SIN > Unmasked: Job’s troubles

The problem of Job: is suffering the result of sin?

Has there been a moment in your life where you’ve been so devastated that you just sunk to the floor on your behind and wished the earth would open up and swallow you?  I sometimes imagine it might be like that when young children watch a parent turn and walk out the door after an horrific parental break-up.  But I’m only guessing – or am I?

In 1983, the Spirit of God messaged me, “I want you to do what you know”.  In 1991, God upped the ante, and drew me to a whole other level of the ‘obedience’ I talked about in my ‘Obedience - but not as you know it’ post.   Thus followed 5 years of heavy seas spiritually; writing, editing, publishing and printing a journal of prophetic ministry for the body of Christ in Australia; sharing and teaching as the Spirit led in various church congregations; being part of a prophetic and intercessory ‘movement’ in various parts.

Across that period, there emerged another ‘movement’ that caught many up in a sometimes wild and euphoric turbulence about “the Toronto blessing”.  I had friends directly caught up in the Australian iteration of the phenomena and many were somewhat critical of my lukewarm reaction to them.  I had my reasons:

One, I couldn’t believe that God would give Australia the ‘Toronto’ blessing – as if we couldn’t possibly qualify for an Australian blessing, led by ordinary Australians (as against non-ordinary North Americans) who were already moving with the Spirit of God in, by and for Australians;

Two, I was keenly suspicious it was a so-called Right-wing political movement dressed up in religious garb – as it subsequently turned out to be, in my view;

Three, I found it both offensive and untrustworthy that the whole thing was parcelled up into seminars and workshops to which people could buy over-priced tickets in order to “catch the fire” – as if it were a contagion.

It has birthed many a Conservative political campaign and given great political clout to leaders of large borderline cultic congregations.  These congregations have huge interest in pursuing and ensuring formulaic commitments among members but teach little about the deep spiritual life of the individual believer’s unique connection to the Father.

They’re happy to insist on submission of wives to husbands and members to ‘pastors’ but baulk at pastors’ submission to apostles, prophets and teachers – or to Jesus for that matter.  In this movement, pastors are CEOs of business-model, tax-free-status organisations; and if you’re not that, you’re not “successful”.  Numbers in attendance is the critical measure of power and success.

At the same time, the movement has submerged, overtaken and consumed many a true disciple of Jesus who happens to see the world – and the ‘church’ – differently.  I was – and remain – one such.  I’m not a CEO of a large congregation of submissive followers, therefore I must be doing something wrong – ‘sinning’ in some way.

Sometime in 1996, as I was waiting on God in my ‘den’, He reminded me of a pivotal event a few years earlier.

While I was participating in the “Leaders looking to Jesus” gathering in Canberra in 1992, God uncovered a small part of Himself to me that left me shaken and with a severe headache for 24 hours after.  I was woken violently from sleep by an unearthly noise in the middle of the night.  There were 9 men in bunks in the dormitory but no one else heard the noise.  God ‘said’ to me: “I’m showing you the bottom corner of my pain”.  As I recounted at the time, the sound was a blood-curdling scream that sounded like a cross between a woman screaming blended with the noise of an F111 streaking overhead.

I responded to God: if that’s the ‘bottom corner’ of your pain, please don’t show me any more – I would die.

In 1996, I saw the pain and anguish of God again at what humans were doing, in God’s name, to His glory and reputation by packaging up spiritual life and marketing it as conferences, seminars and workshops, at which one could ‘catch the fire’.  And I saw God turn and walk out the door, turning his back on this revolting behaviour.  At that, I collapsed to the floor in abject despair and locked myself away in a ‘barn’ – for 10 years as it turned out.

For a very long time, I couldn’t stand to read the bible or listen to it; it made me sick to the stomach.  There was, however, one exception.  The one part of the bible that made sense – glorious, happy sense – was the book of Job.  Yep – you heard right: Job.

Then in 2006, the Spirit of God said to me, “There’s a little bit of morning outside.”  I reluctantly put my eyes above the sill and saw a faint glow, and as I did, a faithful intercessor friend, out of blue, contacted me to say, “you can hope again”.

