The Things God is Terrible At (And Why That’s Good News for Us.): POTUS

My brother posted an interesting comment that he had read concerning the current political race in these United States. The poster had declared that the incumbent president was practicing love for "the (the U.S.) enemies" and that the poster prayed to God that the incumbent president would not see a second term. To which my brother noted was "invoking God to go against the teachings of Jesus."

That, I think, is very interesting.

A while back I had started (and admittedly did not finish) a series of posts call "The things that God is terrible at, and why that's good for us."

POTUS is one of those things that I think fits into that series.

While the owner of the subject comment was likely unaware of the implications of the scenario that they conjured up, they do raise an interesting point.

God/Jesus would be a terrible POTUS.

All of the things that we generally cherish in this country concerning our "rights" or "freedoms" or order of governance would come to question under the presidency of Jesus.

How would candidate Jesus fair when it comes to questions of international policy?
What about Iran?
or better yet, Al Qaida/Osama bin Laden?

Seems a policy that reflected "loving one's enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44) would the answer, but certainly not the one that would be popular among the U.S. populace.

What about Gun Control? Second Amendment rights?

Swords in Plowshares? (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
That leaves us a little defenseless, doesn't it candidate Jesus?

What about the judiciary system? or the death penalty?

You've been through that and aren't a fan eh? (Luke 23:34, Romans 2:1-4)

What about nationalism? Love for one's country?

The people of God are called to be unlike the other nations? To not have a system of governance or to have interests for self over God? (1 Samuel 8)

The reality is this, there is no candidate that appropriately reflects the teachings of Jesus/God in their governance or their life. There is no "Christian" candidate, in the sense that there is no Christ-like candidate.
So while the commentator's assertion about the POTUS would be radical and Christ-like, it just isn't true. Heck, the incumbent president ordered and celebrated the execution of one of "our" enemies.

But the most disturbing part about the conversation is the hypothetical implication: That followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the True Life, The King of Kings, would never elect Jesus for president because that guy would just be way too radical to follow.

Jesus would make a "terrible" president and, honestly, I'm okay with that.

An Unassuming Voice

We hear about the injury,
the accident,
the death.
Of a coworker,
a friend,
a loved one.

We hear the politician,
the preacher,
the anchor.

Decry the wrong,
the perversion,
the society at large.

And the words that come bubbling out of our mouths are:
Anger at the injustice that has come forth from evil itself,
Hate for the one's responsible,
Momentary sympathy for those who have been hurt,
Calls for an apology,
a change,
retaliation.

But the voice that is seldom heard is the one that is the least boastful,
least knowing,
least declaratory.

The voice seldom heard is nary any noise at all,
Not even a whimper.

The voice seldom heard is quiet, patient, and kind.

The voice seldom heard has hope in all things,
believes in all things,
and endures in all things.

The voice seldom heard makes no assumptions.
And so it does not make noise, but rather, silence.
It is only in silence that a still small voice can be heard.
An unassuming voice, whose name is love.

The Things God is Terrible At (And Why That’s Good News for Us.) Part 1

As I was listening to the sermon in church the other Sunday, I was moved by the absolute truth of the mercy and grace that God gives. The scripture came from the Gospel of Matthew 13:1-8, 18-23; The parable of the sower. This parable is not new to me and the connection between unbelievable grace and God was certainly not new. But this is sort of how the sermon went and where my thoughts have gone:

The parable of the sower has a farmer sowing seed in a field. Some of the seed falls onto good soil, some falls onto rocky soil, some falls onto the path, and some more falls into some thorny bushes.  

Once the seeds mature and start to grow, the type of soil they’ve been sown into affects their growth. 

The seed on the path is immediately eaten by birds. 

The seed in the thorny bushes grows a little but is choked out by the thorns. 

The seed in the rocky soil begins to grow but the roots can’t dig in and they die. 

The seed in the good soil grows up good and strong. 

The thing about parables is that they always have some sort of hook. There is something not quite right in a parable and that is meant to challenge the listener’s outlook. In the Gospels, the disciples are often left scratching their heads at the parables Jesus tells. However, that does not mean that their content was completely foreign to the audience, just the connection between the story and God. 

So in this parable, the disciples convince Jesus to reveal to them the true meaning behind it.

Jesus explains that God is the farmer sowing seeds.

The plants are people who hear the message about God.

The types of soil are their faith.

But the thing to note about this parable is not really about the fate of the seeds. 

Anybody who has done any farming would automatically know that seeds sown into anything but good soil don’t really have great odds at making it as a fully grown plant.

That fact comes as no surprise to the people to whom Jesus is speaking. 

What does come off as a bit shocking is the farmer’s actions.

This is our hook.

