Posts Tagged ‘theodicy’

The theological implications of stolen pastries

September 17, 2012

In this photo, I just finished eating mandazi with tea, a Kenyan custom I could get used to!

In Vinebranch yesterday, I showed this short video of the Kenyan worship service from the previous week. One part of the worship service, as you can see from the video, featured testimonies. One pastor described a recent experience in which thieves broke into his house while he and his wife were gone. They were relieved to discover that the only thing missing was the mandazi that his wife had cooked the night before. (Mandazi is a puffy fried bread similar to beignets, but without the powdered sugar. Kenyans often eat it with tea.) He concluded his testimony by saying how thankful to God he is that God is “taking care of us pastors.”

One person I talked to objected to this testimony. She didn’t believe that God had intervened in the manner implied by his testimony. In other words, she didn’t believe that God prevented the thieves from stealing more valuable possessions—or even doing much worse harm. After all, it’s easy to imagine all the evil that God allows to happen every day. Why should he intervene in one instance and not another?

It’s a good question that every thoughtful believer must deal with. I remember listening to a Christian radio station back in 1989, the morning after an earthquake struck San Francisco (during the World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s). The DJ, when discussing the earthquake, said that he had some friends in the Bay area, and he was relieved that they were unharmed by the quake. He said, “I just thank God that they’re all right!”

Even as a 19 year old Christian, I had a theological problem with this response. If you thank God for sparing the lives of your friends, then it follows logically that you blame God (or, in some perverse Calvinist way, “thank” God) for allowing people to die—or for killing people. (Same difference, I guess.) A more Christian response to such a natural disaster would be to thank God for giving you these friendships and, possibly, for reminding you through this disaster that life is fragile, and we shouldn’t take it for granted.

Getting back to the objection at hand, my friend asked, “What if the thieves didn’t only steal the mandazi. What if something much worse happened? Would the pastor be offering a testimony thanking God for that?”

My first response is that this is a hypothetical that didn’t happen. By all means, if something much worse had happened to this pastor, then his testimony would be different.  I suspect, given the man’s faith, that he would see God’s hand in it somewhere—not (I hope) in causing the evil, but in bringing something good out of it. As with the San Francisco earthquake, it’s helpful that God uses bad things to remind us of how precious life is. Even in this more trivial case of robbery, I’m sure that God used the experience to teach this pastor something. The pastor’s gratitude to God is probably related to this.

What’s at stake in my friend’s objection, however, is the question of God’s providence and the extent to which God is active in our world. We post-Enlightenment Westerners easily fall victim to a kind of Deism that severely limits God’s involvement in our universe. God winds up the universe like a clock and lets it run on its own—maybe occasionally intervening with a miracle here and there, but those occasions are rare.

This Deism is far removed from the biblical and Christian understanding of providence. As Paul tells the Athenians in Acts 17, God is the one “in whom we live and move and have our being.” God sustains the universe, including every life within it, at every moment, by the power of the Holy Spirit. If God removed his Spirit from us, we would cease to exist. In this sense, every moment of life we enjoy—every heartbeat, every breath—is a ongoing gift from a God who is closer to us than we are to ourselves.

It’s also clear from scripture (as in Romans 8:28, for example) that God directs the universe toward the good, while at the same time respecting human freedom. He isn’t sitting on the sidelines, helpless to do anything about evil. We pray, “deliver us from evil,” believing that God actually has the power to do so. Although this doesn’t mean that God delivers us from all evil, we still have hope: through the cross of his Son Jesus, he has defeated the forces of evil—a victory that will be made manifest on the other side of resurrection.

From my perspective, then, miracles are not exceptional events; they happen all the time—even if they don’t break the laws of physics.

So, did God intervene to limit the harm caused by these thieves? I have no theological reason to doubt it.

The fact is that God blesses us. As scripture and common sense show us, he doesn’t distribute his blessings impartially or equitably. We human beings don’t like this. Didn’t Cain murder Abel because he perceived the “unfairness” of God’s blessings? As I preached yesterday, however, we’re not meant to horde our blessings; we’re meant to share them with others. (We obviously don’t like that, either!)

