Whilst i agree it is worth critiquing the enlightenement world view I am not so sure the answer is to replace it with a medieval or ancient one where everything bad is a judgement from God and conversely everything good is a direct blessing.
Do we not need a worldview of cause/effect sin and blessing that can incorporate both:
creation =>fall=>redemption
[whre we are fallen sinners, totally depraved, God is going to throw his creation away as it has fallen from perfection, and we need to be rescued from it by Jesus who came to die for us, to the new perfect world God will make in heaven. In other words we are human beings who can have a spiritual life and experience.] and
creation => incarnation => new creation
[we are already spiritual beings. we were made in the image of God, the creator of the universe and beyond. we are part of a good world, that God loves so much he sent his son to. But are we really living, would we like to be human, as you were meant to be. Christ’s life and death make it possible to enter into life with God now, that will last for eternity, with so much for us to do with this new life in partnership with God. In other words we are a spiritual being who can be human, in the way Christ showed us]?

I do think that both natural disasters and man made ones can be thought of as ‘God’s judgement’ in the OT. That picture very much changes in the NT and in some ways becomes transformed and subsumed under apocalyptic. Following a more NT approach may be what today’s church is doing.
Whether 9/11 is to be thought of as a consequence of God’s judgement can’t be decided by looking at the cause and effect relations but has also to be revealed and perhaps preceded by a prophetic warning. I don’t think that in this OT sense one could call it a judgement. Perhaps may it be interpreted as a warning?
From a third world perspective, I recall the horror and sorrow of 9/11 but the significance, if any, will have to be discerned by Americans and that too spiritually.
Somehow, the connection between worldview thinking and recognising, or not, God’s prophetic actions I just don’t get. I should probably read the book!

I’m not sure how replacing WV thinking with what Keillor recommends makes any difference. It still seems that he’s stuck with an anthropological starting point–God’s view of the self, rather than the self’s view of reality. What’s the difference?
Why not start with God and His creation, which has been hijacked by Sin and Death, a tragic story that is running its mad course? It seems that from that vantage point–a narrative construct–you can allow for multiple causality and multiple narrative roles; God as fully participating in the tragic unfolding of God’s broken creation; God as sovereign Judge and coming Redeemer, etc. God doesn’t play just one role in the unfolding of the story.
At any rate, I’ve been fascinated by Keillor’s project, but won’t get to it until this packed Spring semester is finished.

I am a Mennonite pastor here in Atlanta and this past weekend has been somewhat busy because of the bus accident. Is Keillor telling me that when I talked and prayer with parents and students from the bus accident that I should have been telling them that this bus accident was God’s judgment on Bluffton University for drifting to the more liberal side of the equation?
What I said was that God’s ways are beyond tracing out, but we do know that the cross has shown us that God is in the midst of the suffering and pain with us. Maybe that was too simple, but we Mennos try to keep it simple.
Is refusing to try to answer all the questions a form of agnosticism? Or Is it the admission that we are creatures of a God that works in ways that we cannot understand?

I have thought deeply tbout this question because it is often posed to me by non-theists. They say: “How can you believe in a judging God who would cause people to suffer?” To my mind, people are shifting responsibilty for human acts to God when they say things happen as God’s judgment. It actually makes me angry. I would say 95 percent or more of the bad things that happen are the result of human folly, and God should not be blamed for them. They happen IN SPITE of God having given his revelation of how to live in the world. It is humans who choose to wilfully ignore or misinterpret God’s will. I think Jesus makes this point over and over. To my mind, God did not make those men fly those planes into the World Trade Center to punish Americans, despite the fact that Americans have, like Middle Easterners, done ill-advised things. The hijackers did it despite God’s repeated revelation that humans should love, care for and forgive each other. And God gave us a revelation that said we should have forgiven those hijackers, but we chose to take the easier path of revenge. Does acting outside of God’s will build up series of events that look like God’s judgment? Yes. Of course. And while it becomes somewhat semantic, I think the distinction is important: bloodbath actions grieve God; they are not God’s judgment. I don’t want to let us off the hook.

It seems that Keillor is taking aim at a particular type of worldview (human centered, materialist, rationalist) and calling that “worldview” in general.
For what it’s worth, I immediately saw 9-11 through the lens of the fall of Babylon in Revelation 18. The lament over Babylon is exclusively in terms of economics and trade; the Twin Towers were the icon of New York’s financial district. Not that I thought that this was a literal “fulfillment”; but perhaps a warning or foretaste.
To Chris Jones (#4): Comforting the bereaved is not the same thing as assessing the significance of an event. And I hope not even Keillor is suggesting the direct hand of God in every event that takes place. But by the same token, I don’t think we should shut ourselves off from recognizing any divine significance in particularly momentous events.

Keillor makes a point — and I can’t see how he is consistent in this (maybe the book will clarify later) — that his reflections are not about the individuals who died but about the event itself (any event seen as an act of God).

As far as the NT perspective and method being different, Paul reminds us in Galatians to:
“be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall a man also reap.”
While most of us find it easy to assign some significant blame on a broad basis, God gets right to the heart of the individual’s personal responsibility within the crowd of the catastrophe.

On the other hand, Jesus addresses the tendency on man to assign individual blame simply for being involved in a catastrophe. He destroys the thought that men are involved in a catastrophe because of their personal sin or because their sin was greater than another person.
Most of the time, there are a few factors that are completely overlooked, especially in the “Christian Worldview,” which, if noted and heeded, changes the Christian’s response to current events, especially catastrophes, of the “world.” Job comes to mind.

We’ve been using (I guess the author decided that) the term ‘judgment’ accross the board. Is there room in Keillor’s thinking for ‘discipline’? Does he see these as interchangeable? It seems like he does. Is he really asking the question ‘Are catastrophes God’s disciplining us?’ That would support the point about it being ‘not about the individuals who died’ but more about others.
I’ve often thought that now even ‘agents of Satan’ get used by God for the good of those who are getting pulled into God’s purposes. It seems like this is what Keillor is saying, at least in part.
Regarding 9/11, there seems to be a sowing and reaping dynamic that Keillor is saying applies on the macro level. I can’t say I disagree with that.

it’s very difficult for me to get past the notion that God’s judgment has little to do with the victims … esp. since i knew some very godly 9/11 victims–they died leading others to Christ. god’s mercy shows up in the midst of judgment–how like Him.
however, if it was judgment, it makes much more sense to say it is for materialism, importing cultural filth, etc. than to take the noxious falwell/robertson route.
something that struck me as i was working in nyc in the months after 9/11 was the choice of a target–one of the largest, if not the largest, jewish populations in the world. those terrorists hated the jews, and they hate the united states for supporting them. where does that fit into the judgment equation?

David Bentley Hart’s short but substantive little book “The Doors of the Sea : Where was God in the Tsunami?” is a must read on this subject …

Since everything is decreed by God (Eph. 1:9-11) down to the minute detail, then in the mind of God there must be some kind of “logic” to events that happen. Whether a particular accident or tragedy is God’s judgement or not, I don’t know, but everything is by God’s decree. Unless we believe God’s decree is capricious, and that God, therefore, is capricious, we are left with mystery. We’re left agnostic.

