|
||
|
Text: Habakkuk (selected) ~ Written sometime in the 7th century prior to Judah’s (Southern Kingdom) total defeat by Babylon. ~ Written by Habakkuk: we know very little about his ancestry. ● Instead of speaking God’s word to us, Habakkuk speaks our words to God. In a rather ‘candid’ way, he voices our frustrations with life and God; he echoes our disappointment when life and God prove to be less than accommodating. We’re almost curious to continue reading just to find out how God is going to respond! ● It’s one of the things I love about the Bible and why I’m so captivated by guys like Habakkuk: the ability to be honest about the really painful things that happen in life. I love the incredibly gutsy way that people dialogued with God; secure enough in their relationship (or just ‘fed up enough’--- sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference) to be able to speak in a rather ‘unedited’ way with him (this is ‘live’; no 5-second delay). ● It makes us realize that holiness [what sets him apart] doesn’t mean “unapproachable” or “fragile”; that God is ‘other’ enough to tolerate my occasional tirades without jeopardizing his love for me [I was told you didn’t raise your voice to the Almighty!] Maybe it’s his holiness that compels him to move toward us, and not away from us? Maybe it’s his holiness that makes him the most qualified to be with us? To demonstrate to us what it’s like to be fully human. Maybe it’s his holiness that allows him to risk ‘flesh’; to live among us? Maybe it’s his holiness that actually makes him approachable? ● Habakkuk is a book that ‘messes with our faith’. It seems to raise too many questions; it deals with too many controversial topics, but, it refuses to let life and God go uninvestigated… undiscovered. Actually, it necessitates the search. Habakkuk uses heavy doses of sarcasm; he utilizes almost passive-aggressive types of accusations about God. But, what’s often most troubling--- a disturbing silence on God’s part. ● I am realizing that as informed and educated and thorough as my theology will ever be, it is still not to be equated with “truth”. [Theology is how we talk about the truth; how we communicate what we understand about God.] ● Our theology is shaped by the kinds of questions that we ask in our pursuit of truth (what’s real). Those questions are most often prompted by the story we tell. That’s why we must be telling a ‘coherent’ story, rather than piecing one together to confront each new faith-challenge. We often are left piecing together our ‘faith’ from one crisis to the next, which leaves our faith appearing very subjective. ● Life-circumstances often challenge our story; our ‘worldview’. They confront us both with our explanations of how life is meant to work and our understanding of the extent of God’s involvement/participation. We should never underestimate the power/influence of these times and the conclusions with which we are left. ● So, not only do these times cause significant inner-conflict, but they lead us toward making statements that are profoundly ‘theological’ in nature [though not often thought out or satisfactory. ● We would usually speak about evil (disorder: ‘not as it ought to be’) in the context of the things humanity does to each other and the things which occur more ‘naturally’ (as a result of the way the world works). That people are often angry or vindictive or corrupt or dangerous seems less problematic to us than devastating typhoons or fires or birth defects. ● So, when seeking to reconcile the presence of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (order and disorder), we often frame them within this type of deductive reasoning:
“If God is good and
if God is all-powerful, then why does he allow bad things to happen in the
world?” ● The problem is in dealing with the conclusion which is based upon our understanding of the (2) premises. It’s formed as a question because conclusion doesn’t seem to logically flow out of the premises. ● What I am suggesting is that maybe the issue is not with God or the world, but our assumptions about who God ought to be and what he ought to do in order to claim the title “God”. [often what we ‘see’ prevents us from ‘seeing’]. ● In trying to figure out what God is like, we most often start with ourselves: we reach conclusions about what we are like and then make assumptions about what God must be like [maybe he’s the ultimate expression of anything that we celebrate as ‘good’ in us or that maybe he’s the polar opposite of everything we are]. ● Listen, to simply say, “God’s ways are not our ways”, will not suffice for people who suffer the consequences of great evils. ● The first assumption is that “God is good”. “Good” seems to include such concepts as right, favorable, pleasing, beneficial. What’s the basis for our judgment of ‘good’ and ‘bad’? Usually, pleasure is good, discomfort is bad. But, we have to realize that our conclusions are drawn based on limited information/experience