I read your blog. That was an excellent piece you wrote in response to why God allows suffering. But I have to admit, I'm still a bit confused. It seemed that one of the central tenants in your piece--having the freedom to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, as a means to enriching one's life, and as a teaching agent God gives us in order to get us on the "right" path and learn from our mistakes--doesn't seem to apply to the man who ran over his child with his car. After all, the man didn't "choose" to run over his child. Yes, it was ultimately due his negligence that his child died (and what an absolutely terrible thing to happen, by the way: I couldn't imagine this ever happening in my life), but the fact that the man killed his child has nothing to do with "choice" or "freedom". And I understand that your point about how tragedy can actually bring benefits (even though they may not seem readily recognizable) is ultimately another part of God's plan for the inevitable good of mankind. But how did running over that poor innocent child benefit that man in any way whatsoever? Even if there were some eventual identifiable, or at least conceived of "identifiable" "benefits" as a result of such a tragedy, surely the tragedy itself wasn't beneficial at the time of the child's death. And given that there apparently was no culpable fault on the man's part in the event, and he had no incentive for ending his child's life, again, I don't see why this unspeakable event had to happen at all. Additionally, I think that even if some recognizable benefits could be discerned from the man killing his own child, a person would be hard-pressed to make the case that these alleged benefits were worth the death of an innocent, since there would be way too much subjectivity involved in making such a claim.

K

Jim Solomon's response:

(Name of man who wrote), I "hear your heart" and am "with you" on the seemingly senseless tragedy, as I too would rather die than see my children accidently face death or see them die at all for that matter!

However, let me "take a shot at" your thoughts here, albeit at a time when I'm not yet "fully awake" either as you said you weren't:

The thought that comes to my mind immediately is that the little boy's death was, yes, seemingly senseless, truly and terribly tragic, and may understandably even seem useless (at least in regard to any "benefit' for the dad and his family), yet maybe was "useful" or meant to be "beneficial" to us and to other people whom God wants to bless (i.e. other human beings who could sometimes use a strong reminder of the fragility of life so that they don't take their family members' presence and existence, or the life of anyone else for whom they care, for granted). Yes, just a somewhat "subjective" thought here, yet then we can ask "then why that poor man's son rather than someone or something else as the 'wake up call?'" What about that poor father? How can he find comfort? Somewhat "subjectively" here I'd say that we could ask that about Jesus, who was the only one who was truly and fully "innocent," without sin. How could God allow His one and only son to die due to others' choices (which led to others' sins, for which Christ died)? Why? Because Christ Himself chose to do it, out of love for us, so that we can be with Him. He didn't " have to" do it, and His Father didn't have to allow it, but they did, as they knew in the "long run" Christ would rise from the dead having made not only payment for our sins which otherwise would have separated us from God forever (Romans 3:23) but also having offered us power to overcome our sinful nature, more and more each day, as we rely on His Spirit rather than ours or anyone else's, the Holy Spirit of our Savior (Romans 6:1-23ff.), to rise above what would hold us below in our thoughts, words, actions and behavioral patterns, truly living a "new" life over time (2 Corinthians 5:17) and enjoy "true life" (John 10:10) for eternity. Although there was no immediate benefit for that Father (our Father in Heaven) who lost His one and only son due to tragedy, sickness, sinfulness, and selfishness on earth," they are both rejoicing now in the spiritual realm because of all the other brothers and sisters Christ now has through his creation and His sacrifice for them to live with Him forever (Luke 15:1-7)  in a place where there will be no more sickness, no more sorrow, no more sadness, and no more suffering because of our Savior (Revelation 21)!  The dad in our story can take "comfort" knowing that there's a Greater Dad in this universe who is here to comfort him, as He can more than empathize and will truly help an earthly dad like that realize, at least over time, that his Father in Heaven knows, understands, sympathizes, and will comfort and relieve this father on earth in a way that will hopefully bring him too to heaven (Hebrews 4:15).

Another point (I hope this one's helpful) is that you've raised a good point in also seeing that the tragedy of that little boy's death didn't seem to have anything to do with "choice." Yet, going back a bit further, there was a "choice" involved that led to that tragedy and other tragedies we see in a "fallen" world throughout the history of humanity. It was the choice of our "forefathers" or "forefather" Adam and his wife Eve to choose God's will over their own (Genesis chapter 3) resulting in consequences not only for them but for all of their descendants (us) whose "seed" of existence was in their bodies and whose spirits descended from theirs. That led to what we call the concept of "original sin," that human beings are born with a tendency to be selfish, then later can learn to be selfless (we never seem to need to be "taught" to be selfish, we do that on our own, yet I believe we do have a need to be transformed or "taught" to be "self-less" through our Savior and His Spirit at work in our minds and hearts). I used to think otherwise, based on societal claims and cultural "conditioning" (i.e. the "liberal" agenda that stands against ever  thinking human beings are basically sinful and in need of a Savior but rather they teach that we're all basically "good," don't need a Savior, and simply need other influences, perhaps with the "help" of the government, to make the world a "better" place). That's a convenient belief system, as it would not require repentance (Proverbs 28:13) nor each person, one at a time, become a "better" person, but instead looking for some "system" by which the "world" would somehow become better. 

