Why are there not more Mother Theresas?

"Are you one?
What should we be doing if we are all Mother Theresas?
How do you strive to end injustices in this world?"

(Some powerful comments from Scott McKnight)

God is like this

Sunday Morning

From Nakedpastor.

Does Christian Rock Suck?

Daniel Rodish, author of Rapture Ready, has emersed himself inside the world of Christian popculture. In doing so, he's found hope for Christian rock. I don't often listen to Christian rock, unless you count U2, however my brother-in-law, Todd, can always be counted on for solid recommendations. Coincidentally, many of the bands Todd recommneds can be found on Rodish's top 10 New York Times playlist. I especially enjoy Over the Rhine (we own about six of their CDs). Becky and I alse met at a Sixpence None the Richer concert at Northestern College (this was before they released "Kiss"). A great local band called Flood opened for them.

The embedded video below is a debate, "Does Christian Rock Suck?" from Rodish's blog. One discussion point: Does Christian rock have to come from the crotch? It is interesting.


Debate: Does Christian Rock Suck? from Daniel Radosh on Vimeo.

"Commodify Me Oh Lord..."

For the past couple of years my brother-in-law, Todd, has been researching how American consumerism pollutes the Church, and blogging about it along the way. It has been fascinating to read his conclusions. I can't wait for the book. Here's a nugget from one of his most recent posts,

An advertising and marketing paradigm of evangelism and theology internalizes an exchange mentality in both the evangelist and the target—one where salvation can be “obtained.” It is made into a transaction. Not one where people are purchasing an object with money but, rather, one where their payment is in the form of their conscious attention. Their regard toward God and their conversion is objectified nonetheless. Christianity is possessed—something one “has” rather than what one “is.” In this way, faith is mediated through the advertising and marketing paradigm.

When the church markets the gospel the same way Nike markets it's shoes, it creates consumers rather than people who are genuinely transformed. Not exactly what Jesus had in mind, methinks. Thanks for this Todd.

For more of this post, read here. It is one part of five separate posts, and I'm assuming more are on the way. Search his blog for much more on this topic (and some Apple propaganda).

Martin Luther King Jr. (More Thoughts)

Just read Beliefnet's interview of Mike Huckabee. He answers various questions in it, but I want to focus on one answer specifically in light of this holiday.

Q. There’s something interesting going on now in the evangelical world – there’s a conversation going on about what the agenda ought to be that seems broader. There was a little bit of a sense that the religious conservative leadership, while emphasizing important things like abortion and family, had neglected issues like poverty and the environment. Do you think that’s true?

A. I’ve said that, that I’ve felt like as Christians and particularly even as Republicans, we needed to address issues that touched the broader perspective, and that included disease, hunger, poverty, homelessness, the environment. And it’s not a matter that we’re going to become left-wingers. I don’t think that at all. I think taking care of the earth is a matter of stewardship. It’s not about global warming, it’s about stewardship and responsibility. Things like hunger and homelessness. And it’s not about having a government program, it’s about simply reminding each of us as individual citizens that this is an area of our own responsibility. At my own church… our church is very, very engaged in everything from dealing with hunger, poverty, and we reach out to a lot of people. We don’t ask the government to do it. We do it ourselves as a church. It’s part of our ministry. The only reason the government would get involved would be that the other social institutions – primarily the family the church the neighborhood – failed. If the family or church does its own work and does it well, then there’s no reason for government to ever get into these things at all. The ideal is that they wouldn’t, that they’ll do a lousy job of it generally.

So, Huckabee gives the classic conservative response here--small government--leave social welfare to private institutions. Fair enough.

Juxtapose this quote with the USA Today article, "Why Christian's Should Seek MLK's Dream, Despite Gains" by Tom Krattenmaker. Krattenmaker argues that "Christians could be this country's greatest force by rejecting the temptation of complacency--and a me-first prosperity gospel--while leading the way to racial justice." The article begins by convincingly outlining the numerous ways blacks continue to suffer racial injustices, falling short of King's "Dream," and finishes by asking whether racial progress is the responsibility of the individual or society.

Americans err if we believe that it's only a black responsibility to right the social wrongs of racial inequality. It's a white responsibility, too — and a Christian responsibility. Why Christians? It's not that other faiths can't do their part as well, but Christians — by sheer number and religious tradition — could be our best hope.

