And let me just say that when people are saying, for instance, that the Piperian example of the guy cradling his just killed daughter and praying "neat" prayers of thanksgiving to God is extreme and not the best timing for a pastoral attitude in grief counseling, I get that. I agree. "Look on the bright side" is not good grief counseling in the wake of fresh loss.

But the critics of sovereignty are going beyond criticism of extreme examples like this. They're knocking (and mocking) the idea itself that God's sovereignty over our suffering and his being glorified in our suffering is a) right and b) helpful.

This is what I'm talking about.

I think Piper makes the point well that that is precisely why he preaches God's sovereignty-so it is playing in the back of his people's minds when they hit tragedy. It's sort of pre-eemptive pastoral counseling.

I guess this goes back to some of my honest confusion over certain other objections to theories that suggest God is both sovereign and good. Why is it so bad? Either God is in control, or frankly, the idiot who amasses the most temporal power is. Or the weather. Or radicals in your body. Or your wife, husband, son, daughter, boss, etc...
Someone is sovereign, and we feel that whenever we run into tragedies we can't control. I'd rather that someone be God. And sometimes the only hope I can hand someone else is to say that that someone is God, who died for us. Who lost a son. Who was rejected by his friends.

Wow, I went on a rant there, but it touched on a nerve. I'm studying to be an emergency room chaplain, and I can't imagine staring at tragedy for long without a sovereign God.

Doug, I'm with ya.

Two things,

1) If you notice it seems that about every time the sovereignty of God and things like election are mentioned in Scripture it is mentioned in the midst of persecution and suffering. So I guess not only you, myself, and a whole host of other people are "missing something" but also the Scriptures seem to be "missing something".

2) Having said that I also think there is something to be said for timing. I am currently going through Job in our guys Bible study and it is teaching me quite a bit about not being Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Sometimes I think the best way to love on hurting people is not necessarily to give them a sermon about the sovereignty of God, but to hurt with them and let your faith in the sovereignty of God hold them up in dark times. What I mean is that maybe sometimes we ought to exhibit such faith in his sovereignty that we are willing to hold someones hand for two hours and not say a word.

Mike, absolutely. If it's just about not handing a grieving person a systematic theology, I understand and agree.

But it's more and more the very idea of sovereignty that is being knocked, not just the pastoral approach to grief counseling.

When I read the Psalms and Job (and lately, Habakkuk), I see lots of "Why me, God?" and "God, do you not hear me?" and "How long, O Lord?", but all of these laments are cast upon a God who is acknowledged by the lamenters to be sovereign and good and just.

The laments are nearly always followed with a variation of "nevertheless" (as in, "nevertheless, I will praise/trust You").

That it doesn't make sense to us doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

when people are saying, for instance, that the Piperian example of the guy cradling his just killed daughter and praying "neat" prayers of thanksgiving to God is extreme and not the best timing for a pastoral attitude in grief counseling

You'll notice he doesn't offer that as grief counseling; those words weren't spoken to someone whose daughter had just died. A much better parallel to (and understanding of) what he's talking about in that clip is something we've seen recently here.

And Doug, having done some of that work, I'm with you too.

AM, that is the video message I'm referring to.

Don't you think the implicit message in that clip is that right-thinking Christians do that in situations like that?
I think that'd be a remarkable composure, and it's definitely true theologically. But I don't think someone who, cradling their child who's just been killed by a car, is angry with God or confused by God or isn't even thinking about God at the moment because the pain and fear is so overwhelming is any less a good Christian than the one who has the presence of mind to say "God is good, He is my strength and my portion forever," etc.

I'm just referring to the idea that the normal lament of pain and confusion is okay and that having that hurt in the place of theologically correct prayers and comfort is okay.
I don't want to go the other way and suggest that God can't handle our anger with him or confusion or bewildering pain and that feeling or doing those things means we don't think God is sovereign.

Hope that makes sense.

I think we're making this more (if possible) than it is......people going thru suffering don't question God's sovereignty (well, they do) as much as they just want a hug - someone to be "present, there" without offering "God's in control" platitudes - those words don't comfort in the moments when God appears to be not giving a rip.........God's sovereignty induces more anger than comfort in the early stages of suffering, when perspective isn't the objective......later when perspective and understanding are important, God's sovereignty is of ultimate comfort - but it's not something to easily grab on to when your world's been rocked emotionally.

nhe,

There's truth to what you're saying, but I think Jared's point was that, at least in his case (and he's not a space-alien) knowing God is in control has been a great comfort to him in the midst of trials, not just after the trials are over.

Are we all arguing past each other somehow?

Don't you think the implicit message in that clip is that right-thinking Christians do that in situations like that?

I don't, actually. I don't think there's anything in that message that says that "someone who, cradling their child who's just been killed by a car, is angry with God or confused by God or isn't even thinking about God at the moment because the pain and fear is so overwhelming is any less a good Christian," because that's not the context, nor is it the point of comparison. Rather, I think he's holding up something extreme as a point of radical contrast with the prosperity gospel, which is what he's attacking. Granted, the scene he describes is horribly painful, and granted, the reaction he posits would be truly remarkable (as that of the Barrios family was); the point of the extremity of the example is not to diminish in any way those Christians who don't show such behavior, but rather to make the contrast between that (which would only be possible by the power of the Spirit in the hope of the gospel) and the prosperity so-called "gospel," which looks nothing like it.