And in hope, the journey continues.  I’m a very different person; the world is a very different place.  God again turned His eyes of mercy on us.  And the truth of Job had been seared into my spirit.  However, this time around, we really need to catch up to where God is at with all this.  In summary, we’re at Ezekiel 34.

Right now, there are three pivotal truths we need to grasp:

One, the great mass of ‘out-of-church-ers’ are where they need to be and where God wants them to be while He deals with recalcitrant religious and church leaders – Ezekiel 34;

Two, God is carrying out His word from the prophet Ezekiel that “I myself will shepherd my people.”  In place of dead church is living ekklesia – and those two are as different as butterflies and snakes;

Three, “bad things” happening to people in this time and state and condition (or ever, really) are NOT the result of sin as the false shepherds charge, but are an important part of the discipline and growth God is working in His people to bring them to freedom and maturity – both essential in the kingdom of God.

One of the key prophetic words of the last 20 years or so is a new rendition of Revelation 18:4: “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins or contract any of her plagues.  For her sins are piled up to heaven and God has remembered her iniquities.”  In this passage, “her” is Babylon; and in the prophetic zone, Babylon is the man-made tower attempting to reach God that we commonly call ‘church’.  Many of His people have heard and seen – and been “obedient to the heavenly vision”, and have, in truth, 'come out of her'.

In those ten barn years, God sustained me with the wisdom of Job and the fellowship of a circle of disciples assembling around Jesus at our big table.  This was very much our functioning ekklesia and replacement for church.

The New Testament teaches us that anyone who desires and seeks to live a Godly life will have trouble and be persecuted by the one Job was troubled by.  English bibles call this being Satan; in translation, he is the accuser.  (See 2 Timothy 3:12)

The accuser argued with God that Job only stayed faithful because God protected him; so God withdrew His protection which saw the trouble set in viciously.

Job lost pretty much everything good in his life and came close to death; all the while maintaining his trust in God.  At one point, his wife said to him, “Do you still retain your integrity?  Curse God and die!”  To which Job replied, “You speak as a foolish woman speaks,” ... “Should we accept from God only good and not adversity?”  In all this, Job did not sin in what he said, the record notes.

He got lots of advice from so-called comforters or encouragers.  (Don’t we all when things go wrong!)  They told him to stop living in denial and ‘fess up’ to the sin in his life.  (Still happens today!)  In their minds, such terrible things only happened to people who were sinning.  What’s changed?!

Job searched himself repeatedly, but could not come up with some unrighteousness in his life.

Another friend, Elihu, had a different tack.  His advice to Job centres around the sovereignty of God, not around some perceived human sin, as the best explanation for Job’s troubles.

Finally Job decides to silence his advisers, then himself.  He realises how foolish it is to try to explain God without getting that explanation from God directly, so he clamps his hand over his mouth.

At this point, God gets to speak, Job understands, his advisors are humiliated and the accuser is proved wrong ever so powerfully with Job being justified and his life and fortunes restored.

Bad things happen to good people – routinely.   And putting the blame on sin is tantamount to committing the unpardonable sin: attributing a work of God to Satan, the accuser.

As New Testament writer James notes, stresses on our faith and trust serve to make it stronger – like gym work and ‘hard yakka’ build muscle.  And this is a normal part of our disciple life with Jesus.

Jesus himself confronted the same unhelpful story when his disciples watched him heal a man who had been born blind then asked, “who sinned, this man or his parents?”   To which Jesus replied, “neither...this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.”

Let’s repeat that with emphasis

This happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him!

Yet still today, all around the world, people are persecuted and shunned because of bad things that happen to them on the assumption that they must have sinned or be sinning still.  Many are treated as a curse and pushed out of society.  Ezekiel 34 repeats.

As disciples of Jesus, what happens in our lives may have logical explanations, both good and bad, but it is all so that the works of God can be seen in us.

I encourage you to read Job 40.

Humankind is, at once, so clever and so stupid; smart enough to engineer mighty buildings and ships and bridges; yet so stupid as to not shut up when confronted with the infinity of God.  So ‘smart’ as to imagine that we can explain everything, yet so stupid as to imagine that God’s justice is based on man’s explanations.  Mostly because German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared “Gott ist tot” – God is dead.  The ‘Enlightenment’ had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.