Getting back to our hypothetical situation: Suppose the pastor’s house had been completely ransacked. His most valuable possessions were stolen. He lost everything. Further suppose that his friends, neighbors, and fellow church members gathered their resources together to support and provide for him and his family in the aftermath of the crisis. Through their efforts, this crime—as evil as it was—didn’t bring him to ruin. Instead, it reminded him in a powerful way of God’s love and grace.

By all means, had this happened, his testimony would have been different. But he would have had as much reason to be thankful. He could still thank God that “God is taking care of us pastors.”

Once again, David Bentley Hart on suffering

September 6, 2011

In my previous post, I recommended David Bentley Hart’s book on theodicy to Trevin Wax. That book grew out of this essay that Hart wrote in the wake of 2005′s St. Stephen’s Day tsunami. I just re-read the essay, and it’s as powerful as I remember. Hart attacks the hyper-Calvinist view that the end of history will justify its means. No matter the evil, we will see in retrospect that it was really for our own good, and that without it, life in God’s kingdom wouldn’t be as sweet.

One key to understanding Hart’s line of reasoning is the traditional Christian understanding of evil: It is not something in and of itself; it is the absence of something—specifically, the absence of good. With that in mind, Hart writes, evil “can have no positive role to play in God’s determination of Himself or purpose for His creatures (even if by economy God can bring good from evil); it can in no way supply any imagined deficiency in God’s or creation’s goodness.” He continues:

There is, of course, some comfort to be derived from the thought that everything that occurs at the level of what Aquinas calls secondary causality—in nature or history—is governed not only by a transcendent providence, but by a universal teleology that makes every instance of pain and loss an indispensable moment in a grand scheme whose ultimate synthesis will justify all things. But consider the price at which that comfort is purchased: it requires us to believe in and love a God whose good ends will be realized not only in spite of—but entirely by way of—every cruelty, every fortuitous misery, every catastrophe, every betrayal, every sin the world has ever known; it requires us to believe in the eternal spiritual necessity of a child dying an agonizing death from diphtheria, of a young mother ravaged by cancer, of tens of thousands of Asians swallowed in an instant by the sea, of millions murdered in death camps and gulags and forced famines. It seems a strange thing to find peace in a universe rendered morally intelligible at the cost of a God rendered morally loathsome. Better, it seems to me, the view of the ancient Gnostics: however ludicrous their beliefs, they at least, when they concluded that suffering and death were essential aspects of the creator’s design, had the good sense to yearn to know a higher God.

I do not believe we Christians are obliged—or even allowed—to look upon the devastation visited upon the coasts of the Indian Ocean and to console ourselves with vacuous cant about the mysterious course taken by God’s goodness in this world, or to assure others that some ultimate meaning or purpose resides in so much misery. Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave. And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we know also that it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will one day be revealed. Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and, in such a world, our portion is charity.

As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child I do not see the face of God, but the face of His enemy. It is not a faith that would necessarily satisfy Ivan Karamazov, but neither is it one that his arguments can defeat: for it has set us free from optimism, and taught us hope instead. We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes—and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, “Behold, I make all things new.”

 

Getting drunk on God’s sovereignty

September 6, 2011

These New Calvinists are a weird bunch. They take the most unspeakably evil tragedy and say not merely that God allowed it, not merely that God will use it to bring good, but that God caused it. They remind me a little of conspiracy theorists: the very lack of evidence for—or evidence directly contradictingtheir point of view is further proof of their belief. The more incomprehensible the evil—the more reluctant any sane person would be to say, “The God revealed to us in Jesus Christ must be the author of this”—the more satisfied they are that “God is in control” and “God’s will is done,” so praise God!

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt from time to time, but then I read something like this post from Trevin Wax. If I’m misinterpreting what he’s saying, please tell me how.

My favorite part is this:

Is it worth it having free will just so God can be loved without force? Isn’t there something bigger than our love for God?

I would ask that Wax refrain from using the word “love” because without freedom the word has no meaning. Coerced love isn’t love.

Good, evil, love, hatred, indifference… From Wax’s point of view, what’s the difference? A sovereign God wills what God wills, so praise God. In many ways, this extreme form of Calvinism isn’t much different from Hinduism: Whatever happens is really good, because it’s all God. What you see is what you get. If you don’t like what you see, that’s your problem, not God’s.

