The 35W Bridge Collapse

I just wanted to say a quick word, for what it's worth, to say that the families affected by the bridge collapse on 35W in Minneapolis have been in our prayers.

This one hit a little closer to home for Mrs. Jolly and I because we were in Minneapolis last week and traveled that bridge at least three, but maybe four or more times in the week before it collapsed. 

I don't have anything profound to say about it except to say that we thoroughly enjoyed our time in Minneapolis.  Our week at the GCA Conference enabled us to spend the entire week hanging around the north campus of Bethlehem Baptist Church and it was a real treat.  The people were friendly, helpful, and exhibited that God-intoxicated way of life their pastor works so hard to inculcate.

The people of Minnesota in general were great.  We went to the Mall of America, to Stillwater, Taylors Falls, Collegeville and several other places and everywhere we went we were greeted by friendly, smiling faces.  We learned the proper way to say "uff-da" and "youbetcha" among other things, and had a generally great time.  So, I just hope that if someone in Minnesota reads this is reeling from this tragedy that you will know that you Minnesotans truly blessed a couple of tourists from Maryland over the past week.

On a more spiritual note, there are two posts floating around the blogosphere that bring some good perspective to this.  John Piper writes of putting his child to bed two hours after the collapse and shows that he truly gets the meaning of the collapse.  And, Michael Spencer at the internetmonk writes from a different perspective, showing that God is as concerned with the ordinary questions that come up in a situation like this as He is about the grand, cosmic, theological questions.

Comments

[iMonk]

Thank you David.

[Frank Turk (centuri0n)]

David:

I'd like you to moderate a discussion of this issue between Michael and me if you have the time -- particularly in the vein which you have phrased here hat his merely has expressed a "different perspective" in his comments about Dr. Piper and others who have addressed the problem of evil here.

That is: I'm open to giving Michael an apology if it turns out that his various posts across the blogoshere addressing the the matter of whether God allowed this tragedy or not are in some kind of synergy or parallel to Dr. Piper's (and others') comments rather than being a denunciation of the application of theology to life-and-death matters.

I'll abide by any rules you want to stipulate for that discussion as long as we can talk about the actual contents of iMonk's statement as compared to what the other so-called "TRs" have said.

[Jeff Wright]

Interesting. I'll check back to see if some sort of moderated discussion is going to take place. In the meantime, Michael - do you denounce attempts to apply theology to life and death matters or do you believe there’s a time for theology, and there’s a time to talk about why bridges fall and what we can do about it? Do you denounce the application of theology to life-and-death matters or do you think there’s a time for theological and Biblical questions, but it’s not all the time? I did not see where you denounced theology or the application of theology in your post but I figured I'd ask the question so you could clear up any confusion with a simple answer.

[iMonk]

Jeff: There are three posts at Internetmonk.com on this subject. All deal with the place of God-centeredness alongside the proper concern for other matters. I've illustrated and I've elaborated. Anyone truly curious can read those posts and answer the questions you've raised.

I have a ministry to hundreds of students who have suffered terrible losses in life, including murder/suicide of parents, tragedies in war, physical trauma, sexual abuse, dysfunctional families, accidents and on and on. I preach to these students and I teach them the Bible in high school. The sovereignty of God is a bedrock of the Biblical message and of the Gospel. I particularly use the story of Joseph- which our young people love- to affirm the truths of Romans 8:28 and the good news of a purposeful God. I frequently use Piper in my classes and I have given away hundreds of his books.

But I do not talk about God and God only all the time in the context of working with students who have experienced loss. I do not deal with questions of dysfunctional parents, etc by saying God did this to you. I believe the WCF when it says God establishes his sovereignty through secondary causes. Therefore they may be.

My ministry helps students by means of the Gospel, but also through education, vocation, work, recreation, sports, friendships and so forth. These secondary causes are "God-centered" in purpose, but I do not talk about God all the time. God is still at the center of all I say and do with students. This seems like a simple distinction unless a person is so enamored with theology that they can't see the godly/gospel value in things other than theology. Lewis said that God delights in all ordinary things as creator and redeemer. Can't we?

The bridge collapse raises theological questions, but theological questions are not the only ones raised. There are questions of accountability, corruption, political culture, civic responsibility and so on. In my understanding of the reformed faith, being God-centered is expressed in the elevation of secular vocations and secular concerns. I said this in the original post AT LENGTH. It is the same point made by Kuyper, etc.

The accusation that I am denying the application of theology to life is not worthy of a debate or discussion. It's patently ridiculous, and comes about in the usual manner: one blogger sets the table by pulling out what he wants from my post and other bloggers line up to get their licks in on the pomo, emerging, mentally unstable and theologically dangerous iMonk. Now I have a guy saying I am making "cheap shots" at Piper. Of course, how could anyone miss that?

David and several others took the time to read what I wrote and to understand that I was raising a question that naturally flows from Reformed theology. It's a question that would occur in any classroom where these things were discussed- and where questions are allowed.
s
Piper is a provocative thinker. He makes you ask questions. No one calls his version of the faith "hedonism" without wanting a response. Such questions as I ask about his thinking from time to time should be welcome and necessary, unless one is part of a subculture where "bad questions" mean you are "drifting" out of the faith.

As I said, read the posts and come to your own conclusions. Thanks for the questions.

[Jeff Wright]

"The accusation that I am denying the application of theology to life is not worthy of a debate or discussion. It's patently ridiculous..."

I agree. I'm not sure how that could be read into what you wrote in your post. I just wanted to ask you the easy question directly & simply so you could answer it directly (even though I agree that its not worthy of discussion) in order to move on from this. Rather than assuming that you denounce the application of theology to life and death matters, I figured it'd make sense to ask you if this is what you actually believe. Obviously you don't and your post did not indicate otherwise.