Notes from week 2 of book club

NOTES FROM WEEK 2
Charlie began by reading excerpts from the poem “Rugby Chapel” by Matthew Arnold. The poem can be found here. The point was that we should strive to be people that “strengthen the wavering”, like Matthew Arnold’s father.

Chapter 2 -- HOW COULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING?

1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?
The discussion centered around how in trying to respond, we are trying to explain the incomprehensible. We are looking for a God that will do what we want. There are some things that parents do to their children based on love but the children do not or cannot see the love. Perhaps that is so in these situations as well. God loves us but we cannot or will not see it. Charlie talked about the story in John 6 where Peter asks “Where else would we go?” in response to Jesus’s asking if the disciples would leave too.

2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.
The “hidden premise” is that if appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.

3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?
God can redeem situations for good. We will not be able to fully discuss the good that comes out of evil until we get to the “other side” and can see the full picture.

4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?
That if God is great enough to actually stop evil, then He is great enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue.

5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).
If there is no God, what makes evil, evil? If there is no God, why even be good? Those that demand explanations about the reasons for evil should also demand explanations about the reasons for good or pleasure.

6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?
Jesus’s death was different because of the “cosmic abandonment”; he was forsaken by God in a way that we cannot fully understand.

7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?
That somehow, the suffering we endure in this life will make the “not-suffering” of Heaven even better.

Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET

1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)
Its exclusivity

2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?
This means that those claiming to have or know truth are just trying to exert power over others.

3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).
The problem is that if you keep trying to see through things, then you can blind yourself to truth. In making a claim that there is no “truth”, you are making a truth-claim.

4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).
Communities by definition are based on a shared set of beliefs. If one does not share those beliefs, then he is not truly part of that individual community. It is impossible to have a totally inclusive community.

5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).
Keller establishes his position by noting the we have a set of core teachings to which all forms of Christianity are committed (the Apostle’s Creed, Ten Commandments, etc.). He also quotes historian Andrew Walls who notes that in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians were not required to conform to Jewish culture but had to “work out” a Gentile way of being a Christian. Following this pattern, Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths. As Christians, we are to be what we are.

6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?
Keller uses the example of a pianist to make his argument. The pianist must practice, practice, practice (i.e. restrict her freedom) in order to realize her talent. Also, he notes that a fish is only free if it is restricted and limited to water.

7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).

8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?