I would also recommend that Wax read David Bentley Hart’s Doors of the Sea. Christian thinking on this subject didn’t begin in the sixteenth century.

It goes without saying that God is good, but…

August 9, 2011

Here’s a recurring theological problem I run into in church life, and I’m perfectly willing to concede that it’s a personal problem that I need to work through. Any insight that my readers can offer is appreciated.

My problem is this: Someone, often an older adult, is facing a potentially life-threatening health crisis. People in the church are praying for this person. The surgery or other medical intervention is successful, and the person survives. How do those of us who prayed for that person respond? Thanking God for someone’s recovery certainly seems fitting, so long as we understand—as C.S. Lewis said so poignantly—that every deathbed represents an unanswered prayer. The last prayer for someone’s successful recovery, in other words, will be unanswered. We all will die sometime.

But I often hear this response: “God is good!” And others will chime in their agreement: “Indeed, God is good!”

And I strongly agree: God is good. But this response implies that the person’s successful recovery affirms God’s goodness. “Look what God did in saving this person’s life! This proves that God is good.”

What if the person for whom you were praying died? Would God still be good?

Ensuring that even those indifferent to your cause will hate you

August 5, 2011

This relates to the story about the atheist group suing to prevent the World Trade Center “cross” from being part of the 9/11 memorial. It goes back a while, but I just stumbled across it.

By the way, just to answer Silverman’s charge against “the god who couldn’t prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack,” my friend Kevin Hargaden addresses theodicy (how God is good in the face of so much evil) rather more bluntly than I have in this oldie-but-goodie about the St. Stephen’s Day Tsunami.

Remember last week’s tornadoes? One pastor’s response

May 4, 2011

Aerial photo of Tuscaloosa after last week's tornado

I’m aware that the news cycle has moved on rather dramatically from last week’s devastating tornadoes that swept through Alabama and Georgia. But before it gets too far away, I did like this pastor’s theological reflection. Adam Hamilton goes through the usual laundry list of “reasons” God allows or causes natural disasters such as this one. Although he disagrees with them, he rightly point out that these explanations can offer comfort (to some) and assurance (to some) that “God is in control.”

“God is in control” is not a bad or untrue message, either. The question is, “How does God exert that control?” Hamilton writes:

But there is a different message many pastors will preach this weekend. They will tell their parishioners that God doesn’t send tornadoes. To find the answer to the “Why?” question, these pastors will suggest, one must turn not to a theologian or to the Bible, but to a meteorologist. The meteorologist explains that tornadoes are naturally occurring events that can, with varying degrees of accuracy, actually be predicted… These pastors may even take the time to explain the weather conditions that give rise to tornadoes. It is not God, they will say, but the collision of hot and cold air, that is the answer to the question, “Why?”

Then they will remind their people that just over a week ago, on Good Friday, Christians remembered that the Son of God himself was subjected to pain and suffering, tragedy and loss, such that he cried out, using the words of Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” They will note that a religion whose founder was crucified cannot be construed to teach that God’s people will never suffer. God seldom suspends the laws of nature, just as God does not remove free will to keep evil people from doing evil things.

Even before my series of articles and sermons last year in the wake of the Haiti disaster, I wrote this piece on theodicy, which some might find helpful.

Evil is not good in disguise

April 1, 2011

Here is Brian McLaren’s kind and patient response to John Piper’s recent assertion (which he asserts often in the face of natural and human disasters) that God willed the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Piper. I’ve written and preached elsewhere on the subject of theodicy (re: Haiti, here, here, and here—my sermon on the topic is here), and I have little to add to McLaren’s article except to say a hearty Amen.

Piper writes that in the face of such tragedies, beyond empathy and aid, people need answers. Maybe they do, although it’s not evident to me that “answers” should be as high as third on that list. (I question the wisdom of volunteering answers so quickly and glibly, especially considering that Jesus, when asked to provide “answers” to a similar tragedy in his day, was far more circumspect.)

