Like Button

Friday, September 27, 2013

For a Reason

You cannot visit a difficult circumstance without hearing someone say, "Everything happens for a reason." At first glance, it is obviously intended to be comforting. A second look, of course, makes it pretty stupid. I mean, this is simple physics. Everything does happen for a reason. Nothing (except God) is self-made. Everything that has come into being has a cause. So in the light of this fact, you might wonder exactly how comforting "Everything happens for a reason" is really going to be. But let's take a look anyway.

The atheist will assure me that this is all nonsense. "Don't be silly. We are the product of natural forces at work. It is not true that everything happens for a higher-purpose kind of reason. It just ... happens." Oh, good. So now what do I do with my "difficult circumstance." Just grin and bear it, I suppose. No, no help there.

A large portion of Christianity today is quite convinced -- they will tell you -- "Everything happens for a reason" and that reason may not be God. The range of things that happen without God varies. Some are quite sure that anything bad (meaning anything unpleasant) is not caused by God. That would include everything from the passing of a loved one to the passing of a hurricane. These are on the "deist" edge, with the (unspoken) idea that God takes a kind of "hands off" approach and stuff ... just ... happens. But most use the idea to indicate that God doesn't have any input on sin -- the evil that men do. This group will likely avoid the question of natural disasters -- "Did God do that?" "Well, let's not talk about that." -- but are adamant that Man sins and God would like to stop it but just ... what, can't? Won't? Not sure here. The notion most often advanced is that God has a prior commitment to Man's Free Will and has limited Himself in order to allow Man's Free Will to operate because, after all, true love doesn't exist if it's not a product of Free Will. "Oh, really?" I will ask. "Can you give me a biblical reference for that or, perhaps, a dictionary reference that equates 'love' with 'Free Will' by definition?" No, they can't, but everyone knows it's true, so it must be. "I read it on the Internet, and they can't put it on the Internet if it's not true." That sort of thing.

So we come up to our "difficult circumstance" and we're looking for some comfort and are told, "It wasn't God. It was Man's evil." Keeping in mind that "Everything happens for a reason" (which is a necessary fact, even if it's not how most people mean it when they say it), what can I conclude? Well, apparently the reason that this happened is that God has a higher prior commitment to Man's Free Will than He has for my well-being. He could have stopped it, but, too bad, He is dedicated to limited sovereignty and letting Man do as he pleases, so, sorry, you're out of luck. And I ask, "That's supposed to bring me comfort?" "Yeah! God didn't do it." Okay, so the fact that God's commitment to the Free Will of sinners who hate Him insures that they will do bad things to me is supposed to make me feel better? When God saw that terrorists were flying aircraft into buildings to kill thousands and did nothing because He wanted their Free Will rather than His will, that's supposed to make me feel better? That's a good reason?

The God I see in the Bible is not self-limiting. He is Sovereign. He doesn't make the same mistake that we make, placing the interests of Man above the interests of God. He isn't an idolater, serving the created rather than the Creator. Everything that is done is done for His glory. And He does everything for His glory that He intends to do. The answer of this perspective to the "difficult circumstances" is, without fail, "God allowed it, planned for it, and saw to it for good. He works all things together for good -- even this." Now, I understand that this may not comfort some. They might think that God is obligated to be nice to them. I've heard of the "omnibenevolence of God" as if it's a real thing. I've heard of it, but I can't find it in my Bible. They might think that God is a megalomaniac, focusing so much on His own glory. But if He is the center of the universe, the reason for all existence, the One from whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, then I'd call it "expected" and "reality", not "megalomania". (Megalomania is a disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. With God, it is no fantasy.)

I find great comfort in the Sovereignty of God. Others may not. I would be loath to surrender that precious doctrine because it is of such great comfort to me. But I don't believe it because it is comforting. I believe it because I've become convinced of it in the pages of my Bible. It was there that I first found this concept, somewhat against my will even. However, when I embraced it, I could find little comfort anywhere else. For what reason does God allow -- even cause -- unpleasant things to occur? Because of His great glory. You know what? That's good enough for me. To God be the glory.

5 comments:

Danny Wright said...

When someone says this, it is simply evidence of their anthropocentric mindset. Everything that happens in the cosmos, therefore, must happen for my eventual good. Why else would it happen?

Josh said...

Doesn't God serve the creation though? Jesus said he didn't come to be served, but to serve. Are you saying that through serving the creation, he is ultimately serving the creator.

Stan said...

No, God doesn't serve the creation. If He does, then He is the same idolater that Man is (Rom 1:23, 25). God maintains creation (Col 1:17), but for Himself (Col 1:16), not for the sake of creation.

I'm saying that all God does He does for His own glory. (See, for instance, my post on the subject some time ago.)

Josh said...

Serving doesn't mean worshiping. It is quite clear that as Jesus washed his disciples feet. He served them. God does serve his creation.

Stan said...

I think I said, "God maintains creation (Col 1:17), but for Himself (Col 1:16), not for the sake of creation." With what part of that do you disagree?

And since you assert He serves His creation, for what purpose does He do so (since that is the point of my post)?