Joel writes: “Now to the business at hand. Dale, I’m yellow-carding you (yes, I keep the yellow and red cards). When we start talking about God as a causal agent, even THE supreme Causal Agent, the First Cause, we have ceased talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and have snuck (sneaked) in the god of the philosophers (as Pascal put it).”

When talking about God’s Providence, I dropped automatically into the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith V:2—
“Although, in relation to the fore-knowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”

While you may not like the language of the WCF, I think that it adequately expresses the distinction between God and His creation. See WCF III:1—
“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:(a) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

So while a hurricane is a “second cause”, God Himself is the causal agent.

So, is this beat-up on Dale day?!? :)

pax,
Dale

PW: Sorry if I offended you. I reread the conversation three times and didn’t want it to escalate to a discussion of whether Dale was lying, because at that point I’d have to probably consider dead horsing what has been a good topic and a civil tone. I generally react to discussions here much like I would in my own classroom. Sorry if I played that one too close.

Phillip wrote: “You are either lying, or have not thought through what you are saying. I’ll graciously assume the latter.”

Phillip, let me tell you a longish story.

When I was 21 years old, I lived in Orlando and had two roommates who each owned a Datsun 280-ZX. I wanted one so badly that I could taste it.

So, I bought myself a brand new, 1982 “Z-car”. My roommates and I spent the first three weekends out in front of our apartment washing and waxing our cars and getting looks from the girls in the apartments. Nothing like a sports car as a chick-magnet.

My roommates and I took turns driving to work in the mornings. One Monday, it was my turn to drive; but it was raining and my car had a car-tarp on it. So my roommate offered to drive.

I get a call at lunch telling me that my car was ground zero for a tornado that touched down in Orlando. I hadn’t made the first car payment and hadn’t made the first insurance payment. But there it was—completely beat-up; but it wasn’t totaled (since it wasn’t even a month old).

The insurance company asked for the cause of the damage. “Act of God”, I wrote on the insurance claim. What else could I say.

Tornados are regular occupancies in Florida. And I knew that God had providentially sent that tornado to touch down on top of my brand new idol.

Do I know that was the reason for my car being nuked? No. I didn’t hear any audible voices. But it was reason enough for me to abandon making my car an idol. For the next 10 years I drove around a sports car that was dented and peeling, a “thorn in the flesh” that reminded me of my personal idolatry.

If I were living in New Orleans and had to go thru this hurricane’s destruction, I would be asking myself about what I could learn from that experience. What would God have me do?

pax,
Dale

Michael: No, while I appreciate your desire for peace in the bar, I don’t particularly feel like modifying my post. I’ve made reference to three people who would feel like quite comfortable with the line of reasoning Dale used (at least at first), and I’ve no desire to encourage anyone thinking like Phelps, Falwell, or Robertson.

Now, in fact, based on Dale’s more recent posts, it sounds as if he’s trying to head in a different direction. I would rather see him do so honestly, rather than trying to pretend he was just misunderstood. If he doesn’t, though, I’ll leave him alone. It’ll be up to him to decide why his first post reminds me so much of the unholy trinity I’ve mentioned.

P.S. “Tear you to shreds” and “kick you” are both metaphors, since this is a virtual tavern. And “tear you to shreds” was listed as something I don’t intend to do, even though I think the provocation might actually be sufficient if I keep hearing crypto-fundy nonsense. {:)}

OK…..Ok…..ok…....

I think everyone needs to pick a gift and spend some time with BOB.

Dale,
Don’t throw an out-of-context scriptural quote at me unless you would like it contextualized, like the very next verse, Amos 3:7: “For the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” What prophet did God tell about Hurricane Katrina?