Regardless, if people want answers, Piper happily obliges them. Everything that happens in the universe, he says, God permits. (I think the hyper-Calvinists among us talk about God’s active will and God’s permissive will—something like that.) I wholeheartedly agree that God permits everything that happens. But Piper goes further: What God permits, God also obviously wills—even if it’s evil. This has Piper saying things like this: “God has a good and all-wise purpose for the heart-rending calamity in Japan on March 11, 2011, that appears to have cost tens of thousands of lives [. . . .] Indeed, he has hundreds of thousands of purposes, most of which will remain hidden to us until we are able to grasp them at the end of the age.”

Read the rest of this entry »

“You asked for a loving God: you have one”

January 7, 2011

In his profoundly beautiful book The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis argues that some (but by no means all) human suffering is necessary if, indeed, God loves us. Lewis uses analogies of an artist’s love for his art, a person’s love for a pet, a father’s love for a child, and a lover’s jealous passion for his beloved.

I thought of his words this week as I’m preparing my sermon on the first three of the Ten Commandments. What does it mean, in Exodus 20:5, that God is a “jealous God” who punishes?

In the following passage, Lewis brings his argument to this rousing crescendo—and sheds light on a possible answer:

When Christianity says that God loves man, it means that God loves man: not that He has some ‘disinterested’, because really indifferent, concern for our welfare, but that, in awful and surprising truth, we are the objects of His love. You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of the terrible aspect’, is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artists’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between sexes. How this should be, I do not know: it passes reason to explain why any creatures, not to say creatures such as we, should have a value so prodigious in their Creator’s eyes. It is certainly a burden of glory not only beyond our deserts but also, except in rare moments of grace, beyond our desiring…

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 1940; 1966), 39-40.

Rev. Larisa Parker’s sermon from 02-28-10: “Does God Love Haiti? Part 2: Christian Responses to Suffering”

March 3, 2010

So Brent told you I would have the answers. I don’t have the answers, but I have responses. I want to share with you where I am now, after two and a half years as the Associate Pastor of Pastoral Care. In those two and a half years, I’ve seen all kinds of suffering: people with cancer, people dying, people with children or loved ones who are in trouble or suffering, and you know, I feel a great compassion for them. It gets me, too, to see them suffering. So I’ve struggled with why we suffer, what it means, and so on. And so here is where I am today with that.

Some of you have attended your high school reunions. The five-year reunion was still a lot like being back in high school. People still looked much the same. They tended to get in the same clique to talk to each other. Many had gone to college, or married. A few had children. Then you go to the 10 or 15 year reunion, and things have changed. Some people have gotten divorced, or been fired. They’ve had loved ones get sick or get old or die. A couple people from your graduating class have died under tragic circumstances. And the feeling in the reunion changes: it becomes more tender. People talk to each other, regardless of the cliques they were in before. Life has humbled them. Suffering has taught them compassion. One woman threw her arms around me and said, “Hi, sweetie!” and she wouldn’t even talk to me in high school. Life brings us suffering. And this causes faith issues. Why did this happen to me? What did I do to deserve this? How could God let this happen to me? Where is God anyway! Read the rest of this entry »

If you want to go deeper

February 24, 2010

Here are a couple of books that I found very helpful as I reflected on the recent earthquake in Haiti. One, David Bentley Hart’s The Doors of the Sea, was written just after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. It is short (109 pages), polemical, and deep. Hart is not someone you’d want to face in a debate. He elaborates on an op-ed he wrote shortly after the tsunami in the Wall Street Journal. Hart, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, is deeply critical of the extreme sovereignty position of hard-line Calvinism, which says that there is no difference between what God wills and what God allows. Everything that happens, Calvin argued and some Calvinists still believe, is God’s will—a position that strikes me as deeply unbiblical, not to mention just plain weird.

Hart also blows apart a couple of related, but perhaps more seductive, ideas. First, as bad as the world often is, God needs everything to happen just this way in order to reach his desired (good) goal. All this suffering will make sense, in other words, at the end of history as we know it. This is the foundation of the platitude, “Everything happens for a reason.” I like this idea in the sense that it emphasizes humility, which surely we need to bring to any discussion of God’s ways in the world. The problem is that it turns evil, suffering, and death into God’s secret allies, the biblical witness to the contrary. If evil is necessary to achieve God’s ends, then it’s not really bad after all. It just seems bad. Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers