Book Review: "Kisses from Katie"

A few weeks ago, I attended a conference in Atlanta and had the privilege of hearing from Katie Davis, a remarkable young woman with a story full of so much sacrifice that I found it almost impossible to believe.

This remarkable young woman from Brentwood, Tennessee had the kind of life that teenage girls envy: student body president, homecoming queen, a boyfriend, a sports car, and plans to head to college. She turned her back on all of it to launch a sponsorship program for needy children in Uganda. Today, at age 22, she is the mother of 14 girls (yes, you read that right) and leads a child sponsorship ministry that cares for over 400 children, providing them with an education, food, and medical care.

Her story blows me away. I don’t have a category for someone like her. Yes, she's young, but wow, her sacrifice and humble trust in God inspires me. For those of us living in the USA who claim to follow Christ, it is easy to learn a lot about Jesus without really doing what he said to do. In her book, Kisses from Katie she writes, "As I learned more and more of what Jesus said, I liked the lifestyle I saw around me less and less...Slowly but surely I began to realize the truth: I had loved and admired and worshipped Jesus without doing what he said.”

For her personally, this realization led to her serving the poor in Uganda. She writes, “I fell in love with a beautiful country of gracious, joyful people and immense poverty and squalor that begged me to do more. It was happening in so many ways, and I couldn’t deny it. I wanted to actually do what Jesus said to do.”

“So I quit my life.”

Not all of us who follow Christ will be led down a path that leads to a third world country, but her response to Jesus’ command to take care of the poor and sick sure makes me want to reexamine how I live my life and makes me want to live with more intentionality w

You can learn more about her ministry here, follow her blog here, and learn more of her story by watching the video below.

Saint Bernards, "No see 'ems", and suffering (The Reason for God part 13)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

In Keller's chapter entitled "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?", he cites philosopher J.L. Mackie's book entitled, "The Miracle of Theism." Mackie asserts the following:

"If a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil. But because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist. Some other god or no god may exist but not the traditional God."

Yet other philosophers have discovered a flaw, a hidden premise in this reasoning. That premise being that, "If evil appears pointless to me then it must be pointless." This reveals a tremendous amount of faith in one's cognitive faculties. A faith that asserts that, "If I cannot see or comprehend a point to suffering and evil, then there can't be a reason for it."

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga unpacks this hidden premise with his "no see 'ems" illustration. He states that if you were looking in a pup tent for a St. Bernard and you didn’t see one, it is reasonable to assume that there is no St. Bernard in your tent. But if you were looking for a "no see um" in your tent (a tiny sand gnat with a huge painful bite) and you didn't see one, it is not reasonable to assume that they are not there. Because, after all, no one can see 'em.

Keller then notes that "many assume that if there were good reasons for the existence of evil, they would be accessible to our minds, more like a St. Bernard than like "no see 'ems", but why should that be the case?"

Pastoral experience sheds more light on this as well. Over the years, in both my own life and the lives of those around me, tragedy and pain at times bring personal and spiritual growth. If, over time we can see good reasons for suffering in at least some of pain and tragedy of life, then isn't it possible that, from God's point of view, there are good reasons for all of it?

Keller concludes the following, "If you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn't stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have (at the same moment) a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can't know. Indeed, you can't have it both ways."

Keller goes on to claim that, while evil and suffering isn't evidence against God, it could actually be evidence for the existence of God.

More on that unusual claim in my next post.

The Problem of Evil (The Reason for God part 12)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


The day started out like any other. I rose early from my bed and after taking care of a few things; I headed out the door for a quick early morning trip to the grocery store. As I headed back home and drove out of the store parking lot, I noticed that the traffic was unusually light for rush hour in Miami. I turned on the radio and caught the middle of a broadcast about something unusual. I couldn’t figure out what was happening but the grave tone of the journalist’s voice told me it was serious. Upon returning home and walking in the front door, my roommate, who was normally at work by now, was watching the television, staring in disbelief. I quickly discovered why. Images of the twin towers burning and crumbling to the ground poured from the TV set. I sat in stunned silence, horrified at what was taking place.


The French writer Simone Weil said that only two things can pierce the human soul: beauty and affliction. On September 11th, 2001, the spear of affliction cut deeply into the soul of every American with terrifying force. Like a blast of cold air or a slap in the face, we woke up afresh to the reality that we live in a world full of evil and suffering.

Every person, when confronted with the tragedy of life asks, “Why?” “How can this happen? How can God allow this?” Regardless of one’s belief or lack of belief in a supreme being, God is almost always questioned when we face the problem of evil.

For Christians, the problem of evil is enormously difficult. This, I think, is our most difficult issue to reconcile with belief in God.  Our belief in the truthfulness of the bible creates a difficult dilemma. Both the Bible and our own experience tell us that the world is filled with the presence of evil. But the Bible also tells us three important characteristics about God:

1. God is all knowing.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. God is good.

These three characteristics of God, combined with the reality of evil, create our dilemma. If God is good and loving, then it is reasonable to think that he wants to deliver the creatures he loves from evil and suffering. If God is all knowing, then it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver us from evil and suffering. And if God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe that he is able to free us from evil and suffering. Yet each day, we wake up in a world full of acts of evil and awful suffering. If God is really loves us, if he’s all knowing and all-powerful, then why doesn’t he do something?

I'll start unpacking my thoughts and Keller's in my next few posts, but for now, how do you respond to the reality of evil and suffering in our world?  Is this a "defeater" for you regarding the possibility of the existence of God?  If you are a believer, how do you reconcile the tensions I list above? 

Love and liberty (The Reason for God part 11)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


In my small group this week, we talked about the fact that some people reject Christianity because they view it as a confining straightjacket. They see it as an oppresive system that stifles human flourishing.