The key point in this is that it isn't Piper who denies the validity of lament, it's the prosperity gospel. Ultimately, I think Doug's right; certainly, giving people platitudes and theological statements when they're in pain is wrong, but they need to have that grounding so that they can express their pain and anger and everything else without losing hope. And hanging on to that hope in such a moment . . . well, being able to express it in words would be a matter of presence of mind, yes; but blindly, desperately hanging on like a barnacle to a rock or a drowning man to a rope is nothing of the kind. It's just faith.

Bill: only to the extent that we're arguing. Mostly, I don't think we are.

I guess I'm speaking from experience - going thru the loss of a child - sovereignty of God is a comfort in the midst, but I'd argue strongly that it's not a comfort initially - because frankly, the emotions are too raw at that point - initially, it's more like "How dare God have the audacity to claim to be in control of this" - that's why it shouldn't be the first arrow out of the pastoral care quiver.......great perspective and peace are very noble first reactions of those going thru intense tragedy, but they're not very likely to be the first reactions of those we care for.....I'd argue that it takes a great deal of maturity of perspective to react that way - I certainly didn't when I was 27 and we lost our daughter - if someone came along the day (or even week) that happenned and gave me a "God is in Control" pep talk, I may have slugged them.......my wife asked someone to leave who did try that the day after.....we just weren't ready for that yet.......all we wanted for that first few weeks was for people to say "yeah, this sucks"....perspective came later

AM, I hear what you're saying. Makes sense.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I think I agree with both you and nhe.

It makes perfect sense. Personally, when I was dealing with that sort of situation, being able to hang on to the assurance that God was in control and that he is good was a real comfort; but that was something I could tell myself, not something anyone else had the right to tell me.

nhe voices in a very personal way something I almost commented on earlier.

In my experience only a small subset of people experience comfort when someone else reacts to their tragedy by "expounding on God's sovereignty and glory".

The ability to take comfort in God's sovereignty and glory usually seems to come down the road a bit, after experiencing the presence, compassion and comfort of God (and hopefully, of God's people) in the midst of sorrow. Jesus wept.

". . . after experiencing the presence, compassion and comfort of God (and hopefully, of God's people) in the midst of sorrow. Jesus wept."

Very well said. Thanks Karl

nhe - you definitely speak from experience. Thanks for sharing your story - that helps me understand better. I can't imagine living through the tragedy of the loss of a child. God bless you, man.

I'm with Jared. I agree with all of you.

Frankly, when something really bad has happened, I tend to be angry at God. If He is sovereign, then He allowed this awful thing to happen. I don't really care at the moment about His sovereignty or glory or how He will work it for good. The "eternal weight of glory" seems meaningless during the first moments of "temporary light affliction."

It's cool to hear so many compassionate voices in one place, all coming at things from different angles. Certainly there are situations for which there are no words-you just pray your butt off and show up at the hospital, and hug and cry as need be. And certainly I at times have wanted to punch people, who have faced tragic events in their friends lives with what basically amounts to glib, (and often, in their lives, untested) platitudes. Jeremiah 6:14 comes to mind-a bit out of context, but relevant, I think.
Certainly a time and place thing. Telling someone who just lost their husband, and is now left to parent four children on her own, that "God's ways are not her ways" as if her biggest problem is that she is too stupid to see the big picture, is simply pathetic.

On the other hand, in the proper time, reading her that passage and showing how it's talking about God's forgiveness of undeserving sinners, and then realizing that forgiveness came from crucifying His Son, and that was His will, can be healing. It's about wisdom and timing, and it's also about truth.

I've really enjoyed reading the comments, many thing shave been said that I will carry with me. Would that all internet communication was this Christ-centered!

Thanks Doug!

Thank y'all! I really love this blog, read it all the time.

"The prince of this world" has some control. He's on a leash, his days are numbered, and God has already beat him whether he acknowledges it or not. But some things are *evil*, and there are certain brands of sovereignty preaching that figure God is ok with everything i.e. nothing is *really* evil. I'm not saying everyone sovereigntist is like that, I'm saying 1) lots are.

If God is fine with evil then he's not good; if a good God meets something evil then God isn't fine with it. So no, what the devil does isn't for God's glory. God redeems it.

It's the "redemption" step that's missing from the sovereigntist's response to evil. And without "redemption" along the way, the shortcut just ends up calling evil "good" because God is sovereign.

the progression in Romans 5 - trials produce perseverance - which produces character - which produces hope - suggests that there is a process involved......we come to know God's sovereignty by making it through trials and looking back on them as Ebenezer stones - "this far God has brought us" - his goodness comes through more and more, the more we go through - but as has been mentioned - some of those early stages of suffering require only a paraclete - someone to just come along side - that's the number one role we can provide to aid in our suffering friend's perseverance - and help them down that road to hope

RE #21: there are no doubt people of whom that's true, but you're tarring a lot of people with a wildly unfair brush.

nhe: Amen.

Re #23 ... I was hoping it was phrased so as the only guilty are the ones doing it.

Take care & God bless
WF

I think I have been missing something also. Whenever I am going thought something bad, I know and believe that God is in control...but what EXACTLY does that mean? How does it apply? Just saying it means almost nothing to me. Even if he is in control-I am still going through the bad stuff, I am still feeling the pain....