Apparently a bizarre and unforeseen tornado struck Minneapolis recently. According to this post by John Piper, it hit an ELCA (mainline) Lutheran Church just as they were about to consider ecclesiastical policy regarding homosexuality. John offers a somewhat restrained interpretation of providence, suggesting that there is a link between the tornado and the policy, that God was sending a message to the mainline Lutherans regarding their move toward downplaying the biblical doctrine that homosexuality is sin. As a follow up, Justin Taylor’s comments caution us not to giggle or roll our eyes. Justin is partly right, we should not giggle. I’ve been in a tornado (Omaha, 1975!) and they are nothing to snicker at and neither is the wrath of God a laughing matter. I reserve the right, however, to roll my eyes, not over the matter of sin nor over the error of the ELCA (and the rest of the mainline liberal and “evangelical” churches) in ignoring the clear biblical teaching regarding homosexuality. We’ve had extensive discussions on the blog about the biblical teaching concerning homosexuality. We’ve even discussed the pastoral obligations Christians have to receive sinners graciously in Christ’s church (which is nothing if not a hospital for sinners).
We’ve also had discussions, however, about the problems associated with interpreting providence, first under the heading of knowing the will of God and also in response to the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities. As I pointed out in those places both as a matter of history and, more fundamentally, as a matter of biblical revelation, we are clearly taught not to try to interpret providence. It is a temptation that we must resist. When God has not revealed himself (either explicitly or by “good and necessary inference” from Scripture) we should be silent. The plain fact is that we don’t know why a tornado struck that steeple just at that moment. It is fascinating, and surely it is sobering, just as a cancer diagnosis is sobering. But think of the difficulties attached to interpreting providence. I grew up in Tornado Alley. Like snow, humidity, and hail, they were a natural fact. When the “Big One” hit Omaha in 1975 or an even bigger one hit Grand Island (Neb) the next year, was that a message from God? Was God particularly displeased with the sinners in Omaha and Grand Island? When a tornado hits a lonely farmhouse in Kansas or even wipes out an entire town (Greensburg, Kan) does that mean that God was particularly displeased with them?
What makes me roll my eyes is not the wrath of God or the folly of denying his instruction regarding sin and grace but the presumption of those who think they can know the “hidden things” of God (Deut. 29:29). The great thing to know here is that we don’t NEED to try to interpret providence. God’s Word has spoken clearly and unequivocally about the sin of homosexuality and the foolishness and blindness of ecclesiastical functionaries who arrogate authority to themselves that God has not given. Anyone remember the minor prophets? They had a thing or two to say to the church of their day about this very thing. The mainliners are committing suicide spiritually and practically by rejecting God’s Word in favor of whatever is fashionable (evangelicals take note!) and they’ve been doing it for more than a century.
We don’t need to add gravity to the Word by appealing to interpretations of providence which, in the nature of the case, is ambiguous. Piper may be right, but he may not be right. The truth is that God knows the end from the beginning. We cannot even begin to fathom what that means. God knows from eternity. He knows in a single act. He knows comprehensively. He knows intuitively. He knows freely. He knows sovereignly. He knows easily, effortlessly. He knows in a way that we can try to describe (apprehend) but in a way that we can never comprehend. One of the biggest problems with proposed interpretations of providence is this: not only do they directly contradict the express teaching of our Lord, but they also entail an insufficient appreciation for the majesty of God. I know it sounds odd to challenge John Piper on a theme like this, but that’s what is ironic. God’s ways are mysterious. They are far beyond our finding out. We’re not canonical actors. God doesn’t reveal to us the meaning of this earthquake, that flood, or that tornado. He just doesn’t. We don’t have what the classical Reformed and Lutheran theologians called “Archetypal theology,” i.e., we don’t know what God knows, the way he knows it. We have “ectypal theology,” i.e. we have “analogical” (their word) theology. God gives us analogues of his knowledge, but our intellects never intersect with his. We’re not capable of knowing what God knows, the way He knows it. Such knowledge would destroy us.