So, again, my thought is that "choice" was involved, just not that dad's choice or our choice (in the "here and now" sense of the word), simply the choice of our ancesters Adam and Even. We could say "no fair," why should I have to suffer because of what they chose, living in a "fallen" world where senseless tragedies might occur as a consequence of their sins? Yet, I think that if we were in their shoes (or mocassens?) or in their place, if we're humble and honest about it, we would have to admit that we probably would have done the same (Romans 3:4). We're no better than they were. To think so would be to say that we would never have needed a Savior and so would never have needed to rely on Christ Jesus and not ourselves for our significance and our salvation and our very lives.

Sincerely,

Jim

Subject: Re: visitor's comment on August 30, 2009:

I read your blog but can't make sense of it. Freedom to choose provides no protection from bad things i guess even if you are religious so why bother, they fall apart just like everyone else. Shouldn't god be more interested in keeping the balance? I can't see how adding tragedy is the best means to draw us closer. i mean, with friends like that who needs enemies.

I see religious people as some of the most narrow minded and insensitive I've ever known- they talk a good story but there no different. Besides, every body tells you there religion is the right one and everyone else is wrong-

I didn't mean for you to go out of your way to respond to my question with that long complicated answer, but thanks        

My (Jim Solomon's) Response:

I totally "hear you" on what you're saying as I've felt the same exact way for many years (as a former Roman Catholic turned Agnostic turned Protestant Minister-after being in the business world for several years in Boston, a place where faith in Christ is often considered "intellectual suicide!"). 

Yeah, I'd say the only protection from bad things comes eternally rather than temporally in a fallen world. I too wish it were "now" and not only "then" when it comes to protection from bad things. Yet, I've also come to see that we'll be where we are going much longer than where we are now. One guy whose writings I've appreciated, Henri Nouwen, who taught theology over at Yale and was interestingly enough a "Jesuit Priest," had said "Life on this earth is but a brief interruption of eternity" right before he unexpectedly died (ironically, he was speaking on "Death and Dying" at the San Diego Hospice Center when I heard him say this, during my graduate school years out in San Diego).

Yes, I agree that it's hard to imagine that tragedy is the best means to draw us closer-I can't see how it is-except that I haven't seen, with us stubborn human beings, a way that works better (at least not in my experience, as I think of when I lost a best friend to a drunk driving accident, eventually lost my dad to Leukemia, and have lost many other friends since-it all was a "wake up call" to me when it comes to eternity). So, yes, I truly "hear you" and agree with your sentiments. 

I too see "religious" people as some of the most narrow minded and insensitive people I've ever known-they do often talk a good story but they're no different, I think because there's been a lot of evil done in the name of God (amongst not only Christians but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintuists, and the many, many "less known" religions of the world) or even in the name of Christ but not in the Spirit of Christ, as not everyone who says they are a Christian really is and not everyone who says they know Christ have His Spirit in them (or, as my wife often reminds me, "just because you're in McDonald's doesn't mean you're a hamburger"). (Name of visitor to website), I used to literally run in the opposite direction when "religious people" approached me. I guess that's why I'm so against "religion" in the sense of all the man-made "do's and don'ts" and "rules and regulations" of "religion" and have chosen to reject religion (and all the ones I've studied and/or "tasted") but accept a relationship with God through faith in Christ. Once I rejected religion but accepted that relationship, I began to have more hope, as the hope was no longer in other human beings or "religious leaders" who have let me down but instead became a hope in the Only One in my experience who will never let you down.

Thinking of you,

Jim

Subject: Re: visitor's comment on September 1, 2009:

But you are a minister now and part of the religious establishment you talk against- there must be rules you have to keep to keep your good standing, right? And if folks don't believe what you do you kick them out or they just leave.  I suppose the religion thing gives some comfort when life gets messy but I agree that too many fanatics have caused more trouble because of their religion than seems right- everbody wants to bring you into their camp- the jehovehs or mormons, whoever, but if god exists then it should be easier to know- Jesus was supposed to return and set things right but thats been a long time now- maybe he figures it would just be more the same when he gets back so whats the point.