God’s sovereignty really gets thrown out there a lot as an explanation, or non-explanation for a lot of crap. I just don’t think God is a micromanager. I don’t think God ordained from the foundation of the world that on August 29, 2005 at 4:54 PM Central Daylight Time that it would be exactly 91 degrees F in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Not that God COULDN’T, mind you, I just don’t think He does. And if God sends hurricanes, why is there such a thing as “hurricane season?” Hey, if God does it supernaturally, to heck with the correct atmospheric conditions! Let’s see a hurricane in January! No, the conditions have to be just right for a hurricane, a tornado, a blizzard, whatever kind of inclement weather conditions we have. I don’t really believe it’s a product of the “fall” either. It just happens when the conditions are right, for what purpose, I don’t know.

It appears to me that the entire discussion of God’s control over weather gets into my favorite topic: The refusal of so many Bible believers to acknowledge that a prescientific worldview is simply not going to come over into our world without some interpretation. That Christians are OK with speaking of God riding storms is fine, but I think we have acknowledge there is some work that has to be done to bring that meaning to the average person. Scripture attributes to God a large collection of things as first causes that we know are complex events involving many secondary causes. It doesn’t remove an attribution of divine causation or God’s use of these events for His purposes. It’s doesn’t remove human response. It doesn’t remove our appreciation of Biblical language. In fact, I find my awe at God’s control of events to be increased the more I know of all that is happening at the many levels of causation. But what it should do is bring us even more into a position of epistemological humility about the specifics of why a tornado destroyed a church and killed all inside or why a hurricane hit Mississippi and not South Texas.

I’ll say it again….complex natural systems were once understood as under the direct control of the gods/God. We now stand in awe that God’s involvment may be less “direct,” but still wondrous. All of history, all of nature, all of the mortal realm is glorious and revealing of the God of Jesus Christ, but Christians often sound like believers are required to believe God is throwing lightning and making thunder.

Joel, thanks for putting into words what I couldn’t.

...and that’s all I’ve got to say about that other topic.

Now to the business at hand. Dale, I’m yellow-carding you (yes, I keep the yellow and red cards). When we start talking about God as a causal agent, even THE supreme Causal Agent, the First Cause, we have ceased talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and have snuck (sneaked) in the god of the philosophers (as Pascal put it). The human soul strives to explain natural calamities and always has. On my reading of the many Scriptures that have been cited in this thread, the warning is: don’t try to explain it. Yes, there is a reason for stuff happening. But it is not within the powers of human cognition to comprehend that reason. And I think this is important for the very reason that you have touched on: how we respond.

You have said (more or less) that it is sufficient to know that God did cause the hurricane to strike Biloxi/Gulfport for us to know how we ought to respond to it. I disagree. I can acknowledge God as responsible for a natural disaster and not be repentant, not respond in awe. Quite the contrary, I can acknowledge all those things about God as a causal agent and for that very reason hate God for it. So how do I get to the point where I understand my responsibility before God? Knowledge of God’s involvement is not sufficient. I daresay that if you can answer the question I just posed, you can also answer the question how God is not capricious (since He is not submitting to some absolute standard of rational belief and behavior). You put yourself into a box with your line of argument.

Is God looking for our meek and weak response to events beyond our control, to fall prostrate before the powers of nature? Is our God some tribal deity with a cruel streak, ready to give us flick the moment we fail to pay homage? I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it, not when we have Jesus and the cross in view as the whole point of reality. Without Jesus, we DO have the capricious tribal deity. Sorry ladies and gents, but I will shake my fist at that hurricane, that tsunami, that earthquake, (not at God), and say that it occurs in defiance of God’s redemptive plan for creation and His final and perfect will revealed in Christ. I will feel all the more the urge, the call, to combat natural and human evil and stand with others to reign it in. God is not only going to remake the heavens and the earth, he is remaking it even now. Somehow beyond the human ability to comprehend, I trust that Katrina plays some role in that redemptive plan. And the reason I trust him is because he has proven his faithfulness in his mighty works for his people, and ultimately, on the cross.