Immediate cause and effect in a particular event, whether “man-made” or “natural,” is impossible to trace with any absolute authority or accuracy by men (except, of course, for the infallible pronouncements of Science) for the simple reason that we are men, creatures whose scope and judgment in life are limited in every way, and certainly not least by the debilitating effects of sin. This is why our comforts, judgments and counsel to people caught in the vortex of evil and tragedy must NOT be based upon mistaken presumptions, as was the case with Job’s comforters.
My own personal suffering and pain may, or may NOT, be directly or indirectly due to my own personal sin, or even someone else’s personal sin. We men seem to more often get this wrong than right, and we leave an aroma of pompous indifference in the air of our counsel rather than true wisdom. Job’s friends made two grave errors, with the first usually less noticed than the second. The first error they made was ever opening their mouths; what came out of their mouths compounded the first error. They didn’t have a clue about God’s real intent, which was more gloriously terrifying than any of them could have guessed.
But this one truth yet remains and satisfactorily accounts for both the particular and abstract reality of death and all its accoutrements, and that truth is the active, ongoing judgment of the Creator over creation. As heartless as it may sound (not to mention politically incorrect), everyone who died in the Twin towers died as a direct result of God’s judgment and curse upon mankind and his terrestrial home. Whether we speak of the tower of Siloam or the towers in New York, the song remains the same. Those of us who watched in horror as the towers fell are one in moral culpability with those who perished, and all mankind is marked out for the same destiny, save for the grace and mercy of the Creator. The only distinction between me and one who fell in the towers is the timing of the judgment’s execution. This is the worldview of Jesus on “tragedy.” We probably should take His warning to repent seriously, rather than try to figure out some way to excuse His remarkably insensitive comment to those reeling from the event.
Some men’s sins preceed them to judgment, some men’s sins follow after, and we can’t figure out why God works it that way. Yet He does. It doesn’t seem fair somehow, but then again, we really don’t want God to be fair as He counts fairness – none of us would fare well at all. Thank God – really and truly – for mercy and grace.
Timotheos

So what is Keillor’s justification for the assumption of judgement? Does he explore why he assumes God is a judge or does he just call to task people who don’t share his “God as Judge is Key” worldview? Does he delve into his conception of the nature of God and how “God as judge” affects that?

Julie,
I’m not keen on Keillor as a writer, but the book anticipates some later sections where he will do some biblical theorizing. Undoubtedly though, he sees the world under judgment from God. God is the Judge in this book.

First, John (#13), I wonder if it is reading too much into the Ephesians 1 passage to say every little detail is decreed by God. It seems that Christ is primarily in view as God’s decree from all eternity, as God’s choice of humanity, and as God’s revealed will. In Christ, God demonstrates his love, his forebearance, and mercy. This isn’t opposed to justice, but is an expression of it. I am always concerned when we attribute too much to God’s “decree,” and instead with Luther want to run to God revealed, instead of contending too much with God hidden.
I think the story of Joseph in the OT is such an interesting place to reflect on these issues. Joseph is sold into slavery to accomplish God’s purposes. His brothers intended it for harm, but God intended it for good. God obviously used that situation for his will. I don’t think we could or should say that God decreed Joseph’s brothers’ sin, but neither should we say it surprised God and he had to improvise. Instead God worked out his perfect purposes in and through it. Ultimately, I think I agree with you, John, that we are faced with a mystery, but I get there in a slightly different way.

I am not sure I follow all of the questions and answers in Keillor’s mind (not reading the book, only the reviews here) but he sounds like Job’s comforters to me: God punishes the wicked with tragedy, and tragedy = God’s punishment.
Isn’t the default case of this world the groaning and travailing until the redemption? This world is always going to suck. Ever since the fall, things suck. That is how it is. Sure, God can punish evil with judgement and he has done so. But to say that evil such as 9/11 is necessarily God’s punishment seems to loop back to the faulty reasoning of Job’s comforters.

It’s been mentioned before, but I can’t think about the topic without coming back to Luke 13. Apart from any clear revelation from God (and where’s that gonna come from, how will we come to consensus on that?) we have to maintain a Luke 13 agnosticism. We don’t know. But we do know that when it comes to the ultimate human suffering – that of separation from the creating God, with human sin at its root – we know where Christ is. He is making his dwelling with us, suffering with us, and he is dying on a cross for us, and he is rising victorious and inviting us to share in his life. And he is constantly inviting us to turn, to repent. To go much beyond that calls for a revealed basis that is lacking.