There is another problem. I’ve seen cases where a given interpretation of providence becomes binding, a kind of extra-canonical word from God, a fence around the law as it were. In such a case, Christians are no longer bound only the Word (which has to be interpreted, applied, and confessed by Christ’s church) but to the interpretation of natural revelation beyond that given in the Word. Rom. 1 teaches us the general meaning of natural revelation, but, beyond that we have no inspired interpretation and certainly not of particular episodes. The human lust to know that which we should not, to seek that which is hidden from us, is ancient and deadly. Whoever knows “God’s will for your life” is a very powerful person indeed: ask the victims of the Word-faith and Kansas City prophets (etc).
The meaning of a particular providence is hidden from us. If God wanted us to know the meaning of a particular providence, he would tell us but He hasn’t, has He? I don’t know that John is wrong, but I don’t know that he’s right. That’s just the point: I don’t have to know. We have the Word. Sola Scriptura.
Dr. Clark. . . while sharing your concerns of anyone specifically interpreting natural disasters. . . .I”m not sure that’s what Dr. Piper did. Here’s his conclusion:
6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and ALL OF US (emphasis mine): 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.
So, even though he may have been a bit heavy handed in connecting this disaster to the ELCA gathering, I think he was using it in a very “tower of Siloam” (Luke 13:4-5) way to call all men to repentance, which is what natural disasters should do, they should sober us.
Aaron Britton
Is it not possible that Jesus’ authoritative interpretations of Pilate’s mixing of the Galileans’ blood with their sacrifices and the crushing of some by tower of Siloam applies to all such disastrous providences–that every single one of them is a warning that unless we repent we shall all likewise [and eternally] perish?
It is interesting, however, that Pilate and Siloam are almost opposite instances to yesterday’s tornado. In those cases, there was no publicly known, scandalous sin; but, observers concluded that the sin must have existed *because* of the providence. In yesterday’s tornado, there is a public and scandalous sin, which we identify by Scripture, not the providence of the tornado.
And it is that same Scripture that convinces me that the post to which you link at very least correctly *applies* the providence and teaches us to think rightly about all such providences: unless we repent, we shall all likewise perish.
“Is it not possible that Jesus’ authoritative interpretations of Pilate’s mixing of the Galileans’ blood with their sacrifices and the crushing of some by tower of Siloam applies to all such disastrous providences–that every single one of them is a warning that unless we repent we shall all likewise [and eternally] perish?”
The problem is that John Piper didn’t say that a tornado is a general warning to all; he applied it to a specific situation. The open thing is what the Lord said in response to the tower’s falling; but the hidden thing is whether a specific natural disaster can be applied to a specific sin.
OK, now ELCA is departing from a(nother) plainly described Christian practice. And… God waited until now to “address” their departure from the FAITH?!? Which is worse?
Typical evangelical obsession with “public” sins of outside culture. No one even bothers arguing about unScriptural divorce anymore. Not even on the radar.
How about instead of reading Providence, the evangelical church starts doing church discipline on its own members. A little reverence for the Sabbath, anyone?
It’s curious how the unlawful interpretation of providence seems to translate into law-gospel confusion. Something that appears to be either judgment or reward happens and it’s directly related to the behavior of sinners, individually or corporately (he was born blind, I wonder what his folks did; I got a raise, must’ve done something right; 9/11 was because of Roe [no, it’s because of Wal-Mart]).
The lists could go on, but they all seem to convey the same thing: when he said, “It is finished,” he really meant, “It is semi-finished.” And does one really imagine that, as serious as certain providential afflictions are, God’s judgment isn’t much more serious and unmistakable, as in Calvary and the consummation?
I figure that the Twin Cities bridge collapse in 2007 happened during a Bethlehem Baptist Church prayer meeting when the elder were discussing a “multi-campus” vision of Piper-satellite video-preaching. I don’t think the message got through.
This tornado was probably a warning not to start Bethlehem Bible College, at least that’s how I interpret things.
Benedictus quiamnibus absoluta potentia,
Father Taciturn
The Father is correct, nevertheless, the divine displeasure extends past the second kingdom unto the first and the signing of Brett Favre by the Vikings. I’m aware that in many churches the NFL has been conflated into the second kingdom. We all know that Dallas is God’s team, hence the whole in the roof, but thats a story for a different post.
-I’m not sure I could reason this type of interpreting of providence to be much different from astrology, augury, hapatomancy, etc.