Russell Moore has a thoughtful post, and I like a lot of it….but I am going to raise the same question that I raised with the tsunami.

Why is the natural operation of the earth a manifestation of the fall? What changed about the atmospherics of this planet that causes hurricanes now, but not before sin?

I simply have a lot of trouble even with the language “God sent the hurricane.” It’s a natural system. It rains. Snows. Wind blows. Fronts move. Heat and moisture are exchanged. Not to be insulting, but the prescientific language is fine for some points, but not with others.

Lutherans who ought to become Catholics. And Lutherans becoming Catholics....so why not Josh? How thrilled his young lady would be, and what a fine zealous Catholic convert he would make :-)

Moderator Note: Wince Some pretty tough language here, PW. Could we perhaps not bring “lying” and “tear you to shreds” into the fray? I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but I hate to see things going in this direction when the overall tone is pretty civilized so far. Thanks :-) -MS

Dale: You are either lying, or have not thought through what you are saying. I’ll graciously assume the latter.

In response to a question about New Orleans and TV preachers saying “God judged New Orleans for its sins,” you asked a series of questions all specifically centered on the question of judgment for sin, capping the list with a question about comparing a meteor colliding with San Francisco (a known hotspot for “the gays” and a favorite target of Christian moralists as a result) and Antarctica.

If that does not point to the strong suggestion that God sent a hurricane to Louisiana as a response to the sin of the people of New Orleans, and that it was somehow different from the many, many hurricanes that form and dissipate out off coastal waters without disturbing even pleasure yachters, then I’ve lost all understanding of the English language.

To back down now, or to change the terms of your question right here on this web page, is akin to Pat Robertson claiming he didn’t call for Chavez’ assassination while tapes of him doing that played on radios and TVs across the country.

I affirmed in my first and second posts that God is sovereign and caused that hurricane to go where it did. (Interestingly, and wonderfully, not where people feared it might.) Nobody on this site has or would affirm that God did not sovereignly ordain the hurricane’s existence and path. But only you raised the question in relation to the sin of people and in terms of judgment, and you did so clearly, which is in direct contrast to Jesus, as I’ve already pointed out twice.

I have no desire to tear you to shreds, but if you continue to try to claim you didn’t say what you clear said, I might have to kick you. Try something Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell should have tried: apologize. At the very least, don’t insult us all by pretending you didn’t say what you said.

Dale says, “Not just control over the situation. It’s not like he had control and didn’t exercise it. Rather, He decided in eternity past, predetermined and caused that hurricane to go thru New Orleans.”

I agree. What does that have to do with the original point of discussion?

Douglas wrote: “Nobody here mentioned anything about God not having control over the situation.”

Not just control over the situation. It’s not like he had control and didn’t exercise it. Rather, He decided in eternity past, predetermined and caused that hurricane to go thru New Orleans.

And He didn’t do so capriciously (“who can I screw today…”).

“But you have to admit, your original post went a bit beyond “not speculating”...”

I’m saying that there is a reason for that calamity happening. And while God is the “first cause”, His reasons are not capricious.

pax,
Dale

Judgment is something that happens after death.

Consequences are things that happens when we run up against a specific governing principle of creation.

When bad things happen, it’s a consequence of sin.

When people talk about specific bad things happening as a punishment for specific sins, they are confusing consequences and judgment.

Douglas wrote: “the Reformers (especially the Puritans) did have a tendency to read their national situation(s) back into the OT paradigm.” and “I gladly affirm propositions 1 & 2. Being a vehement anti-Kuyperian, I most strongly deny proposition 3. Therefore, the conclusion (proposition 4), which underlies much of Puritan thought on this matter, is invalid.”

Douglas, I fully agree with you in your assessment that the Puritans had a strain of “Christendom (England/US/whatever) is now God’s covenant nation.” Yet I don’t think that invalidates your #4: “Therefore, when disasters strike us, it is for the same reasons they struck Israel.”