Perhaps the truth about some circumstances is that they are satan’s handiwork not God’s judgement.

Paul,
Is it possible that they may be both Satan’s handiwork & God’s Judgement? All at the same time?

T said:
We’ve been using (I guess the author decided that) the term ‘judgment’ accross the board. Is there room in Keillor’s thinking for ‘discipline’? Does he see these as interchangeable? It seems like he does. Is he really asking the question ‘Are catastrophes God’s disciplining us?’ That would support the point about it being ‘not about the individuals who died’ but more about others.
T,
If you think of judging as making decisions then it becomes clearer. Everything that we encounter is the judgement of God, every datum that enters our mind is within the realm of God’s ordinance and is a part of his judgement. In other words, God is the one who is deciding – if that makes sense.
Charles

It’s curious Keillor only seems to see worldview from an intellectual perspective. Sounds like enlightenment thinking to me…He’s judging perceptions of events that refuse to see God’s judgements as though we could intellectually “judge” what the acts really mean. There seems to be something wrong with that picture.

We’re talking smack-theory today; how about Keillor’s proposal? Do you agree with this claim of his:
“9/11 is God’s judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units.” (My summary of his conclusion.)

John 9:1-3… It seems that Keillor carries the same mindset that Jesus’ disciples had when they asked him the question about the blind man. It is my opinion that the disciples were men of their time and were voicing the predominant view of their culture. Every apparent tragedy, or negative set of circumstances had to be the direct result of somebody’s sin. Jesus’ reply must have really shocked them.
“Neither this man sinned nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.”
I guess I carry the worldview that Christ is indeed present with us. Every perceived negative could be the believer’s opportunity to witness to the unknowing about the love of God for His creation. How is this done? Possibly by rolling up our sleeves and being the hands, feet, and face of God to the world…
CPM

Hey Benjamin,
Yes, I believe so. Though I would probably rephrase the term “God’s judgement” and replace it with the term “righteous consequence”.
Horrific events could be the rightful consequence of satanicly inspired evil. In my mind, God then might be abetting the cause of evil if he were to intercede in the first place and prevent such events from happening. How can people understand the collective horror of their choices, their sin, unless they experience the horrific consequences, collectively.
Plumbing that thought further, perhaps the most abhorent feature of catastrophe, to the human heart, is when it is brutally imposed upon the innocent. Sadly, tragicly, perhaps the human heart, as a consequence of mankinds own expression of free will, is only moved to true Godly expressions of contrition and repentence when such suffering occurs. For the sake of righteousness then and of respect for the free will with which we are endowed, God allows the true consequences of our behavior to be experienced by us.
Evil people inflicting evil circumstance upon one another, seems more likely to inspire thoughts of “good riddence” then it is to inspire thoughts of compassion. The suffering of innocents seems to manifest our loving potentials to help, to make better, to change.
Maybe “God’s judgement” is made manifest after the fact.
By His eternal presence within our suffering, comforting, consoling, reknewing; ever reconciling our hearts to His, God’s judgements speak of love not retribution.
God’s judgement then is a healing reaction to sin and not a destructive proponent of it.

Maybe, according to John 9:1-3, the works of God are revealed in “materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units.”
And maybe “materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroriatic guerrilla units” are God’s judgement on other parts of the world.

Scot #24,
No. I do not agree. God may have been judging many people for many things that day. Others may have been innocent bystanders. I agree with the Luke 13 allusion previously made. We don’t know.

James (#17),
I appreciate your kind response. I personally am with you about Eph 1:11 especially. I am inclined more toward relational theism than classical deterministic theism. I commented as I did to see if any hard-core Calvinists would agree with me. Apparently few of them visit Scot’s blog.
Scot (#24),
USAmerican believers recoil at God judging this nation so blatantly as 9/11 suggests. I don’t think our non-USA brothers and sisters are as reluctant to accept Keillor’s conclusion. The US symbols struck where innocent people died represent money and military might. Keillor at least should get a hearing (as you are offering here). Is it true, “In God We Trust”?