Sure, you reap what you sow (Galatians 6).  Many things have natural – almost mathematical – consequences.  But it is a grave error in and of itself to assume that besetting troubles are because one has sinned.  We have all sinned!  Why is it then that blessing follows some and cursing follows others?

The critical thing is to steer right away from the sin motif as explanation and follow Job: sit in sackcloth and ashes, place your hand over your mouth, and listen to the wisdom of God your lover and true father.  Let him who has ears to hear hear what the Spirit says.  Even if you are inclined to agree with Nietzsche, it’s worth suspending your unbelief for long enough to hear and see and understand – and be healed.

To me, one of the most astonishingly beautiful passages of scripture is how Job 42 begins:

Then Job replied to the LORD:

I know that You can do all things and that no plan of Yours can be thwarted.  You asked, ‘Who is this who conceals My counsel without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand; things too wonderful for me to know.  You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak.  I will question you, and you shall answer.’  My ears had heard of You, but now my eyes have seen You.  Therefore I retract my words, and I repent in dust and ashes.

Amen.

SIN > Unmasked: sneaky tricks

“It’s only wrong if you get caught.”

or

Does the end really justify the means?

In an age of relative truth, relative morals and relative ethics, what used to be the province of the criminal underworld has become mainstream, even to the extent that national leaders now act as if they believe “It’s only wrong if you get caught.”  Indeed, it seems that it is the fate of getting caught that is the ‘sin’.

Whereas it used to be a joke: “Be good.  And if you can’t be good, be careful”; it seems it is now a way of life, a mantra, an ethical code – and even a business plan.

From people spying on those spying on citizens with electronic detection devices designed not to help them stop speeding but avoid being detected speeding; to politicians separating their three domains of believing, saying and doing into silos of ‘truth’ they call upon separately and independently as the need arises – for expedience, gain or votes.

A notable feature of the news in 2019 is the repeated story of the ‘whistleblower’ – the citizen who takes a “public interest” view of wrongdoing in his/her field of employment and uncovers and exposes that wrongdoing in an attempt to end it, often out of frustration at not being able to do that via normal channels of reporting and responsibility.  If you follow the news, you will no doubt have noticed the repeated use by various authorities and employers of the cry of embarrassment when one of their own goes public on a matter they are wanting to keep from the public gaze.  The main concern does not seem to be that they were doing something wrong, but that it was exposed, causing them shame, embarrassment, reputational loss and particularly financial loss in some way or other.  ‘Commercial in confidence’ has been breached – shock; horror; prosecute; sue!

Then at times, this embarrassment is ‘spun’ in the media in such a way as to make over the wrongdoer as being a “disgruntled former employee”, as wanting to protect a third party or the public, or even accuse the whistleblower of putting others in danger by their exposé.

The case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is perhaps the largest and most notable of such situations where all of the elements have come into play, not the least being the claim by the US government that their exposure of wrongdoing in Afghanistan put military lives at stake.  In the process, the embarrassed/shamed party seeks to discredit the whistleblower in any way possible and seeks to embarrass him/her in a ‘return of serve’ kind of way by bringing counter-accusations against the whistleblower.

I’m not trying here to analyse any particular case or cases but rather to shine a light on the moral and ethical questions around the matter of ‘wrongdoing in high places’ and the rampant panics of obscurantism and obfuscation – the lies – that have become the cities of refuge for perpetrators who steadfastly maintain the notion that the end always justifies the means; and if it doesn’t, they can always manufacture consent for the “public interest” argument whatever that might be at the time.

It always seems to become an argument of a clash of trusts: public trust in an institution versus public trust in a treasured idea or hope or aspiration.  Expressed another way, it seems invariably to come to the matter of whittling away people’s basic freedoms allegedly in the name of being good public stewards of ‘national security’ and of protecting citizens’ safety – all without getting citizens’ prior permission to do so, assuming they have a political mandate for their actions from the last election.

An Official or an Institution does a few ‘naughty’ things that they think the public will forgive them for on the basis of a) the risk in not doing them is (allegedly) grave; and b) the loss in doing them is a little bit more surveillance and increased security measures.  It’s as if the public trust Official is told “mollify our fear and we won’t object or complain about our loss of freedom”.  We don’t seem to get that, most times, the fear is largely manufactured in order to achieve precisely this reduction of personal freedom to allow for much greater freedom for a corporate interest.  In the era of social media, traditional news media no longer have to be used to get the message out.  The old motto ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story’ becomes a media strategy and the cornerstone of the business plans of many a media outlet.