Recall from 1 Cor 10: “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.” Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.”

The things that happen to Israel are an example to us.

Finally, why San Francisco and not Virginia Beach? Well, I used to live in Virginia Beach! :)

Just kidding. I was trying to go to the outer most extremes.

My bottom line point is what our response should be to this calamity.

pax,
Dale

Dale says “Again, I’m not speculating on the reason that God rolled a Cat-5 hurricane up the Gulf’s alley (Dt. 29:29). All I know is that He did do it and what our (corporate and individual) response to that should be.”

Well, I guess we don’t disagree after all. Nobody here mentioned anything about God not having control over the situation. But you have to admit, your original post went a bit beyond “not speculating”...

Philip writes: “But to leap from there to the idea of linking specific events with specific
sins is not only going beyond where Scripture goes, it is going directly in
opposition to Jesus Himself, who said (in Luke
13:3, remember), “No, I tell you.””

Philip, I don’t claim to know why God sent a hurricane. All I know is that He did.

Recall from John 9: “As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him”

And the example of Job (whose councilors misplaced the cause).

In both cases there was a cause (God), but not for the reasons that was speculated.

Again, I’m not speculating on the reason that God rolled a Cat-5 hurricane up the Gulf’s alley (Dt. 29:29). All I know is that He did do it and what our (corporate and individual) response to that should be.

pax,
Dale

Tom writes: “This brings up what I guess is kind of a classic question: Does God sit up in heaven and micromanage the weather or does God just let it happen on its own?”

Which is one reason that I quoted that scripture:

Amos 3:6 - When disaster befalls a city, Amos asks, has not the Lord done it.

This isn’t just a Deistic moment: where God sets up the way that high and low-pressure systems work and the hurricane goes on its own course.

The Bible says that He is exhaustively sovereign over the little things (the number of hairs on my head) as well as the big things (Cat 5 hurricanes).

So while we may not know the reason that God sent such a hurricane up thru New Orleans, we a) know that He did do it with forethought and intent; and b) what our response should be to His doing that (repent of our sins; turn from our idols; worship Him; etc).

Tom writes: If God is indeed sending the hurricane, we might have to ask if he is not judging the entire country, and if God is, for what specifically?

There are covenant blessings and covenant cursings. Again, my example of national (covenantal) judgement for sin—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah were taken into captivity not for their personal sins but for national sins of Israel. Being Americans, we don’t tend to think in terms of covenantal blessings and cursings but individual blessings and cursings. But the Bible is replete with examples of corporate blessings and cursings being applied to individuals who didn’t deserve either.

pax,
Dale

Dale: For the sake of argument, I will grant your position that the Reformers were not “modernist”. OTOH, the Reformers (especially the Puritans) did have a tendency to read their national situation(s) back into the OT paradigm. The logic went something like this…

1) Israel was God’s special covenant nation.

2) Therefore, God brought disasters on Israel as punishment for her sins.

3) Christendom (England/US/whatever) is now God’s covenant nation.

4) Therefore, when disasters strike us, it is for the same reasons they struck Israel.

I gladly affirm propositions 1 & 2. Being a vehement anti-Kuyperian, I most strongly deny proposition 3. Therefore, the conclusion (proposition 4), which underlies much of Puritan thought on this matter, is invalid.

And I do find it interesting that you used San Francisco as your example RE: the Meteor. And again I ask, why chose S.F. over Virginia Beach?

Douglas wrote: “Or one could ask, “I wonder if our tendency to make such claims (‘God did this as a judgment’) has more to do with our modernist presuppositions (God acts in logical fashions that we have the capacity to discern) and less to do with biblical theology?””

Which is why I referenced that Oxford University Press book: Providence in Early Modern England. People were making such claims well before Modernism infected our thinking.

pax,
Dale

Blonde on Blonde is a tremendous album. Ever heard the rendition of “I Want You” from Live at Budakon?

My parents went to an Arlo Guthrie concert once. Arlo was explaining that songwriting is like fishing. Sometimes you spend all day fishing and don’t even get a bite. Then you look and realize Bob Dylan’s been sitting upstream a ways all day long, and you yell to him to at least toss some of the small ones back!

Dale: I didn’t disagree with you based on your original post, which simply asked about whether I would apply moral neutrality to God’s actions vis-a-vis San Francisco an Antarctica. Now, however, I disagree with you completely.

I did not respond to you with post-modern presuppositions, but with the words of Christ. Words which you quoted out of context in order to draw out exactly the opposite meaning of what Jesus said!

There is certainly a way to look at the world that sees every good thing as a specific blessing from God on individuals (so Joel Osteen is outrageously blessed, while Michael Spencer isn’t) and every bad thing as a specific judgment from God on individuals (so Falwell and Robertson can blame “sinners” for the 9/11 attacks). That way is based on a wrong understanding of God, in my view.

God is sovereign, a view I affirm as strongly on 9/11/2001 and 12/26/2004 as any other day, though with less comprehension. And like Jesus, I will always make the case that the earth is under general judgment, and we shall all likewise perish unless we repent and believe on Him.

But to leap from there to the idea of linking specific events with specific sins is not only going beyond where Scripture goes, it is going directly in opposition to Jesus Himself, who said (in Luke 13:3, remember), “No, I tell you.”

I can and will dismiss out-of-hand the idea that a hurricane or a tsunami is God’s specific judgment against a specific people for specific sins, or anything other than God’s general judgment on the earth. As Jesus did!

To do otherwise reminds me more than a little bit of Fred Phelps, who goes with his family to the funerals of killed Iraqi soldiers to shout at mourning family members that their son or daughter is in hell for having fought to defend America, a f-g nation.

P.S. When I talk to people in person about this issue, I am very quick to point out that the number of people killed in these events, catastrophic and horrifying though they are, is generally relatively small compared to the number of people who die due to other causes on the same date. It isn’t the “acts of God” on the large scale with which a person should be consumed, but the judgment of God on them individually—which comes at their death, which could as easily be today as any other day, catastrophe or no.

P.P.S. It is also worth noting that I have been many, many times impressed by the idea that while we have a strong “personal relationship with Christ” rhetoric, God deals with people-groups far more than with individual people, especially pre-incarnation. Even post-incarnation, promises tend to be made to groups rather than individuals.

Tom, “Blonde on Blonde” is a great album. I love “Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat”.

Unfortunately, I am not named after Bill Wyman. I am actually named after Dr. Frank Wyman, who delivered me. Guess my parents ran out of good ideas.

Wyman,
If one of the albums she gave you was “Blonde on Blonde,” there could have been something prophetic there because of the song “Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again.” I’m trying to make a connection there, and I know it’s lame. But Dylan is one of the all-time greats, no doubt about it. I’m glad someone can come on here and talk about REAL music…but I won’t get into that.

By the way, I’ve been dying to ask you if you were named after Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones?

Dale,
This brings up what I guess is kind of a classic question: Does God sit up in heaven and micromanage the weather or does God just let it happen on its own? If God is indeed sending the hurricane, we might have to ask if he is not judging the entire country, and if God is, for what specifically? The reason I say that is that this hurricane is going to touch everybody the next time they go to fill up their tanks, not to mention how much shipping costs are going to affect everything we buy, from groceries on up. Could God be judging America for its conspicuous consumption? Even some liberals might be able to get on that bandwagon.

Blasphemy, Bill!

Taken to extremes, one might say that Bob Dylan’s singing is a judgement upon those in the audience. (JN-ish)

Well, that’s how I chose my wife. What’s the big deal?