Scot,
I don’t agree either, in the sense that God’s actions on 9/11 did not affect just America, not just the materialistic, not just those who had responsibility, but affected many many people. But did 9/11 speak to everyone who saw it and who had eyes to see and ears to hear? Yes. And we have no idea of the scope of God’s messages or what he intended to come about or what is in fact coming about.
Charles

Falwell and Robertson focused on sins that anger them the most.
Are these guys even relevant within Fundamentialist circles any longer? Growing up a Fundy and still having ties, I can’t remember a single approving word coming up in relation to these guys when they piped up after 9/11. Now…they’re just cartoon characters that are anything but funny. Does anyone really still listen to them that isn’t over 60 years old?

Re: “In God we Trust”
In the OT, one of the Pagan nations used to execute judgement against Israel was said, by God through his prophet, to have been “Ordained of God” for this particular task.
If that pagan nation understood the task for which they had been appointed by God, could they have legitimately said, “In God we trust”????????????????
If so, how might that change our perceptive understanding of the official US motto, considering the many religious words of President Bush, as well as other Presidents, in the midst of seemingly irreconcilable actions here and abroad?

#29, James, the response in the 3rd world rarely includes God in the equation, at least from what I know of it. The thinking is much more cause and effect, i.e. “U.S. foreign policy has played fast and loose with the world and particularly with the Arab world so it’s only natural that they would one day become targets themselves” this is just realpolitlik and has little to do with theology or even philosophy. the introspection and theological questions are very much American in origin, however they are answered.

Re #12
I read “The Doors of the Sea” and loved it. I frequently go back and reread parts of it. What I got from it? God is so much better than what I think. I go to a church that teaches suffering is part of God’s plan for us. David Bentley Hart says God has no need of suffering, sin, or evil to accomplish his good purposes; God does not require the suffering of some small child to achieve some greater good. He says, “that it is precisly sin, suffering, and death that blind us to God’s true nature.” Read The Brothers Karamazov.

To push his line further … Keillor doesn’t permit us to judge the event by pondering the innocent who died (he states that up front) — and I think most OT war stories are along the same line. To say the innocent who died at 9/11 disprove his theory, so it seems to me (and I’ve not yet read the whole), is simply to appeal to a worldview theory of war (just war) rather than a theory of 9/11 as a judgment of God on the USA’s materialism, etc..

Dana M,
Yet God’s true nature came to this earth to suffer on the behalf of sinful man.
If what the book says, “that it is precisly sin, suffering, and death that blind us to God’s true nature.” then the words of Jesus, “if they persecuted me, they will persecute you” are way off base. So are his words to the disciples showing them that the Son of Man must suffer many things. Mark 8:31 It seems suffering was a part of God’s plan for His own Son. Are we immune?

It seems that people take “In God We Trust” to be all about blessings from God.
Dare we think about the faithfulness of God when delivering His curses, His judgments?
If this is also true, then how does that change a dependence on the motto “In God We Trust”? Can the instrument or agency delivering the Judgment of God also Trust Him to use them to fulfill His will?
Does this somehow affect our answer to Scot’s question?

God as judge, God as correcting and discipling parent, which one seems more in line with God’s actions and responses to Israel? God as creator and then correcting parent seems to be likely fit.

Ben, re #36
The big difference is that God volunteered to suffer. I don’t think that Hart is saying that suffering is not a part of life–it’s just that God doesn’t engineer our suffering.

Dana M,
Peter said that if a person is going to suffer, let them suffer as a Christian, not as an evildoer, a lawbreaker.
Do we have a choice to suffer as a Christian or not? God, obviously doesn’t want us to be lawbreakers and suffer severe penalties for such actions, but when our actions are right and we still suffer for it, do we not have a choice? When there are those who would have us capitulate to their whims against the Word of God, do we have a choice as to whether or not we obey God and His Word?
If the persecution Christ sufferred for us was voluntary, isn’t the persecution he said we are to suffer because of Him is also voluntary on our part? Do we not choose to proceed into and through it?