History shows that the teachings of Christianity hold an undeniable power to inspire positive social movements and call Americans to conscience, as they did during King's time. Many Christians will be the first to tell you they should be held to a higher standard — because their religion insists on it.

As the distinguished columnist Roger Cohen recently reminded, it is on the matter of race where one finds the greatest gulf between American behavior and American ideals. Will history find the same gap between Christian behavior and Christian ideals?

Sociologists have recognized that Sunday is the most racially segregated day of the week, suggesting that the church is not as integrated as the rest of society. So, if Mike Huckabee's conservative philosophy is correct, and we are to leave social welfare up to private institutions, how are we to expect racial progress when the church has yet to integrate at the same pace as society on the whole? What makes us think the contributions of homogeneous churches will create a more equitable society?

I am a Christian, and I would like to believe that the church would create a more equitable society where all races are reconciled, but I am weary. Until Martin's "Dream" is fulfilled within the church, maybe the government should do what it can to maintain a level playing field for all people outside the church.

(Kind of a hopeless post for MLK Jr. day isn't it?)

One Difference Between the Quran and the Bible

You won't find a Muslim doing this to the Quran. Apparently, it's practical.

God Is Not a Narcissist

"God came to earth to glorify himself." This is a message I first heard from friends who attended Bethlehem Baptist a few years ago. This church is led be John Piper, an very influential Reformed minister. It was during my formative years at Bethel College, and it rubbed me the wrong way. God became human, sacrificed himself, in order that he would be glorified? Um, where's the unconditional love in that?

Though I never truly accepted that teaching, it left a dent in my faith. Until now. Thank you Ben Witherington.

I suppose we should not be surprised that in a culture and age of narcissism, we would recreate God in our own self-centered image, but it is surprising when we find orthodox Christians, and even careful scholars doing this.

"For God so loved himself?" Is God a Narcissist?

Did Christ Come to Please Himself?

UPDATE (12-05-07): John Piper has posted a response to Ben Witherington's critique. Read it here.

The Watchdogs Are Coming After Televangelists

Iowa Senator Charles E. Grassley (the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee) has launched an investigation into the finances of six prominent televangelists: 1) Creflo A. Dollar; 2) Paula and Randy White; 3) Benny Hinn; 4) Joyce Meyer; 5) Kenneth and Gloria Copland; and, 6) Bishop Eddie Long. Because these are tax exempt ministries, all contributions must be used for tax exempt purposes. Grassley is investigating whether these ministries are using contributions for personal use, a violation of the tax code. The New York Times story is here.

Following Ben Witherington's advice, I checked out Ministrywatch.org, a reliable Christian watchdog organization that has been featured on 20/20, and so far it has investigated over 400 churches and Christian ministries, providing detailed reports of many. The goal of Ministry Watch is to facilitate "the practical expression of one's stewardship calling by creating an environment that promotes increasing confidence in, and generosity towards, the Lord's causes." Currently on the Donor Alert list are TBN, Benny Hinn ministries, and the Christian Children's Fund. Usually, the common denominators among ministries that make this list include a lack of financial transparency and leadership that is not held accountable. I encourage you to check out Ministrywatch.org.

The irony in all of this is that I am now more compelled to give my money to this watchdog organization than any other ministry it has investigated.

"Pro-Life" Shouldn't Be About One Issue

On Saturday, Sept. 29th fifty leaders of the social conservative movement gathered in Salt Lake City, Utah to discuss their plan of attack in the event that the presidential nominee for the Republican and Democratic parties are both pro-choice. To clarify the events that took place at that meeting, James Dobson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. In it he writes of the conclusions the group came to, "If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous."

He continues to ponder with pen the possibility that voting for a pro-life candidate could cost social conservatives the presidency,

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

Another issue discussed on that Saturday was the possibility of backing a third party candidate that would run as the pro-life alternative. There was less unanimity on this topic. Rasmussen Reports ran a poll on how such a third party candidate would effect the election, and the results aren't very encouraging for social conservatives. If it comes down to Giuliani, Clinton, and __________ (3rd party candidate), the poll indicates that the 3rd party votes would tip the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine James Dobson and his 49 friends thrilled about that outcome.