This is where we learn something about the nature of God.

This is where the audience discovers that God is a terrible farmer.

Now wait a minute.

That can’t be right.

Isn’t there some philosophical quandary about God and a rock so large that God couldn’t lift it, to help us demonstrate that the only real limits on God are the ones God chooses?

So how can God be terrible at something?

Well lets think about this parable.

Like I said, ANYONE who has ever farmed before would know not to throw seeds willy-nilly.

And here we inexplicably find God seeming to care for his seed like a happily careless child.

God doesn’t really seem concerned with growth models, harvest quotas, or the statistical advantages of the good soil.

God just throws caution to the wind and sows seed into every patch of soil around.

Now that is absolutely crazy.

That makes no sense.

Those numbers don’t add up, those odds are terrible.

Farmer God wastes energy, time and resources caring for seeds that have almost no chance of maturing.

And here’s the absolutely wonderful thing about God.

God isn’t us.

God doesn’t care about numbers,

or quotas

or growth models

or rates of efficiency.

God cares about creation,

for the chance of life,

for the beauty in overcoming the odds,

for the least of these.

When it comes to giving people a chance to be in relationship with God, God throws caution to the wind and sows like a careless child.

God doesn’t care where you’re coming from, what circumstances you’ve grown up in, the pressures of the world that surround you.

God loves you where you are.

God gives you a chance to grow.

God wants you to grow and mature.

God wants everyone to grow.

But here’s the thing.

Not everybody is in good soil.

Not everybody is ready.

But God knows that without the chance, 

Without that seed being sown in the rocky soil, 

No one would grow there anyway. 

So this was the central point of the sermon: What if we gave out the kind of grace that God gives out?

What if we threw caution to the wind and stopped caring about the right people to come along in order for us to show God’s grace and love?

What if we looked at everybody as a child of God,

A God that gives grace.

A God that sows seed like a child.

This all got me thinking, what else is God really terrible at?

Because odds are,

Whatever God is terrible at,

Is really good for us.

Critiquing Rob Bell

“In Bell’s theology, God is love, a love that never burns hot with anger and a love that cannot distinguish or discriminate. “Jesus’ story,” Bell says, “is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love and it is for everybody, everywhere” (vii). Therefore, he reasons, “we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he’s anybody else’s” (152). This is tragic. It’s as if Bell wants every earthly father to love every child in the world in the exact same way. If you rob a father of his unique, specific, not-for-everyone love, you rob the children of their greatest treasure. It reminds me of the T-shirt, “Jesus Loves You. Then Again He Loves Everybody.” There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to. The good news is that in love God sent his Son to live for our lives and die for our deaths, suffering the God-forsakenness we deserved so that we might call God our God and we who trust in Christ might be his children. The sad irony is that while Bell would very much like us to know the love of God, he has taken away the very thing in which God’s love is chiefly known: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).” (16)

This is exactly the argument that Bell is writing against. You can take issue with his exegesis, you can take issue with his understanding of heaven and hell, and you can even take issue with how he portrays sin. All of that I understand and there is room to develop discussion around those issues. However, this argument, this belief, is incredible to me.

The above paragraph comes from Kevin DeYoung, out of East Lansing. He is writing an exhaustive critique of Love Wins from the perspective of “Evangelicals.” Kevin writes in his critique, that “Bell’s god is a small god, so bound by notions of radical free will that I wonder how Bell can be so confident God’s love will melt the hardest heart.” (17) 

DeYoung says that “Bell’s god” is small.

“Bell’s god” is bound.

And yet here I am reading this critique and the point that really sticks for me, is what he says right before that, that God CAN NOT love everyone. God is INCAPABLE of loving everyone. God HAS NOT THE HEART to care for everyone.

He says that “There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to.” 

That isn’t Good News?

That isn’t The Good News?

I guess I’m a little confused at this point. This is the part where DeYoung is ramping up to show how Bell’s view of the Cross and of God are perverted and weak. 

And the message I get is that God CAN’T.

Not only is God INCAPABLE here, but the message seems to be that Christians SHOULD NOT share.

After all, if the message of salvation in Christ was spread to the entire world, and accepted by the entire world, then God would be INCAPABLE of loving all the Christians.

So the Good News of Christ is that we can horde our faith.

We can hide out from the world.

God’s love is ours.

Not theirs.

This is what is disheartening to me. When I hear Christians proclaim like a spoiled child that God is not available, even for all who would wish to receive God.

I recommend that you read both Bell’s book and the critique by DeYoung, because they both have good points within them. What I have written here is not an exhaustive critique of any writing. 

I’m just pointing out where I see someone missing the point.

Here's a link to DeYoung's critique, courtesy of the GospelCoalition: Love Wins Review