Dale: Absolutely. God controls the weather. God is sovereign, and in a sense, responsible for All things that happen. But I reiterate, short of revelation or prophecy, I think it is unwise to attribute an event to God’s judgement. So yes, God is responsible for Katrina, but no, I don’t think anyone can or should say that Katrina is God’s judgement upon New Orleans. I mean, isn’t living in Louisiana punishment enough? (JN) I know that you haven’t said that, but you seem to be defending the practice. Obviously, if a lightning bolt comes out of a clear blue sky and fries the local Satanist convention, you might reasonably draw some conclusions. But is it seldom that cut and dried.

It’s good to be king.

Travis, we shall have to hold the Dylan banner aloft here in the Tavern. Johnny Cash is another favorite of mine. I finally saw the preview for the new movie coming about him last week while watching “The Brother’s Grimm” (don’t waste your time). Anyway, Joaquin Phoenix looks just like Johnny Cash. Reese Witherspoon plays June. It’s going to be great.

I must get back to talking theology somehow. I’ve been stuffing my head full of pop-culture over the last few days. With this exception: I’m trying to work through David Wells No Place for Truth: Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. It’s like reading Os Guinness – just without the wit and clarity you find in Guinness.

Wyman, I’m with you in being a big Bob Dylan fan. He’s on the top of my list for musicians I’ve seen live in concert (tied with Andrew Peterson and Gordon Lightfoot, my other favorites).

Sounds like quite a gift you received! I’m looking forward to that PBS special, too.

Dale asks, “I wonder if our reluctance to do so has more to do with post-modern presuppositions and less to do with biblical theology?”

Or one could ask, “I wonder if our tendency to make such claims (‘God did this as a judgment’) has more to do with our modernist presuppositions (God acts in logical fashions that we have the capacity to discern) and less to do with biblical theology?”

Also, I never denied that God contols the weather. I just assert that identifying disasters specifically as judgments is dangerous. On a related note, I would concur wholeheartedly with the way Piper explicated the link between mercy and judgment in disasters in the article Michael linked to.

Wyman asks, “Is it wrong for me to be very, very happy about this given what’s going on in the rest of the world? I hope not.”

To borrow a phrase from somewhere I can’t remember, “A gift from God should never be questioned, simply accepted.”

Well, I told you all that I was going to open a can of worms! :)

Bill, Michael, Douglas, Philip, Tom—I’ll try address all of your questions/concerns/issues.

First, I’ve not claimed that this is a judgement of God for some particular sin. Please go back and re-read what I said.

Second, there are a few Scriptures that come to mind:

• Luke 13:4-5—Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
  
• Amos 3:6—When disaster befalls a city, Amos asks, has not the Lord done it.
  
• Job 2:10—The foolish women Job speaks of receive good things from God but refuse to acknowledge His judgments.
  
• Ps 58. Here’s the end of the chapter: Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, Like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun. Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green and the burning alike. The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely there is a God who judges on earth!”
  
• Isa 29:6—From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.
  

Third, after 9/11 I picked up an Oxford University Press book titled Providence in Early Modern England. The early Reformers didn’t hesitate to identify God’s hand of judgement in “acts of God”. The book is 300+ pages packed with examples of this.

I wonder if our reluctance to do so has more to do with post-modern presuppositions and less to do with biblical theology?

Finally, don’t forget that the same word in Greek (peirasmos) can be translated as either temptation or trial/testing. It would seem that what’s important to God is not that we can identify his secret purpose for some given calamity (Dt. 29:29) but rather how we respond to them when they happen: by honoring God; turning away from our idols; and turning to God in worship and thankfulness.

pax,
Dale

Ha! You’re probably right!!

I’m a big Bob Dylan fan actually, much to the chagrine of my seraphic wife and the vast majority of my church. By the way, PBS will air a two-part Martin Scorcese-directed documentary on Dylan later this month.

Whenever I have my last sermon here, I will be singing “Visions of Johana” from the pulpit….and, ironically, the day I sing “Visions of Johana” from the pulpit will be my last Sunday as pastor. Weird.