Of course, I cannot imagine James Dobson failing to foresee such an outcome either. One can't help to think this is more of a political threat than it is actual contingency planing (you don't actually think these leaders would support a pro-life Democrat do you?). Something along the lines of, "Lest you forget Republican party, social conservatives carry serious capital every election cycle. We delivered the White House to President Bush, and we can do the same for the next Republican nominee, but do not take us for granted. Our vote does not come cost-free. Bend on abortion or we'll take our votes elsewhere."

So, for social conservatives, I ask this one question: Are there other ways to protect the sanctity of life? I understand the opposition to abortion. I am father to a beautiful 8 month old baby girl. I am aware of the outrageous numbers of abortions that occur in this country. I've heard the commercials on my local Christian radio station calling abortion "genocide" and citing it as the number one killer in this country, however, I can't help but to think there might be other issues dedicated to preserving the sanctity of life. Here are some examples of such 'pro-life' issues :

• Opposition to war. Not just the U.S. war in Iraq, but wars in general. Are the lives lost in war not as valuable as an unborn fetus? Can one support war and be pro-life?
  
• Opposition to the death penalty in all fifty states.
  
• Support pouring resources into improving inner city ministries and charities where the cycle of drug use and gang violence leads many to the conclusion that death is inevitable.
• Support Stem-cell research. Tell Michael J. Fox you value life in one sentence and don't support stem cell research in the next. See how he responds.
  
• Support any U.S. legislation that increases financial assistance for AIDS relief in Africa and in other parts of the world.
• Support efforts to end the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. If abortion truly is the American "genocide," why is this "genocide" worth more activism than the Sudanese?

It seems as if Mr. Dobson and his friends have simplified the issue of 'life' to one single issue, abortion. Either you are pro-life and you value life, or you're pro-choice and you don't. While I agree that abortion is an important issue, I also agree that life is not about one single issue, and social conservatives would do well to broaden there view to reflect this. Because, the way things are looking now, there's going to be a pro-choice candidate in office.

So, I'd recommend finding out how Republican and Democratic candidates feel about these other issues of "life." Or are social conservatives only concerned about certain types of lives?

"Would you come back another time and help us sift the terds out of the cream?"

Surfing through archived clips of the Colbert Report makes me want cable. Here's another one for you. The "oxymoron" evangelical reverend Tony Campolo visited Colbert, and you should check it out. I think he must be one of the few guests to render Colbert speechless.

"In God We Trust...If you don't believe that, you shouldn't spend money."

Athiest Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, visits the Colbert Report. I'm pretty sure amidst all the satire (and hilarity) here, there's a lesson to be learned.

Door to Door Proselytism

Recently I had a very disturbing encounter with some door-to-door evangelists. They (actually it wasn't so much they as it was she, he just stood behind her) began their spiel by telling me about a bible study they were starting. I was immediately intrigued. I assumed this was a new neighbor who was starting a house church, or something of that sort. If someone in the neighborhood were starting a house church, I would at least want to know about it. So, I turned the porch light on and listened.

She began to tell me how the bible, not man, is the source of truth. She told me about how intellectual their bible study is. Apparently they really dig deep and they only use they King James Version, because that was the first, original version, which makes it much better than all the new versions that have been published recently. This was the first warning sign for me. I wanted to ask her why a translation of the bible published in 1611 was more authoritative than any other version we have today, especially since scholars have discovered other original manuscripts since 1611. Does the use of "thou" make the KJV more authoritative than any other translation? I really doubt it, it's really just a matter of preference. Of course, I didn't say this, I kept my mouth shut.

She also mentioned numerous times her passion for getting back to the model of Christianity presented in the New Testament, and her disdain for denominationalism. If it's not in the New Testament, they weren't gonna do it. She illustrated this by talking about baptism. She told me how she was taught that infant baptism was necessary for salvation and has heard that some denominations teach sprinkling is acceptable, but she quoted scripture after scripture about how immersion is necessary for salvation.

After 10 minutes of listening to her talk (without one mention of Jesus) it became pretty clear that she wasn't very interested in me. She was more interested in selling her version of Christianity, even though she apparently abhors denominationalism. After nodding incessantly (I'm a good active listener), I was finally able to jump in and let her know that I was a Christian and that we were on the same team. This apparently wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to know how I felt about baptism. I told her I believed that it was a symbolic act that represents a turning of one's heart towards God, and thus a change of behavior. She then asked what church I go to and what denomination that church was affiliated with. When I answered, she responded with, "That's what I thought. That's what Baptists believe about baptism (She never asked if I was a baptist, by the way). But it's not in the bible. You should read your bible and see what it says."

