The Sovereignty of God in Suffering

I've heard that children will usually be the ones to ask the most profound questions of anyone. Last Thursday this was confirmed when, on the way home from a prayer meeting for missions, my seven year-old (Elizabeth) said to me, "Daddy, can I ask you a question?" "Sure!" I replied. She then proceeded to ask about the origin of evil and suffering and God's role in it (in her own 7 year-old words, of course - but this was the core of her question).
Wow. That's a tough one. There are people who have pondered this question for entire academic careers and not come up with an answer. There are also those who have come to conclusions...many conclusions. I let her know as much and also told her that it is a subject I have been thinking about a lot lately and that I would give her the best answer that I have been able to come up with so far.
I explained that, first of all, God is good and God is all-powerful; so, in order for there to be evil and suffering, God has to allow it. So, God must have a good reason to allow evil and suffering even though we may not understand that reason now. We need to realize that God does all things in such a way that He would receive the most glory. God is loving, yes. But God is also just and how would we know this about Him if there were not injustice for Him to make right? God is mercy but we would never know this if there were no offenders to show mercy to. God is patient but we would never know the extent of His patience were it not for Him allowing us such a long leash in our rebellion and disobedience and stubbornness. Therefore, in order for God to be truly glorified in all His attributes and perfections He had to allow certain things, including evil and suffering. Now, because of this, we can know our God more fully and appreciate how wonderful and marvelous He is. I realize this is just a brief answer and is pretty simplistic, but what are you going to say when a 7 year-old asks about the problem of evil?
Dr. Al Mohler has commented on this subject in relation to Hurricane Katrina on his blog. (By the way, I love the hymn he mentions. Read the words carefully.)

Relative life

Here's a response I sent to the editor at Forbes.com for an article published today:

In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?

ABC throws a curve

Last night I was blind-sided by something I saw on ABC while channel-surfing for about 5 minutes (that's about the extent of TV I get to see in any given weeknight). It was at the end of the show Boston Legal (a spinoff of The Practice). For those not familiar, the show stars James Spader as a sleazy lawyer in a fairly sleazy law firm in Boston. The characters and plots are pretty much left-wing in their slant. That's why I was so confused. From what I can gather from the 90 seconds or so that I watched, the firm had taken as a client a teacher(?) who was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in his classroom. For whatever reason, this group of lawyers decided to take his side in the courtroom battle. At the point I began watching, the judge was delivering his decision and it basically went along these lines: Scientists should not be afraid to have other theories taught alongside evolution and intelligent design is not in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Case dismissed.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.

Long time no blog

I know it's been AGES since my last post, and I apologize to both of you that checkup on my rantings fairly regularly (are there really that many?). I've been pretty busy at work and have been using my lunch hours to just get away from the computer and rest my eyes. I've also picked up a part-time job in the evenings (making my family time a little more rare and, therefore, precious). A few family updates: My youngest girl (Hannah) just turned 2 on the 14th and my boy, Isaiah, is 9 months old and crawling now. My wife started school yesterday (remember, we homeschool). Elizabeth is in 3rd grade, Faith is in 1st and Rebecca is in Kindergarten. First day went really well and the favorite subject for now is Science (they're learning about the Creation). As for myself, since I took up the part-time job to help make ends meet I had to drop the Christian Ethics class I was going to take at Midwestern Seminary. I'm kinda bummed about that, but you gotta do what you gotta do when there's a wife and 5 kids looking to you for support! Right now I'm just getting itchy for hunting season to open. Here in the KC area there's a hunting unit that runs down I-70 from here to Topeka that is allowed a special early rifle deer hunting season in October and I'm trying to find some land to hunt when it comes around. Regular season is in December & there's a week-long extended season in January. I may also borrow a friend's .22 to go after some squirrel with Elizabeth in September or October. I finished the 12 week course on 1st Peter at church and out pastor is now beginning to go through the Old Testament. We are up to Genesis 11 now. I'm also starting to do a careful reading and "fly-over" study of Isaiah. I was drawn to this particular prophet as he is the one most often quoted in the New Testament. I look forward to learning some good stuff. That's pretty much it for now. Hope to do a little more posting in the future. Look forward to hearing from those following this (if any). By the way. Saw this on Phil Johnson's Pyromaniac blog (it's at the very bottom of the post) and was rolling. It's hilarious! I love Phil's sense of humor.
Yours in Christ,
Jim