-I am curious: Would this providential interpretation fall under the classification of etiology?
Er…”hepatomancy”
I wonder what’s going to happen when Doug Wilson takes the stage at the DG National Conference?
huh…and I was waiting for the thunder during the PCA GA on FV…
🙂
Recently here in New Mexico there was a very large Jehovah’s Witness convention. The weather was beautiful the entire week. I’m a little concerned now.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for this. I have a question by way of clarification: Aren’t we heirs of the Reformation forced to interpret providence in the sense that we view the Reformers and their heirs as having been raised up by God to recover the gospel and restore the church to the apostolic pattern?
Is the difference that we interpret a posteriori–i.e., we’re not interpreting providence per se (speculating about God’s motives), so much as recognizing that the biblical gospel *was* in fact buried for centuries and then *was* recovered at a certain point in history and that certain men were particularly instrumental.
Thanks!
Hi David,
Good question. I deal with this in class frequently. Our theology teaches us that we should be very cautious (to put it mildly) about the claims we sometimes make, from Providence, about the “providential character” of the Reformation. The ground of our faith is the Word of God. Our theology is that God, in his mysterious providence, raised up the Reformers, but he also raised up Ignatius of Loyola. By that I only mean that unless we retreat to a gnostic dualism, we have to says providence is behind everything. When I say “God raised up Ignatius” I don’t mean to say that “God approves of Ignatius’ theology, piety, and practice.” Not at all! That, however, has to be judged by the Word and not by dueling interpretations of providence.
Scott,
The Westminster Standards say to us that in general revelation part of what is known in it is God’s wrath. What did they mean in the W. Standards so that we’d not try read providence and start blaming people wrongly?
It doesn’t seem like you’ve read Piper’s close carefully.
“When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God’s message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God’s judgment.”
Piper never attempts to interpret this providence in such a way as to say that God was executing his wrath against the ECLA at this particular time for this particular reason. He’s only saying that every frowning providence should drive guilty sinners towards repentance and faith, including the liberal Lutherans and their apostate theology.
“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.”
Piper went out of his way to explain that this calamity provides the opportunity for all sinners to repent, not just the ECLA. No offense Dr. Clark, but it seems like you’re constantly on the hunt for the latest error to correct. When guys like Piper are engaging culture, calling for repentance, and preaching the gospel to those in his city, here you are, Piper’s fellow brother in Christ, slamming him for his attempt to “interpret God’s providence.” Could you explain please?
He’s only saying that every frowning providence should drive guilty sinners towards repentance and faith…
I thought the Law was supposed to drive the guilty to Jesus, you know, as in the revealed things which belong to us and our children instead of the secret things.
And if frowning providence is supposed to prompt repentence, what should we do in the face of smiling providence? I mean, for every unexpected tumbling steeple there is a unforeseen fistful of cash. If the former means we aren’t right with God, does the latter mean we are? And, if so, how is that not utterly confusing?
“And if frowning providence is supposed to prompt repentence, what should we do in the face of smiling providence?”
According to Piper… Repent and believe in the gospel.
“right with God, does the latter mean we are? And, if so, how is that not utterly confusing?”
Don’t confuse justification with repentance. Hebrews 12 makes it clear that there is a difference between judgment on unjustified sinners and discipline. We could all be a little clearer, though you seem to really be putting effort to make it more confusing then it is.
Are you sure you don’t want to re-think that one?
Only if you wanted to take the time to explain why. =) (which you aren’t obligated to do, but I would listen!)
Chad,
The Reformed churches confess that the gospel is known ONLY from the Holy Scriptures:
WCF 1.6
“6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
Yes, I agree that the gospel can only be known by scripture. I am confused as to what this has to do with my post, though. (but thanks for you response and time)
Chadd,
What’s so confusing about Dt. 29:29?
Nothing…
sacramentalpiety,
The controlling sentence in Piper’s post is this:
Piper then dedicated the first three points of his argument to condemning the sin of homosexuality by citing Scripture and “official church pronouncements” as his authorities, and Piper concluded his argument by applying the tornado to the ELCA’s specific circumstance:
The “warning to . . . all of us” was an equivocation that took away from the force of his “interpretation of this Providence” and gave folks like you a reason to believe that he doesn’t think just a tad too much of himself, that is, unless you think that Piper may be flirting with the sins of approving sin, the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction, and distorting the grace of God into sensuality.