I was stunned. At this point it was pretty clear these two were not interested in sharing God's love with the East side, but were instead selling theology, and proselytism. So, gloves off, I asked them, "This is an issue [baptism] worth dividing over, isn't it? I just told you I'm a Christian. I don't doubt your faith. But you continue to question mine over the fact that I have a different belief about baptism. Should we be causing division in the church over issues of doctrine?" She had a lot of answers that I don't remember. This is where my active listening stopped.

She continued to argue her point. I asked her to leave. I'm guessing no one from my neighborhood will be attending their bible study. And sadly, if I were to ever host a bible study, my neighbors probably would't attend that either.

Homosexuality in the Bible, Part Two: the Holiness Code.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

President Bush's Theology

The following is a quote by Pres. Bush from David Brooks' most recent New York Times column:

The other debate [about Iraq] is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

Even conservative bloggers, many of whom are Christians, jumped all over this statement. Christianity Today has it here.

Listen, I can appreciate the President recognizing every humans' right, and desire, to be free. This is admirable and good. Is this a theologically sound basis for conducting war? I don't think so. In fact, many might argue Jesus opposed violence. So, Mr. President, please keep God out of American foreign policy, it makes Him look bad.

Homosexuality in the Bible, Part One: Was Homosexuality the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

My wife and I attend a small group called Ekklesia on Sunday evenings at a church in St. Paul called Central Baptist. This summer we are exploring hot topics in Christianity. This Sunday, and next, we have the pleasure of hearing from guest lecturer, Dr. Clarence Bass, about homosexuality in the bible. Bass worked along side Karl Barth, and has written a few books on theology. He’s been involved with this particular topic for decades.

In part one of this post series, I’ll be investigating one of the most widely used biblical arguments against homosexuality, that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexual sin. I’ll conduct the investigation by simply listing all biblical references to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some of these are more relevant than others and I’ve excluded all other references in the bible to Sodom that don’t give us any insight into why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. If you feel I’ve omitted important, relevant scripture, feel free to comment. (All scripture in this post comes from the NIV translation of the bible).

The most logical place to start is Genesis 18 and 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. In Genesis chapter 18 God tells Abraham he’s going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He never actually says why, except that “their sin is so grievous”(v. 20) and the people have become wicked. Abraham begs God not to, and pleads on behalf of any righteous people left in the city, eventually convincing God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if he can find 10 righteous people (the deal originally started at 50). Apparently, Abraham couldn't.

Genesis 19: 1-10
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

Deuteronomy 32: 32
Their [Israel] vine comes from the vine of Sodom
and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison,
and their clusters with bitterness.

Jeremiah 23: 14
And among the prophets of Jerusalem
I have seen something horrible:
They commit adultery and live a lie.
They strengthen the hands of evildoers,
so that no one turns from his wickedness.
They are all like Sodom to me;
the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah."

Lamentations 4: 3-6
Even jackals offer their breasts
to nurse their young,
but my people have become heartless
like ostriches in the desert.
Because of thirst the infant's tongue
sticks to the roof of its mouth;
the children beg for bread,
but no one gives it to them.
Those who once ate delicacies
are destitute in the streets.
Those nurtured in purple
now lie on ash heaps.
The punishment of my people
is greater than that of Sodom,
which was overthrown in a moment
without a hand turned to help her.

Ezekiel 16: 46-50
You [Jerusalem] not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

So, were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for homosexuality? No, not if you take a holistic view of scripture. In the Ezekiel reference, it explicitly states that the sin of Sodom was selfishly ignoring the the needs of the poor and the needy (see above), with absolutely no reference to homosexuality. God says he did away with Sodom because of this. Wow. So, why do Christians ignore this verse, when referencing the "sin of Sodom"? Could it be that an anti-homosexual bias leads some Christians to interpret scripture one way, rather than the way it was intended? Perhaps the story of Sodom teaches us how to treat people: a lesson in hospitality?