Benjamin #40,
I’m not sure that I am following your argument. Are you saying that 9/11, Katrina etc. are brought on voluntarily as America suffers for her obedience to Christ?

My answer to your question: “Was 9/11 God’s judgment?” is a plain old-fashioned, I don’t know!
My friend whose husband died would say it was the work of evil men. Are we chastised by that work? Yes, if we have ears to hear and hearts to change. 9/11 changed me and my priorities.
Ministering in Mississippi after Katrina changed me more.
I would suggest that the fact that an entire region of our country was and, for the most part, continues to be abandoned to that devastation is, in itself, a judgment on our selfishness and materialism–one that rightly earns us the world’s derision in the presence of “shock and awe” and Abu Graib.
On a somewhat related side note: after 9/11, I worked with the Salvation Army for a time at the warehouse in Bayonne, NJ, where they were storing the overflow of supplies that poured in long after they were useful. There was much senseless waste. On the same property, a notoriously debauched HBO prison series was being filmed. There it was: our generosity, our materialism, and our malaise churning along together, as always.
I think the world will go along as it always has, and that we do well to heed Jesus’ statement that was mentioned in post #29.

I don’t believe the events of 9/11 were God’s judgment on anything; they were the outworking of some people’s judgment on aspects of the US and its culture, and their intention to express that judgment by killing.
Since God is good, God cannot be the source of evil or “engineer” (good word) suffering. In the mystery of God’s goodness all is worked for the good to those who love God, and all will eventually be justly set right. I think we really cannot comprehend how God does that- it’s very much a trust issue.
He has told us in scripture that we are not to repay evil with evil. Violence does not finish off evil. Only self-giving love and forgiveness swallow up death and all that leads to it. Jesus said, “As the father sends me, so I send you.” God’s vulnerability is what enabled redemption.
Dana

Dana.
Several verses after God tells us not to repay evil for evil, He also tells us that He has ordained certain ones to execute wrath, His vengeance, against evildoers. In fact, He call them His “Deacons.” Do we “Trust in God” to carry out his wrath and judgment against evildoers? Do the ones possessing this authority “trust in God” to make it possible for them to carry out His ordained judgment?

Judgment perhaps – …judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units? No.
The way this is phrased it seems a kind of shallow list, reflecting a rather self-centered world-view, in the grand scheme of evil in the world, past and present.

How is 9/11 judgment, but not “judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units”?
What type of judgment would it then be?

This topic reminded me of a best selling book I read, and you probably also read, some 20 years ago- WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE by Rabbi Harold Kushner who had lost his young son. I found parts of two reviews on Amazon that express two perspectives better than I can-
>
>
Doug

