrived, I also shrink back into discouragement and complaining all too often. A circumstance, a Scripture, my wife, a friend, or even a stranger communicate how blessed I am and how foolish ungratefulness is and I am set, sometimes hard, back onto the path of faith. May God patiently work His plan in me and through my circumstances, and I would append that request to say, may He do it gently because I am frail (“For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust,” encourages Psalm 103:14.).
I have been thinking about Job lately. Do you feel like Job whose friend, Eliphaz, encouraged him by saying, “For man is born for trouble, as sparks fly upward.” (Job 5:7)? That’ll put pep in the step, not! I keep having to “humble [myself] under the mighty hand of God,… casting all [my] anxiety on Him, for He cares for [me]”.*
As I told my Sunday School class, “Resist temptation and replace it with something better.” Jesus is always better. Thanksgiving diverts my attention from temptation to Him. I’m preachin’ to myself. You can listen in if it gives you any help. Maybe I will even get to the place of saying with James, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” (James 1:2-4)
*I inserted personal pronouns in place of yourself, your, you.
Read Full Post »
Basis of Civil Debate
Posted in Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Fears, General, Implications, Respect, Society, tagged Being heard, Civil Debate, Discussion, Fear, Open-mindedness, Respect on June 2, 2020| 2 Comments »
What is the way forward for our country in this time of crisis?
Awhile back I was having a discussion with two people, who we will call Mr. L and Mr. S, that turned into an argument. They were on one side of a position and I was on the other. I do not like to get drawn into arguments for reasons far deeper than the immediate discomfort, but I dislike even more when truth is being trampled. Well, from my perspective, things got worse, because I was no longer concerned about the statements being made. I agreed in principle with them, but I did not like the fact that I was never heard. Mr. L and Mr. S would tell you that they fully understood me and could see that I was patently wrong, but that is simply not true. The evidence I would give is that I was never allowed to state my point, so that I was never truly heard, and therefore, they could not have known if I was wrong or not.
And this is the reason for this blog entry*. The basis for civil debate is the requirement that the views of the parties** in the debate be heard, truly heard. If not, there has not been debate, but there has been monologue, haranguing, putdown, and dismissal. This does not mean that the two or more parties must come to agreement, though that would be a further needed step for legislative progress. But they must hear each other in such a way as to believe that the other party, at the very least, thinks that their position is reasonable. The end result will be some change in all of the parties. They will have seen, I mean really seen, that is heard, another perspective. The result may well be that they have more evidence for why they don’t agree, but it might also mean that they come to see a reason to modify their own position, even if ever so slightly.
This basic tenet of civil debate and discourse has another underlying prerequisite. In order to really hear someone, you must have some minimal respect for that person or party. When that is lacking then the monologue and so forth commences. I highly suspect from watching this scenario play out numerous times and being party to this mis-step myself, that the reason for the lack of respect, and therefore lack of listening, is essentially fear. If you believe that the other party holds some wicked position or intention that will undermine your worldview, status quo, or comfort, you are apt to attack it vociferously. But if you are confident that the truth will win out, either in the short-term or long-term, you may feel at ease enough to hear the other party out for the purpose of learning or modifying your own position.
Take note that those who least hold to what is true most vehemently avoid listening to their opponents. And be doubly aware of those who feign listening but never really hear what their opponents say.
What I have essentially just defined is open-mindedness. Some who claim to be the most open-minded, the kind who will not hold to one or any particular point of view, listen the least and are the most closed-minded. Why? Frequently they are unwilling to commit to a position, not because they don’t know (agnostic), but because they don’t want to know (stubborn). Other people wear closed-mindedness as a badge, thinking that they uphold the “real” truth. Their fear of straying from their understanding of the truth causes them to cling to a shallow truth at best. These two problems reign on both extremes of political and belief perspectives and in the middle as well. In reality, their close-mindedness is of no value to anyone, including themselves. And I do not ascribe to the definition of open-mindedness that believes that there is no truth, and therefore everyone has their own truth. That is counter to Western thought, logic, and any view of the society that works.***
A listening ear is not a rejection of truth, but a confidence that there is truth and that it appears in surprising places and can instruct and benefit the hearer from wherever or whomever it comes, and that it will win out in the end.
In summary, here are the points I made: 1) Civil Debate requires that all invested parties are really heard. 2) Really hearing someone requires a little respect for the person, even if not for their position, 3) Lack of kindly respect for your debate opponent points to fear that your position might be overcome, and 4) Open-mindedness is good and beneficial for debate.
I hope that you have heard me and benefited.
*What happened to Mr.s L and S? Stay tuned. That description will come soon, but I do not want to distract from my main point.
**Modern liberal thought that absent parties must be in the debate don’t work since that means that people no longer alive, non-citizens, non-vested interests, and others not party to the debate run the debate. Equity is not that non-parties to the debate rule the debate, but that they be allowed to become parties to the debate through involvement in the process and vested interest in the debate. That involves allowance to include other parties and commitment on the part of all parties to be involved and invested. Certain parties cannot be allowed into the conversation, because their purpose and presence is disruptive.
*** Why society without truth will not work is a topic for another day, but a worthy one.
Read Full Post »