*post
SP,
We disagree on how to interpret Piper.
The whole reason for his post was to connect the tornado (which clipped the very church in which the ELCA was meeting) with the ELCA move re homosexuality. If Piper wasn’t interpreting providence, I don’t know what he was doing. Your interpretation makes John’s post inane but it wasn’t that; it was just wrong.
Heresy hunter? It depends on whose ox is being gored. Is all criticism heresy hunting?
John is doing what a lot of us do, namely appeal to convenient interpretations of providence when it suits our ends.
Melanchthon regularly appealed to astrological signs, such as in the case of Luther’s marriage to Ms. von Bora.
Dr. Clark,
Isn’t it technically inconsistent for you to say “I don’t know that John is wrong”? I thought that you were arguing that you DO know that he is wrong, assuming that the thing about which he is right or wrong is that God sent the tornado as a warning and call to repentance? Isn’t the whole point–which you make very well–that no one knows what God is doing with a particular providence? It seems to me, then, that we have to say that Piper is wrong in saying that it MEANS a particular thing or another, because God has assigned no discernible meaning to it. Or am I mistaken by moving without warrant toward the proposition “God has assigned a NON-meaning to his providences, insofar as mere human observation is concerned.”?
Andy Stager
Andy, I don’t think your non-meaning proposition is where we want to go. It seems to me that providence implies that there is meaning behind everything that happens, all according to God’s sovereign pleasure. Meaning doesn’t have to be understood in order for it to exist. That’s the arrogance of modern man. Rather than confessing to know the meaning to everything, we confess to knowing the One who does know.
I believe it would be wrong to say that prior to the final judgment that sinners will always receive proper retributive judgment for acts of sin and evil. But also I think in line with John Piper’s sentiments concerning this tornado, it would also be wrong to say that God does not met out retributive judgment prior to the final judgment. Luke 13.1-5 Jesus relates the report of 18 Galileans on whom a tower fell. On the one hand, bad things do happen to believers who are not good people but are God’s people and declared good because of Christ. Job doesn’t disprove retributive judgment prior to the final judgment but it does show that providence prior to the final judgment can be morally complex.
Just to show that I’m not a stiff-necked hardliner who is more stubborn than Balaam or his donkey, I would agree with Piper that this would have been a providential sign from heaven if the Earth had opened up and swallowed these men alive, at the very moment they voted to bring homosexuals into the ministry. But a couple hundred dollars worth of damage to rusty old steeple requires me to leap tall buildings in a single bound, if I want to make Piper’s argument stick in this circumstance.
Nevertheless, I just discovered that next month Piper plans to host his national Desiring God conference at the Minneapolis Convention Center, which, according to his post, had its roof “severely damaged” by the same tornado that took out the Lutheran steeple. Ordinarily, this kind of event wouldn’t have any more divine significance to me than the roof damage my house incurred last year after an extremely violent wind storm. We lost a few shingles one night and hammered some new ones on the next day. I’ve always understood weather-related damage to my home as part of the responsibility associated with homeownership.
However, since he broached the subject and called on everyone — including himself — to repent, I have to wonder out loud if God isn’t calling Pastor John Piper to repent of anything that might involve this year’s Desiring God conference. After all, what’s good for the homosexual is good for the heretic, isn’t it?
…I would agree with Piper that this would have been a providential sign from heaven if the Earth had opened up and swallowed these men alive, at the very moment they voted to bring homosexuals into the ministry…
But, Chunck, if the unlawful interpretation of providence becomes lawful when the event is really, really super-dooper compelling then what keeps us from interpreting 9/11? Was Falwell right that it had a good shot of having something to do with Gay Pride parades? Or maybe the left claim of the evils of capitalism?
Sorry, but to my lights the severity and uncanniness of the event doesn’t seem to alter or otherwise footnote Dt. 29:29. Indeed, it only tests our faithfulness to its meaning.