If you factor in the theory that humankind as we know it is the result of an extended biological and cultural evolutionary process, it is incredibly easy to flick off, like a bug on one’s sleeve, the idea of God or (therefore) of His having any influence on our existence or the moral and ethical fibre of our ‘civilisation’.

I don’t.  I take the view that we are all unique creations of a sovereign God; and that central to God’s intention in creating us is that we each reflect that sovereignty.  Trapped as we might be in a straight-jacket, or cornered into a snarling mess of hubris, we are kind of “born to be wild” – to be free and sovereign beings.  The old covenant was neither designed nor  destined to achieve that, with its insistence on rules and law; but, as Paul well noted, God’s intent in that law régime was that it would point us to (and ‘deliver’ or courier us to) Jesus Christ.  Largely, humankind has chosen to stay with law – mostly because freedom seems too hard.  And it is – if we pursue it via more and more ‘law and order’ and ‘rule of law’.

In our world, what sins are being committed and by whom ceases to be an issue of importance in the light of the embarrassment, shame, loss of reputation, financial loss – real or imagined – being experienced.  Loss to the whistleblower is invariably of much lesser import and consideration, primarily because of the legislative lack of protections for citizens in general and whistleblowers specifically.  What chance does one individual citizen – waged or unwaged – have against the might (and the budgets) of the monoliths of governments, corporations and their legal strategists?

An old testament reference from earlier in this blog is once again illuminated: the prophet rages against the administration of Israel that they have made lies their refuge:

You boast, “We have entered into a covenant with death, with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement.  When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place.”

So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.  I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.”

The precious cornerstone in Zion is a reference to Jesus.  God’s people – in every generation – are supposed to trust in Jesus the cornerstone; instead, they’re trusting in the manufactured lies of human government and administration.  And one lie always requires another, often greater, lie to overcome the one before it.

The ‘ultimate pragmatic’ so favoured by the US is that the end justifies the means.  I have several problems with that position, not the least being that what they think is the “end” never is the end; it’s just a watering station on the way.  To me, the means justifies (or renders credible) the end, not the other way around.

On a more local or national level in Australia, the cases of the ATO and whistleblower Richard Boyle, and Murdoch University overseas student dilemma come to mind; or the case of the St Kevin’s School students in Melbourne singing their sexist chant.  We seem to have a great deal of trouble admitting wrong – it’s s sign of weakness, they say.

‘It’s only wrong if you get caught, so make sure you don’t get caught.’  Why are we having so much trouble staying away from sin, error, wrongdoing?  The most common answer will be money, pure and simple.  “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

And the great scourge of our time as far as I am concerned is this thing we call “commercial in confidence”: we can’t be open and transparent, because that might give ‘competitors’ an advantage over us.  So, to me, the even greater scourge is this creature we call competition – when it is done for competition’s sake.  The true endgame of competition is not lower prices or better service as the myth goes, but monopoly, or, at least, a secret edge that grants an advantage, preferably permanently.  It might not be monopoly, but it is the next best thing: duopoly.  It’s not actually about honesty, truth, justice, righteousness, love, mercy, compassion, is it – honestly?!

“After all, we’re here to make a profit; we’re not a charity; nobody wins if we don’t make a profit.”  And all manner of sins are excused and become part of the business plan that is its own justification.

Now if you take that thinking just a bit further, you end up where we went in the earlier post about sodomy – true biblical sodomy.  The sin of Sodom is NOT homosexuality; it is arrogance, gluttony, greed, careless ease, disdain for poor and needy people and being haughty – the outworking of which is committing abominations, including all sorts of sexual abominations.  That’s what the biblical record shows us.  Our recent history backs that up.

We could have a world where people with any kind of ‘public trust’ (and I think that’s actually all of us) made it their business to do two things: 1) not act against another person’s interest to benefit your own interest – i.e. sin as transgression [see earlier post]; and 2) treat as a friend the one who seeks to call out our transgression in the interests of all, and of public trust and respect for the dignity and sovereignty of each of us as human beings.