The Prosperity Gospel in Africa: Another Contextual Gospel

At its height in 1970s Latin America, Liberation Theology rocked the Vatican. It focused not only on Jesus Christ’s saving powers (a spiritual redemption), but also His liberating powers (a physical redemption). The gospel was not just about saving sinners, but freeing the oppressed. Some liberation theologians taught one’s actions towards the oppressed were more important than having right beliefs. Given the immense poverty in Latin America, it is no surprise that such a theology would a arise. It also makes sense, that some would criticize it as a socialist form of Christianity, given its Cold War context.

The Social Gospel that arose in the United States and Great Britain in the late 19th and early 20th Century was, in some ways, a precursor to Liberation Theology. Leaders of the movement believed it was Christianity’s responsibility to solve the ills caused or exacerbated by industrialization. Alcoholism, child labor, poverty, gender inequities, racism, and unhealthy living areas were all examples of such ills. Advocates of the social gospel believed until society was made right, Jesus Christ would not return.

Now, in Africa we see another contextual gospel emerge, The Prosperity Gospel. The premise behind the Prosperity Gospel is that prosperity, blessing, and success are evidence of God’s favor. The Christian Century has an excellent piece on this new gospel in Africa (click here for the article). An excerpt:

The success motif fits very well with Africa's traditional religious imagination of fertility, abundance and wholeness. Amid poverty and marginalization, prosperity Pentecostalism is a thoroughly contextualized Christianity that directly addresses pressing needs. But the way it is expressed is heavily influenced by North Americans like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, John Avanzini, Creflo Dollar, T. D. Jakes, Joel Osteen and Mike Murdock.

The point here is not to criticize the prosperity gospel, the social gospel, or liberation theology, rather to recognize their emergence within certain contexts. Had I been a Mexican man oppressed 35 years ago, a British single mom living 100 years ago, or even a Nigerian villager living today, would my version of the gospel, or brand of Christiantiy be any different? I don’t know, but when I consider another’s context, it opens the door for grace and understanding.

Bumper Sticker Theology

Somehow I don't see Jesus buying bumper stickers, I see him adopting a child in danger of being aborted or helping a mom go full-term. Seems like a better solution doesn't it? Bumperstickers and insults are probably more convenient though-definitely easier.

Movie Review: Jesus Camp

Jesus Camp, (Oscar-nominated for best documentary) follows three young children, Levi, Tory, and Rachael to Devil’s Lake North Dakota as they attend “Kids on Fire,” an evangelical, Pentecostal summer camp designed to mobilize Christian youth to “take back America.” I was riveted and terrified all at once. I’d like to force every Christian in America to watch this film and then form a discussion group—there is a lot to learn from this film. I’d also like to prevent every non-Christian from watching it, but as Richard Dawkins’ (a leader of the modern atheist movement) website shows, this isn’t happening.

Some questions the film raises:

• “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it,” (Proverbs 22: 6). At what point does this become brainwashing?

• Should we teach children/people to run from sin or run towards God’s love? How does one without the other impact faith?

• Jesus mentions how children have a unique openness to the Kingdom of God a couple of times in his ministry (Matthew 18:4; Mark 10: 13-16). Given this, how can we tell when kids are mimicking those around them (parents, church leaders and elders, other children, etc.) or genuinely acting in accord with the Holy Spirit?

• Are situations where people feel compelled to perform spiritually and emotionally healthy? Godly?

• Is there any biblical precedent for intermingling politics and the Church? Does Jesus have anything to say about this? What would Jesus say about bringing a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush to “Kids on Fire?”

• Are science and religion mutually exclusive? Can orthodox Christianity and modern science be reconciled?

• Is this film representative of all evangelicals?

Interestingly enough, for those who think this film is a smear job against evangelicals, the filmmakers flatly deny it. In fact everyone in the film endorsed it, except for Ted Haggard, who has since lost his job as head of the National Association of Evangelicals for “sexually immoral conduct.”

Jesus Camp filmmakers respond to Ted Haggard’s criticism.

Christianity Today interviews the filmmakers.

"Everything Happens For a Reason"

Recently I returned home to Omaha for my Aunt Lugene’s memorial service. At 47 she was too young to die. She left a husband (a pastor) and two beautiful daughters (14 and 17), along with a host of family and friends to mourn her. I was able to see her about 2 mos. prior to the memorial service, and, by that time the chemotherapy had taken a serious toll on Aunt Lugene’s mind and body. Her last year was full of suffering.