Zrim:
It’s not a question of “really super-dooper compelling” events; it’s a question of common sense in a real-life environment. For example, if you ever find yourself in a conversation with a donkey, I hope you quote Deut. 29:29 to him. Please get back to me and tell me what he says. And if I am ever an eyewitness to a Korah-like event, where God suspends the laws of nature during an ecclesiastical assembly so that the Earth could help settle a question of who should and who should not serve in the ministry, then you can quote Deut. 29:29 and I’ll quote Numbers 16:32 — and if I was you, I wouldn’t ask God to answer the question once and for all.
Chunck,
Since neither of us will be in those situations, let’s just stick with the common sense and real-life stuff. My revivalist pastor said once of grace, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile–which only confirmed my suspicion that the whole project really was glorified moralism. Likewise, when it comes to interpreting providence to make revelatory sense is just glorified horoscoping. Even with speaking donkeys. If I’m ever caught conversing with jackasses, I hope my wife gives me her shrink’s number instead of the book of Numbers.
Zrim:
As Al Pacino said in Scent of a Woman, “I’ve been around, you know.” And I’ve been around just long enough to know that you don’t know the future, despite your claim otherwise.
However, I agree with you in principle about “glorified horoscoping” but this does not make me a deist. I believe that God works in our lives and in history. Therefore, when I see an extraordinary act of providence, such as a talking mule or the Earth swallowing men alive, I believe the Ninth Commandment requires me to acknowledge the truth.
I cited both biblical narratives to illustrate that John Piper’s interpretation has more in common with Toto and the yellow brick road than a biblical judgment.
PS: Did you have to resist the temptation to write that you were (present tense) talking with a mule?
Chunck,
I wasn’t foretelling the future, I was only distinguishing between “possibility” and “probability.” It’s possible I might converse with beasts of burden, but I probably won’t.
When I see extraordinary acts of providence I still think in brutally ordinary categories. Your original point was that we can circumvent the prohibition to interpret providence; the ground you cite is it being uncanny, compelling or otherwise extraordinary. I’m denying that absolutely: there is no way to circumvent the prohibition. (Speaking mules happened within the closed canon of scripture, it has a different meaing altogether from speaking mules outside of it.) Think of the most compelling and extraordinary example you can, and it’s still untrue that we can read it as a message from on high.
Zrim:
In another thread I noted your tendency to not write clearly and this is an example of that.
When I held out the possibility that either of these miraculous events could happen, you replied,
Now, however, you’re claiming that your definitive statement was not definitive at all:
So as in our previous exchange, you have conceded my position and claimed it was yours all along.
Furthermore, you misrepresented my position when you wrote,
I cited two specific acts of providence that are recorded in Scripture as examples of the principle for my rule of interpretation, and I limited my principle to this standard alone — not events that you dismiss as “uncanny, compelling or otherwise extraordinary.”
The problem here is that you are a christian deist who wants to be a christian theist but your theology won’t allow you. I wonder how you respond if/when God answers your prayers. In fact, I wonder why you would pray at all. Do you dismiss God’s kindnesses as “brutally ordinary” events, or do you recognize them as obvious acts of providence? And if you recognize them as providence, do thank God for his “brutally ordinary” providence or do you thank him for his wonderfully providential answer to your prayer?
As before, Zrim, you painted yourself into a corner with an unbending fixed rule that makes no consistent sense. And by the way, this means that you believe the Holocaust was a brutally ordinary event and that we do no injustice to the memories of its victims when we compare abortion to it.
Chunck,
Here is what you said:
I would agree with Piper that this would have been a providential sign from heaven if the Earth had opened up and swallowed these men alive, at the very moment they voted to bring homosexuals into the ministry.
I’m saying if that had happened it wouldn’t be any more a divine comment on their behavior than a gentle breeze on the forehead of Mormon and Muslims leaders as they emerged from their meetings. I would never agree with Piper’s prying into what Calvin called that “divine labyrinth from which there is no hope of return, namely the secret and inscrutable will of God.”
The Holocaust was an extraordinary event which deserves and demands ordinary and sober assessment, not pious platitudes. At least, were I one of its victims, or an unborn person, I’d much prefer the former.
As an addendum to this comment, in retrospect I believe that I should have concluded my comment by asking, “What’s good for the Lutheran is good for the Baptist, isn’t it?” It would have followed the argument more closely.
One of these days we will realize that the thing Zrim is holding in his little picture is Chuncks head without the shades or the stupid grin!