Thanks for taking the time it's been a trip

-(visitor's name)

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Jim Solomon <pastor@newhope-cc.com> wrote:

I'd have to say "yes' and "no" at the same time to that first thought you've expressed. I definitely have accountability to keep any "good standing," as there is a denominational official above me to help me remain "healthy" theologically and relationally in my interactions as a servant-shepherd-leader of God's people, but there's also a lot of freedom (within certain boundaries) to lead our congregation based upon who we are as a unique spiritual family within the larger family of Christians (as no two churches are exactly alike, just as no two people are alike). I guess that's why I chose The Alliance (the team of churches to which our church belongs-more on them at www.cmalliance.org) as they seemed to be the team of churches that had more "pro's" than "con's" in my perspective anyway. My supervisor in The Alliance, a man named Rev. Dr. Richard Bush, sometimes even says that we're the most "non-denominational denomination" in the sense that each congregation is somewhat "independent" yet each pastor is not a "lone ranger" as you could sometimes experience in churches that have no affiliation, sometimes unfortunately leading to building their own kingdom or "man's kingdom," rather than God's kingdom (as their leaders have no true accountability above them or around them). There's a lot more I could share in this regard, but I've probably already written more than what you might have wanted to hear (we can always talk in person on these things even more if you'd like).

Well, here's another thought: I do have some "different" perspectives than what I had experienced in the past (i.e. our church doesn't "pass the basket" in regard to collections of offerings, as I'd never want anyone to give if they are motivated by guilt and obligation-like what I had experienced in "religion" in the past-rather than joy and thanksgiving. Besides, I believe giving is not just financial but it is giving of ourselves in service to others too (and that part I think is so much better than financial giving, as some people give money to different causes but they never give their hearts to other people or to God). Somehow God has provided for our church family to survive financially, at times even more than what we've needed so that we can give back to others in more need than us. People of New Hope give if they want to give, not because they are forced to give.

That leads to a thought I just had on your other comment: I "hear you" regarding when/if "folks don't believe what you do, you kick them out or they just leave," but I'd like to share a thought on that too, if I may: I tend to not kick anyone out, unless in their disagreement they are disrupting others in a way that may be not only distracting and/or discouraging but somehow destructive to others' sense of having peace to pace themselves in their own relationship with God and His people (including me as their pastor), moving at their own pace in their spiritual journey (as I am called to be a Shepherd afterall, underneath the Great Shepherd our Lord Christ Jesus). At the same time, there are people who have come to visit us whom I've sent right back to where they came from (especially if they were coming from another supposed Bible-believing church, thinking they were leaving a problem behind them but in actuality bringing the problem with them because the problem was something within them-i.e. bitterness or resentment stemming from unforgiveness of hurts they may have experienced elsewhwere). In those cases, if the person came needing "healing," and hopefully with a humble and teachable spirit rather than their own ax to grind or "agenda," then I welcome them with open arms. However, if they come trying to turn our spiritual family into what they wanted at their last one but didn't get, I usually have them go back seeking reconciliation with whoever offended them or whoever might have been offended by them, encouraging them to at least consider examining their own hearts rather than pointing the finger at someone else's. So, I tend to send other "Christians" back.

Yet, when someone is sincerely seeking, I can't even imagine not welcoming them and then letting them move at their own pace. If they don't believe what we do, some of them do eventually leave-you're so right about that. Sometimes that's hard for me, as I love them, yet I've learned to "let go and let God" lead them-it's so nice to not have to be God but to accept that Someone Else much better than me has that job :) and is in control even when things seem out of control (Psalm 46:10). Not long ago I had somebody leave, and although it was somewhat painful for me emotionally (as it was a family I've come to love and appreciate a lot-whose lives truly seemed "transformed" from the "gutter" to something so much better), God helped me to simply "let go" and trust that if you let somebody else choose their own path, it will often lead back to you. It's kindof like what God does with each of us. He invites us to join Him, but doesn't force us to do so. (Name of visitor to website), if you could use a good laugh (I hope you'll appreciate this, but please forgive me if you find it offensive), there's that saying "If you love someone, set them free. If they don't come back, hunt them down and shoot them!" I'm definitely not being serious with that statement! Yet, when that family left (not intending to hurt my feelings, but for reasons that I and my wife and another friend of theirs in the church didn't feel were "valid," as it was a wife making a decision that could wind up negatively impacting not just her but ultimately her husband and kids, not only temporally but eternally, as they were silent in what seemed like her own domination of decision making), I had to learn to "vow" in my heart to still be friends with them and do things socially with them (which they've said they want as they say they love me and my wife and our kids), even if they are never a part of our church family again. I'm hoping to still go running with the husband, and I hope my wife will still get together with his wife, though my wife and I are still "healing" from the hurt of feeling that someone left us or "divorced us" as their shepherds (via email of all things) rather than eye to eye and face to face.

(Name of visitor to website), again, I know I've probably given you way more than what you wanted here-sorry! Yet, I hope this just gives you a little more insight into my heart, as I'm praying for you to be blessed by the creator of your heart-as I can tell it's a "real" heart

Yours and His,

Jim

p.s. One last thought: I do believe Jesus is coming back, but as it's writtten in God's Word, "To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day" so in a sense, from an "eternal" perspective, only a couple of days have passed since he rose from the dead and said He'll be back. He's patiently waiting and hoping for more and more people to come to Him before it's too late (see 2 Peter 3:8-9 if you will).

If you did want to get together in person, I'm "game" and can be reached at 203-770-3745. If not, that's okay too. God bless my friend.