A few weeks after the memorial service I returned to Omaha for a high school class reunion. Upon arrival, my mother was speaking with a neighbor and it was clear they were grieving together. When I asked my mom about the conversation she said Neighbor Mary has a brother suffering of Pancreatic cancer, and as the discussion ended Mary stated,“everything happens for a reason.” This statement broke my heart.

I don’t know much about Mary. I’m not bashing her theology or doctrine, and quite frankly it’s none of my business. In fact I wasn’t even involved in the conversation, so I could be taking it out of context. That said, I believe the statement is particularly poignant. “Everything happens for a reason” is a commonly held belief in the American psyche, Christian or not. The underlying assumption behind such a statement is God is like some cosmic puppeteer, orchestrating all events, evil and good, for a certain purpose, and it’s our job to find that purpose. So, if this assumption is true, I would just ask, why did God give my Aunt Lugene cancer, allow her to suffer for over one year, then allow her to die leaving her husband alone, and daughters without their birth mother? What was the “reason” for this?

If we’re trying to answer such complex questions we first need to consider the variables responsible for determining actions and events in this world. Think of it this way, every event or action that occurs, however major (the bombing of the World Trade Center) or minor (a ripple in a pond) results from one of the following variables, or some combination of the following variables interacting:

1. Humans.
Upon creation God granted humans free-will. The very nature of such a gift means humans have as much capacity for doing evil as good. So, for every Mother Theresa there can be a Hitler.

2. God.
The perfect revelation of God’s character is Jesus Christ. Fully human, and fully divine, he embodied perfect love by dying for those who crucified him, then resurrecting from the dead three days later. Any act or event inconsistent with the character of Jesus is not from God. Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9, NIV).

3. Evil Spiritual Forces.
From beginning to end, the bible emphasizes a realm of this world that humans are often ignorant of, the supernatural realm. The book of Job illustrates the impact these spiritual forces can have upon any one person’s life. This book starts with Satan (literally translated as “the adversary”) challenging God’s omniscience. Satan believes that people only love God because they are compelled and under His protection. So, to prove this is not true, God removes His protection from the most righteous man in the land, Job, and allows Satan to have his way. Unfortunately, Job is unaware of this wager and believes he's become the victim of an unfortunate string of bad luck, or punished for his sins (both wrong). Paul reiterates the power evil spiritual forces have on earth in Ephesians 6: 12 (NIV), “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

4. A Fallen Creation.
However literally or figuratively one chooses to interpret Genesis, it’s clear that things changed drastically after Adam and Eve ate the apple (the Fall). Not only does sin enter the world, but creation becomes fundamentally flawed. What God originally declared “good” is, at best, partially so. Sure we can go to Yellowstone National Park or view a sunset and witness God’s creative genius, but the effects of the Fall are also apparent in creation. Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, AIDS, Malaria, the food chain, etc. all weren’t created by God, but instead entered the world as a result of the Fall. In Romans Paul emphasizes this, yearning for a day when creation will be liberated, like all of humanity, “We know the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” (Romans 8:22 NIV).

So, if we factor in these four variables when considering why future events occur, whether these be, earthquakes, brushing our teeth, or cancer, can we conclusively say “everything happens for a reason?” Maybe, in a cause-effect sort of way. But to say that God is behind every event in our lives is simply wrong. I’m sorry, but God was not responsible for my Aunt’s cancer, nor is he responsible for Mary’s brother’s pancreatic cancer. The Jesus who was crucified for those who murdered him does not afflict people with cancer to teach a lesson.

I don’t know why my Aunt Lugene got cancer. The variables are too complex and many to determine a cause. My guess is that it was a combination of a fallen creation and evil spiritual forces. The only thing I can know for sure is that God had nothing to do with it. From this point forward I have to rest in the knowledge of God’s perfect omniscience, “And we know that in all things [good and evil] God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose,” (Romans 8: 28). It will be interesting to see the good God weaves out of my Aunt’s tragic death.

For an excellent in-depth study on this topic I’d recommend Is God To Blame? Beyond Pat Answers To the Problem of Suffering by Greg Boyd. It has been very helpful for my family in the days since my Aunt’s death.