I don’t know why the quotes didn’t post or why an earlier post was deleted, but I’ll try the quotes again-
Jared Ballin quote-
The first words in Kushner’s book relay to readers, “This is not an abstract book about God and theology.” However, Kushner makes countless references to theologies concerning abstract thoughts about god. For example, Kushner has this to say about suffering, “God does not cause our misfortunes. Some are caused by bad luck, some are caused by bad people, and some are simply an inevitable consequence of our being human and being mortal, living in a world of inflexible natural laws.” This view was forged in Kushner’s mind from the point that he was a theological student; therefore, this represents a theology, which Harold Kushner assured his readers would not be a concern of his book. Even so, Kushner’s use of basic theological commentary plays an integral role in communicating his message to readers, even if he had not intended to include theological content.
One of Kushner’s greatest motivations for writing this book was for “the people who wanted to go on believing, but whose anger at God made it hard for them to hold on to their faith and be comforted by religion.” Kushner conveys to readers his acknowledgement of God’s limitations to the “laws of nature, the evolution of human nature and to human moral freedom.” Instead of denouncing God’s existence or his faith in God, Kushner denounced the idea that everything happens for a reason, according to God’s plan. Instead, Rabbi Kushner portrays much of life’s occurrences and happenings to be completely random and outside the realm of God’s control.
Utilizing ancient texts as well as modern occurrences, Kushner provides examples to support a theory, which concerns suffering made popular by existentialists like Victor E. Frankl, who believes that meaning can be found in suffering. Furthermore, that once meaning is discovered in a certain social ailment, suffering ceases to be suffering at all. Kushner confers with Frankl’s sentiment, adding his own thoughts when he says that bad things happen to us and “do not happen for any good reason, which would cause us to accept them willingly… We can redeem these tragedies from senselessness by imposing meaning on them.” Kushner’s reference to examples from ancient texts, like when Moses was able to descend a mountain with two heavy tablets inscribed by God, fighting through pain and mental anguish and fueled by hopes of conveying the inscriptions to his people, portrays the worth of a continuation of faith in God and his teachings.
And Y. Dumbrava quote-
If you are a Christian, this book isn’t for you. It is full of blashphemy, concluding that we must “… forgive God” and that we must love God “… even if He isnt perfect”… Since when was God in need of forgiveness? Isnt it that “… God so loved the world” and it wasnt us that loved God? I have no words in describing this book. It is full of error, because it does not base it self on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All this book does is frees you from the thought that you are a sinner, and that it isnt your fault, and that actully you are a good person. Why do bad things happen to good people? Wrong question. There are no good people in the world in the first place. ” for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God…” The world is in sin. The world DOES NOT HAVE GOOD PEOPLE!! Only by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ you are made righteous. I beg you in the name of Jesus Christ to stay away from this book. It hasnt helped 4 million people, but it lied to them. Kusher, please turn from your ways and come to Jesus, then will you understand the life question “WHY”!
Doug

Ben,
I see Rom 13.1-8 as a sort of “parenthetical” section in the middle of Paul’s “ethical” exhortations. But it is also “ethical” in that it reminds his readers what their relationship is with the State. That’s all.
Paul doesn’t tell them to spend time trying to figure out who exactly is God’s “messenger” or the minute details about the execution of God’s wrath. He simply tells people to leave all vengeance up to God, however that gets worked out. NT Wright writes, “The contemptuous references in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny show only too well how Romans would naturally regard a cult like Christianity: a reputation for antisocial behavior was almost automatic, and the church should take care not to live up to it.” http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf
I think Paul was taking care not to anger the authorities, while at the same time telling the Roman Christians to keep their heads down and stay under the radar. Ch 12 and the rest of ch 13 are about living peaceably with all, so far as it depends on them.
I say again: God became *vulnerable*. That’s the pattern in Jesus’ life, and that’s the pattern in Rom 12-13 wrt how Christians are supposed to relate.
Off to the local Masterworks Chorale now; we’re rehearsing Faure’s “Requiem”.
Dana

Re #24
I am thinking of Romans 1 where Paul explains God’s judgement on the human race, Peterson in The Message puts it like this, “…God quit bothering with them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose…” Maybe that is why 9/11 happened. I also think of what Jesus said, that God did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.
I can’t seem to look at human suffering objectively. A dear friend, only 48, has been diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. I torment myself trying to understand how the world works, why God would let this happen. Ultimately I see that I can only live by faith, for I’ve yet to hear anything better than God becoming man to save the world.

…as far as I understand Keillor I would disagree…I’m not sure you can just take the innocent out of the equation simply because it is inconvenient (I may be simplifying)…God seems to be the advocate of the innocent…I don’t see God as more concerned about events than he is about an individual…Keillor’s thesis as you have stated (9/11 is God’s judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units.) assumes that the USA is the chosen people of God (USA replaces Israel), that’s probably not a good assumption in light of the Church…it also seems that if God is a judge he is often asleep at the wheel and/or inconsistent in his sentencing…graceandpeace y’all