Richard B.,
It’s not me, it’s my father. And he’s holding a cigar and a gin and tonic (a can of Stroh’s as a chaser sits near by, but give him a break, it was circa 1974). Those are way better than Max Headroom’s noodle.
Have you seen Piper’s clarification?
It’s interesting to me that he has such a strong first use of the law in his reading of providence (so much so you’d almost think that he didn’t think of himself as a Christian), but elsewhere can be so ambivalent about the law/gospel distinction itself in regard to soteriology.
Father Taciturn
Padre: He completely nullified his interpretation of the providence by removing the specific application of the tornado to the ELCA that generated a whirlwind of criticism and forced his “clarification,” which was essentially a retraction.
But if I may find a silver lining in his clarification, it’s that we now know that three years ago a metaphorical tornado brought Piper to repentance and “weaned him off the breast of the world” and “destroyed his appetite for sin.” So last week’s tornado carried no message to him.
Richard B: What’s so stupid about my grin?
Exactly. Amen, Dr. Clark.
Scott, it seems to me that interpreting providences in such a way as Piper has a solid Reformed pedigree. I’ve read many tracts where our Reformed forefathers had no qualms about attributing natural disasters to the work of God directed at specific sins of a city or country and that wasn’t seen as a odd ball theologoical error. One example that comes to mind right away is the writings of Thomas Vincent when the plague struck London in 1665 followed by the great fire in 1666. Vincent wasn’t some nut case who lacked a sophisticated understanding of Reformed theology, having penned what became the standard commentary on the shorter catechism.
I don’t doubt that there are many such examples of it and and theocracy and geocentrism.
There is a tension here between our theology and sometime practice.
It remains a bad idea for the reasons given.
Sent from my iPhone
Zrim:
I’m answering you with two different comments.
First, I absolutely believe that if the Earth opened up and swallowed these men alive at the very moment they voted to bring homosexuals into the ministry, and if the scope of the Earth’s maw was limited to the Lutheran church alone so that the damage was absolutely pinpoint, then I would cover my mouth in awe and gasp unequivocally, “This was the judgment of God.” That is, when my body stopped shaking.
And if this kind of Korah-like event carries no divine comment to you, and if it would mean no more to you than the gentle breeze on a Muslim’s forehead, then God bless you. Perhaps someday I can be as mature and faithful as you.
Second, see below.
Zrim:
I want to make sure that I understand you.
You believe that the terrorist attack on 9/11 was “really, really super dooper.”
You believe that neither you nor I will ever hear a donkey talk or see God cause the Earth to swallow men alive during an ecclesiastical assembly..
You believe that it’s a “possibility” but not a “probability” that neither you nor I will ever hear a donkey talk or see God cause the Earth to swallow men alive during an ecclesiastical assembly.
You believe that “if the Earth had opened up and swallowed these men alive, at the very moment they voted to bring homosexuals into the ministry, it wouldn’t be any more a divine comment on their behavior than a gentle breeze on the forehead of Mormon and Muslims leaders as they emerged from their meetings.”
You believe that when you “see extraordinary acts of providence,” you “still think in brutally ordinary categories.”
And you believe that “the Holocaust was an extraordinary event which deserves and demands ordinary and sober assessment, not pious platitudes.”
Do I understand you correctly?
Chunck,
Re post one, though I suggested you come up with the most compelling and extraordinary example you can, my Calvinism remains as skeptical of your Christian fantasizing as Piper’s glorified crystal-balling. The principle I mean to hold out, namely, that no providential event, no matter how trivial or compelling, may be construed as either the direct judgment or blessing of God, still stands. There is only one event left in human history that we may stand slack-jawed at as “the unmistakable judgment of God,” and that is the second coming. If that is the mark of “maturity and faithfulness,” well, you said it, not me.
Re post two, I don’t know precisely what you understand correctly, but to the extent that you seem to be doing so, yes, you have repeated most of my own words back to me relatively accurately.
Amen, Dr. Clark! I really appreciate what you have to say here about that.
I hadn’t seen the picture until I went to this good page, and read a good man’s interpretation of it…”What Should Faithful Lutherans in the ECLA Do?” by Robert A. J. Gagnon.