"God Will Never Give You More Than You Can Handle"... Really?

I hear that phrase a lot, "God will never give you more than you handle." People think it's from the Bible, but in reality, it's a misquote of 1 Corinthians 10:13 which states, "God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear."

Allowing you to be tempted and just dropping a load of crap in your lap to try and handle - two very different things. Paul's statement refers to being tempted to sin, being tempted to take the easy road instead of the more difficult, yet right, path. It has nothing - I'll repeat that - nothing - to do with the amount of stress, strain, and hardship that gets dumped upon you in life.

After all, if God doesn't give us more than we can handle, then why do people get pushed over the edge every day? Even the best of us are not immune to being pushed so far, we finally have a mental breakdown. Finally have that time when we're too exhausted and too overwrought to deal with some of life's situations anymore. Whether its pain, health, legal troubles, work stress, personal problems, family issues, financial issues, grief, or perhaps some combination of all these, people get pushed beyond what they can bear on a daily basis. Everyone is different. Everyone has a level they can handle that is not comparable to someone else's.

The Bible even has examples of people being pushed beyond their limits. Elijah couldn't handle being a prophet of God anymore. He'd raised people from the dead, struggled through famine, and had his ultimate show-down with the prophets of Baal, but when Jezebel came after him - that was his breaking point. He nearly died of thirst and starvation making his way to a cave where he went into hiding from Ahab and Jezebel who were trying to kill him. Only an angel from God swooping down and providing him with a piece of cake and a jar of water staved off death. God recognized - the prophet had been pushed too far. He doesn't tell Elijah, "I'll never give you too much to handle, so buck up and let's go!" Instead, he sends him to anoint Elisha, to become the prophet in his place... then sweeps him up in dramatic fashion into heaven. Elijah had been completely and utterly used up and could no longer do what was asked of him.

One need only read Jeremiah's laments to know he'd been pushed beyond what he could handle as well. Paul even confesses that being beaten, imprisoned, stoned, shipwrecked, and nearly killed more times than he could count displayed his weakness, not his strength. Satan tormented him with a "thorn" in his side that Paul begged God to remove, and God's response was, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

It is in that weakness that we are driven to such places of brokenness - and yes, even despair - that we know there is nothing left but for us to rely solely and completely on God. Because there's nothing more we can do about whatever situation or hardship we are in the midst of.

The question is - when people are driven to that point where they're beyond their limit, what do they do? Rely on God and simply hand everything over to him, or still try to take matters into their own hands in some fashion, thinking they still have the power and control over their life or a situation? People respond to this lack of control in a variety of ways. Some continue to fight and sometimes make a situation even worse as they try to regain that control that has been ripped out of their hands. Others give so into the despair that they think escape is the best answer. No one deals with it in exactly the same way or comes up with the same solution.

Accepting that sometimes you simply don't have that control, that hardships are being sent your way perhaps for the very purposes of beating you down, humbling you, and making you recognize you aren't just going to be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps is no simple task. I'm the first to acknowledge that. And the first to acknowledge - that sometimes, we are simply given more burdens and problems than it is possible to bear at times without some serious help from somewhere outside yourself. Sometimes there is no 'plan' or way in which we can 'solve' an issue - it just has to be allowed to play out.

But to believe we won't be given more than we can handle is a ridiculous notion that has no Biblical basis. Of course we're given more than we can handle - God's power is made perfect in weakness. Showing our weakness and vulnerability is not the way in which the world perceives strength - but it is the way in which God is able to show his power by taking control - we just need to figure out how to stop fighting against him, thinking we're super-human beings that can leap tall buildings in a single bound no matter what tragedy befalls us.

And this is not to say that faith and God's strength don't help us - they do. They are what can get us through some of the tragedies and life situations we have to face. That still doesn't mean we don't find ourselves sobbing on the floor at times just going, "What do I do now? How do I get up each day and put one foot in front of the other?" Truly - that many times takes the strength of God to accomplish just those simple tasks.

As Paul said - this will sound like foolishness to any who rely upon themselves and their abilities to get through every situation and hardship. And, perhaps it is foolishness to the world. So be it. But if you're looking for the Bible to say you'll get through every hardship without breaking down at some point - it just ain't there.

Tired of the Evolution vs Creation Debate? Me Too.

You know, I have to say, I'm really kind of sick of the "evolution" vs. "creation" debate. Yet, it seems to continue to spring up in my daily news articles from time to time. Normally, I just roll my eyes and go "Really? You're using that tired old argument AGAIN?" Because, once again, a renowned atheist and paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, has to come out with a statement in a recent article regarding evolution that makes the observation, "It's [evolution] not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

No, Dr. Leakey, it's not covered by Genesis. And you know what? I don't expect Genesis to cover that particular topic. Do you want to know why? Not because Genesis is trying to offer up an alternative to evolution, but simply because it wasn't concerned about the topic of evolution in any way, shape, or form.