and very narrow perspectives. Sometimes we are just not able to make those determinations. On the other hand, if ‘good’ simply means that God is committed to the prevention/elimination of any discomfort or painful circumstances in our lives, then it would be hard to reconcile the ‘bad things’ that happen to us. ● The second assumption is that “God is all-powerful” [expressions we use in our attempt to explain God]. If he is all-powerful, then I would expect him to utilize those powers to make my world conform to my explanation of goodness. ● It assumes, then, that we should remind God of his goodness and attempt to convince him that he needs to ‘intervene’ in such a way as to eliminate evil and demonstrate his power. That’s where “prayer” comes in. ● Even though we may not be aware, even our prayers are guided by the assumptions that we have reached about God and how he should respond to us. Pray becomes an exercise in rehearsing all that’s wrong with my life/world, assuming that being ‘all-powerful’, he will have no difficulty giving us what we ask for since we can’t get it on our own! (which is often why we pray) ● If he does not answer our prayers, then we are faced with a whole new set of questions. - It usually begins with the ever popular “not enough faith” approach, or, the always comforting, “There must be some hidden sin in your life” [guilty on both counts!] - Typically, someone will then suggest that it’s not God, it’s our prayers. So, we look for ways to ‘tweak’ the appeal to ensure a higher percentage! - We re-word them, or repeat them, or try them in different combinations; if that fails, utilize your ‘old English’. - Mix it up on the timing (a little earlier when God’s still ‘groggy’); throw it in with another prayer to distract him! - Attempt to convince him that it’s a good P.R. move (it would be in his best interest to answer it this way, after all, all we want is ‘his glory’, right?) - Quote the Bible to God (our ‘go to’ move) ● In all this, prayer seems to lose something of its ‘wonder’; it’s ‘intimacy’. It seems to focused on getting prayer to “work” for me. Instead of pausing to pay attention to God, marveling at the thought of interaction with Creator-God, we seem more focused on getting God’s attention. A statement and a question: ►If it’s dependent upon certainty, unencumbered by doubt and always manageable… it’s not faith! Even the capacity seems to be a gift from God (maybe because he understands how hard it is for us to trust). ►If God orchestrated everything so as to eliminate pain, how would you explain the ‘incarnation’? ● For us to say that “God is good” is really more a declaration about his nature than an explanation of our experience [to declare that God is good—in the midst of some pretty ‘raunchy’ life-circumstances, takes faith]. The question of God’s goodness may be best addressed in sovereignty and sovereignty is essentially about “trust” not “explanations”. ● Sovereignty means that we are learning to trust God’s essential goodness despite some pretty conflicting evidence; it’s being convinced that our life is not just a chaotic mess spiraling out of control, but moving toward a purposed-end: ‘shalom’ (wholeness; everything functional). This declaration is usually made with a lump in our throat and a crack in our voice. I am realizing that sovereignty actually means that there are no limits to God’s goodness! [because of his capacity to work with ‘all things’—Romans 8:28] There is no ‘quotient’ or ‘statute of limitations’ on grace. Habakkuk 2:20 “But the Lord is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him”. ● Here’s what happens to me in that silence: [after I’ve argued, bartered and pleaded] - I get to rehearse all the stupid things I just said to God. - I am provided the opportunity to stop talking long enough to hear another voice besides my own; frankly, I could use a more objective perspective. - I realize that I have now been stripped of every other reasonable option except sheer dependence. - I exchange my superficial faith for one that’s more authentic; a faith that’s better suited to address my life and my world. ►Prayer and rightly-ordered living must always be responses to God and not simply means of ensuring a favorable response from him. Frankly, I’m not convinced that clarity is always what we are after (sometimes more information makes it harder to believe). We often expend way too much energy on getting answers which will not satisfy us anyway. ►To focus on the question is to miss the answer. Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and don’t lean on your own understanding…” ● When I’m freakin’ out, I like someone else a little less frantic around; someone who will respond in unpredictable (illogical) ways to my circumstance--- calmly (1 Kings: Elijah—wind, earthquake, fire… gentle whisper)
● Transcendence matters
because I need God to be “other”; larger than life! (so to speak) But, presence
matters because I need to know he knows. |