Keller makes the following observation,"What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish?  Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all.

One of the principles of love - either love for a friend or romantic love - is that you have to lose independence to attain greater intimacy.   If you want the 'freedoms' of love - the fulfillment, security, sense of worth that it brings - you must limit your freedom in many ways."



His observation brought to mind a sappy country western song I heard years ago sung by Paul Overstreet called "Ball and Chain."

Love don't feel like a ball and chain to me.
When I am with you my heart beats wild and free.
If you are my jailer darlin', throw away the key!
'Cause love don't feel like a ball and chain to me.

It makes a point that anyone who's been in love can resonate with.  I sacrifice for my wife because I love her.  When we were dating, I looked for ways to please her.  My behavior changed dramatically and from the outside, it looked restrictive but from the inside, it didn't feel that way at all. 

Over a lifetime though, a love relationship will only be healthy if both people surrender their independence and sacrifice for the other. It would be exploitive if only one party did the sacrificing and giving.

Keller notes that, "In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us - in his incarnation and atonement.  In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death.  On the cross, he submitted to our condition - as sinners - and died in our place to forgive us.  In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, 'I will adjust to you.  I will change for you.  I'll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me."

"Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afriad of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him."

 

Freedom and Constraint (The Reason for God part 10)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


Is Christianity an oppresive religion?  Is it a bunch of confining rules that stifle human freedom and flourishing?  That was our topic of discussion for this week.

One of things we noted as we talked was that freedom is a bit more complicated that it first appears.  For example, if I want to lose weight, I have to restrict myself from certain foods.  Yet this restriction leads to a life of health.  If I want to learn how to play a musical instrument, I have to restrict myself to practice, practice, practice.  But this practice leads to an expansion of freedom of musical expression that would not be possible without restricting myself to a training regimen.

Granted, restriction alone doesn't lead to freedom.  Discipline has to be congruent with one's nature and capacities. My wife is naturally gifted in artistic expression.  Several years ago she confined herself to the island of Manhattan and for two years, she attended The Neighborhood Playhouse, where she submitted herself to a training regimen that brought to fruition the gifts and abilities that she possessed.  If I had gone through the same process, the results would have been terrible!  The restrictions my wife placed upon herself were congruent with her nature and thus brought her great freedom of artistic expression.

In light of this reality that freedom often comes through the right kinds of constraints, Keller posits that, "If we only grow intelectually, vocationally, and physically through judiciuos constraints-why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth?  Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shoudn't we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it?"

Are all of us narrow and exclusive? (The Reason for God part 9)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


In my last post, I wrote about the three ways our culture attempts to deal with the problem of the divisiveness of religion:

1. outlaw it
2. condemn it
3. or privatize it.

Of these three, I mostly encounter the second approach:  condemn it.  This approach takes the form of statements that are peppered throughout our culture. These statements are so common and so supposedly self-evident that to question them, one is automatically thought to be bigoted or narrow-minded. 

Over the years, I've heard statements like these:

• "All major religions are equally valid and basicalhy teach the same thing."
• "Each religion sees only a part of the whole. None can see the whole truth"
• "It is arrogant to insist that your religion is right and to convert others to it."

The interesting thing about these statements is the assumptions that all of them make.  Assumptions that prove to be quite problematic.

The first two statements all assume that the one making the claim has exclusive access to all knowledge of spiritual reality.  The third statement is actually self-refuting, for the one stating it is trying to persuade or convert the listener. 

If we are honest, we have to acknowledge that all of us hold to beliefs about the nature of ultimate reality that are exclusive.  Keller rightly notes that, "It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right.  We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways." 

Keller argues that our approch should not be to get rid of religion to get rid of divisiveness:

"It is common to say that 'fundamentalism' leads to violence, yet...all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of others.  The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ?  Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?"

Christianity contains fundamentals that produce people of peace, love, and justice. At the heart of Christianity is a one who forgave his enemies and died for them.  Those who follow him and learn from his example cannot help but be compassionate, empathetic, and tolerant with those outsde of their faith community. 

Tragically, many who claim to follow Jesus look nothing like him. Their divisive, self-righteous, violent behavior is not derived from actually following the example of Jesus, but from ignoring it.

Do you think that all of us have "fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to other" or is Keller overstating his case?

Aren't all religions the same? (The Reason for God part 8)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

This week, we're tacking the topic of exclusivity.  In my years of working in collegiate ministry, before coming to work at Grace Fellowship, I frequently ran into this type of objection to Christianity.  It gets voiced in different ways, such as:

• "All religions are basically the same"
• "There can't be one 'right' religion, that's intolerant and close-minded"
• "All religious paths are equally valid, they are like multiple paths up the same mountain"
• Religious exclusivity leads to intolerance, division, and even violence.  The view that their is only "one way" is bigoted and extremist."

And so on.

In "The Reason for God", Tim Keller admits that religion often creates a slippery slope in the human heart.  Those who think they have "the truth" look down on others who don't.  Those who think their practice of the truth will somehow save them and make them right with God feel superior to those who don't believe as they do. This can lead to self-righteousness, divisiveness, and aggression towards others. 

In response to this, our culture has proposed three solutions to the divisiveness of religion:

1.  Outlaw religion:  Religion is too destructive.  The world would be better off without it.

2.  Condemn religion:  Criticize it so heavily that it will be emotionally and psychologically undesirable to hold to any strong, exclusive belief.

3.  Privatize it:  You can believe it passionately, even evangelize for it, but keep it out of the public square.

All three of these solutions to the damage that religion can cause are being promoted in our world.  Do you think that any of them are effective?

Keller, while acknowledging the destructiveness of religion, claims that none of these can deal effectively with the divisive tendency of religion.

What do you think?  Are any of these solutions valid?  Would you propose something different?