In other words: stop doing the wrong thing by other people; and stop trying to punish those who just want us to stop doing the wrong thing by other people.  Practise righteousness.  Imagine a world where our competition was the first apostles’ approach: “outdo one another in showing honour [or kindness in some translations].”

We are in serious serious trouble if money is our measure of success and not honour, respect and trust towards each other.  We are on a non-stop train to the sin of Sodom.  As far as God is concerned, there is a ‘right’ way to live (and it isn’t Right as against Left); and it is right regardless of whether it is rewarded and regardless of whether those who do not so live get caught.

Conversely, there is a wrong way to live and it is wrong even if you don’t get caught.  When we break the code of honour, respect and trust, we break it for everybody – it’s not just a personal choice or decision.  Most especially, we break it for those who have built their life around not breaking it – those who opt for honour, respect and trust even when it is not returned to them.  We destroy their lives as far as their capacity to live their lifestyle choice is concerned.

Laws to rein in law-breakers have a devastating negative impact on those who do not need them.  A popular myth goes something like, ‘if you’re not doing the wrong thing, you have nothing to worry about’, but it is just that: a myth.  Law snares everybody in order to trap the few law-breakers.  We call it “rule of law” – and it stinks to high heaven.

I have some friends who once managed a 3,000 acre cattle property in Queensland.  It was, as you would expect, thoroughly fenced and the fences regularly inspected.  The family home also had a strong fence around it, demarcating ‘domestic’ from the rest.  It was generally considered ‘safe’ for domestic life to happen inside the homestead fence and progressively unsafe outside it the further one moved away from the home to the boundaries.  That’s a fine display of conservatism; and it really works well for children and for domestic workers whose job is to accommodate “domestic bliss”.  But those safety rules cannot and must not apply to those who job is to manage the cattle and attend to their wellbeing, nor those whose job it is to inspect and mend the fences, the dams, the fodder pastures, etc., etc.

Those boundaries and safety laws are worse than useless if they do not allow, permit or encourage us to learn how to go beyond them safely.  And that is precisely what conservatism – and particularly religious conservatism – does to us.  It teaches us “un-faith” (unbelief, distrust) and teaches us to sin by means of that thing I pointed to several posts back: living by sight, instead of living by trust; or living by reason, instead of living by insight, intuition and perception.

Somebody has to go and inspect and repair the fences and the dams and the fodder fields; and somebody has to mange the stock’s wellbeing and administer the whole operation – that’s the nature of a cattle (or sheep) property.  And it is likewise in this thing the New Testament calls the ekklesia – the Body of Christ.  Indeed, that is the very purpose of the various spiritual gifts.  And if mature people cannot go past the domestic boundary, the whole operation comes to a grinding halt and no one is able to “be obedient to the heavenly vision” as apostle Paul put it.  We are all accountable for our obedience to what the Holy Spirit reveals to us.  There is no excuse for disobedience because “they wouldn’t let me”.  “They” are as accountable as you and I.

But what would really work is for “They” to get out of the way – to stop taking over God’s role and allow Jesus to be the Head, the Spirit to be the guide and teacher and the Father to be – well: Father.  And, of course, for each of us to take up our place in the family.  To do otherwise equals the sin of disobedience.

Jesus and the first Apostles teach us that we are “not under law”; that there is a simple higher law – the law of love.  And for me, love is the overlap of honour, respect and trust; those who live by this law do not need ‘rule of law’ imposed on them by a state or a corporation, a legal institution, a ‘church’, or a pastor or priest.  If that’s what we’re looking for, we are joining “them” in their “adventures in missing the point”.

This does not, however, make one ‘a law unto himself’; rather it tells us that keeping the law of love is – de facto – keeping the law.

The fact that love makes a terrible business model ought not be telling us that love is futile as a way of life, but rather that business plans and models are the worst imaginable lore code, and they generally bind us to a strategy of ‘kill or be killed; ‘eat or be eaten’; ‘play or die’; ‘trample the weak – hurdle the dead’ and so on.

Sometimes it’s wrong whether you get caught or not – simply because God sees; and knows; and understands; and disciplines His children.

Next: the problem of Job (is suffering the result of sin?)