Statements like Dr. Leakey's irritate me because I think Dr. Leakey is a very intelligent man, yet when statements like this are made, it's obvious that otherwise intelligent people are making rather unintelligent and ill-informed statements about topics they have clearly not researched. (Which is why I don't tend to offer up a "scientific opinion" regarding evolution. It's not my area of study and I'm not going to even attempt to argue the merits of evolutionary theory because others are far more well-versed in it than I am) You don't want to believe in God, that's fine - nothing I'm going to say or do will convince you otherwise. But please stop utilizing the "I can't find it in Genesis" argument that the vast majority of serious theologians would immediately go, "Duh!" to.

The battle the writers of Genesis were facing had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn't on their radar and wasn't a conversation they were attempting to engage. The argument of Genesis 1 was related to the worship of God vs. other ancient near-eastern deities. These deities claimed dominion over the sun, moon, stars, light, dark, water, animals, etc. All the "stages" of creation represent the dominion of one of these gods. It's engaging the question of who is really God? Who deserves worship? The Creator behind the creation, or the creation itself? The conversation was not intended to be about whether the earth was created in a certain time frame or whether evolution was the process through which God used to create, etc. No, you won't find the dinosaurs mentioned. Why? Because it had no bearing on God's relationship to humanity. Sharks aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, either, and we know they're one of the oldest creatures that are still in existence, yet I don't think that the omission of mentioning sharks means that the Bible is trying to state sharks didn't exist back then, or that they don't exist today. But other than the fact that they can cause an early demise to a few surf-boarders and swimmers, sharks have no real bearing on the relationship between God's relationship with humans... thus they're not mentioned.

The Bible is interested in talking about how the human and the divine relate. Yes, there are observations made about the world in which the authors lived in, but physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc. were not its primary focus or concern. Yes, it claims some things that defy logical, scientific explanation sometimes (like the sun standing still in Joshua 10) - but then again, is that what is meant or is the Bible using hyperbole to get its point across? Is it a Hebrew poetic structure that was not intended literally? Is it a translational issue? Was it the power of God defying the laws of physics that he created and has dominion over? Did it merely mean that God gave the Israelites the time they needed to defeat their enemies? I suppose that's up to the individual interpreter/reader to decide for themselves. The point being - there are many ways in which to look at, read, understand, and interpret such passages. Yet, atheist scientists grab hold of one perspective and one perspective only and use that to justify their stance that it's "evolution, not God."

However, my question to the atheist "evolution only" proponents is this - when you engage the Biblical argument, why must you always cite and argue against a viewpoint that is not held by a majority of Christians? Yes, there is a very vocal and large group that will insist upon the literal 6 day creation, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, etc. And as a Christian, while I may not agree with that particular understanding because I don't think that's how it was meant to be understood, I don't really care if other Christians do choose to interpret it that way. That's where they're at with it and that's fine. But I know many Christians who do not hold that viewpoint.

So my issue is why is there rarely any engagement with the perspective many Christians take of Genesis, those who read it as a book of faith that is engaging who God is and what God's desire is for this relationship between humanity and the divine?

If I want to read about evolution - I'll go pick up one of your books, Dr. Leakey, not the Bible. But if I want to read about humanity's relationship with the divine - I'll go to the Bible, not you. Or Dr. Dawkins, or any other scientist who chooses to dabble in theology by engaging and arguing against only the most extreme conservative viewpoints that don't represent how many Christians understand it. The argument, in fact, is getting so old and repetitive, I'm tired of hearing it. Engage us with something interesting and that isn't the typical mantra from your group.

Because people like me, who love both theology AND science, are tired of the attempts to pit one against the other. It's unnecessary and quite frankly, only tells me that your bias gets in the way of you being a good scientist because you only look at the Bible from one perspective. Aren't you trained to look  at evidence, documents, etc. from a variety of perspectives? Doesn't the scientific "process" mean looking at evidence from all angles? You've clearly decided that methodology doesn't apply when you broach the topic of theology and look at only one interpretation and only listen to one "camp" of Christian interpreters. As a student of literature, it's perhaps easier for me to recognize what I am and what I'm not reading. So I get that your understanding of literary types may not be quite where mine is. Yet I would think that even you would know not to read poetry the same way you read a biography, or read the sports page the same way you would read a letter to a friend. Wouldn't identifying what you're reading exactly be one of the first things you should try to do?

So when you start following your own espoused "process" of looking at the information and arguments - then I'd love to talk about this topic. Until then, please don't spout off about an area of study you are clearly not well-versed in and have only given rudimentary and, quite frankly, simplistic thought.