We’ll see what kind of response my comment gets on this blog post from John Frye on Scot McKnight’s “Jesus Creed” blog. (It’s a Patheos blog with unmoderated comments, however, so I don’t have high hopes.) In a nutshell, Frye argues that we need to emphasize spiritual warfare when we consider evil and suffering in the world. Give some of my own recent blog posts, who am I to disagree?
But does Frye’s post, which summarizes the theme of a book by Greg Boyd, solve the problem that he wants to solve? Does an emphasis on spiritual warfare “get God off the hook” for evil? Would we want to live in a universe in which God is off the hook—especially when it comes at the expense of his omnipotence, foreknowledge, or sovereignty? Never mind what it does to our understanding of the Bible as a fully truthful revelation of God.
So I’ll pass.
Anyway, nothing new here, but here’s my comment:
Like the author of this post, I believe that we don’t emphasize spiritual warfare enough. But for me, this post doesn’t solve any problems.
Did the man in the prayer circle who was having the terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad day pray that God would deliver him from it? If so, did God grant his petition? It sounds like God didn’t. In which case we have three options: 1) God didn’t grant the man’s petition because he’s incapable of doing so. 2) God didn’t grant the petition because whether or not God does so is completely arbitrary. 3) God didn’t grant the petition because, after considering it alongside all other petitions and everything else happening in the world, including God’s desire to direct history to a certain goal, God had a good reason for not doing so.
It seems to me like the third option is the best one for us Christians. If so, there is a reason God allows some bad thing to happen, even if he doesn’t cause it directly. Indeed, Satan may have caused it. But God created Satan and allows him some measure of freedom to operate. Right? Does God have a good reason to do so? Or are God’s hands tied?
My point is, the difference between God’s allowing and God’s causing isn’t nearly so great as many think.
Besides, what about, as one example, Paul’s discussion of the “thorn in his flesh” from 1 Corinthians 12? Paul describes the thorn as both a “messenger from Satan” and something that “was given” him (divine passive) by God—in order to benefit Paul in some way. Paul sees that when it comes to evil and suffering, it’s not either/or, but both/and. God is someone who constantly redeems evil. If he could do it with the cross of his Son, he can do it with all lesser forms of evil in our world.
July 10, 2016 at 7:37 am
There’s a fourth option, a possibility, consistent with your third option in perhaps a micro sense: In Matthew 18:35, the unjust steward was delivered to the prison where he would be tormented until he paid what was due. The steward’s debt to the Lord had been forgiven. What debt keeps him in torment until he pays what is due?
The debt of forgiveness. Many Christians are tormented mentally and physically because they are burdened by debts of unforgiveness. There’s no relief, no matter how many times we cry out to God, if we don’t forgive our debtors.
July 11, 2016 at 4:00 pm
I think that would fall under Option 3: there’s still a reason that God has for allowing the suffering.
July 11, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Brent, rarely enough, I am in 100% agreement with what you say here. 🙂 Very eloquently put.
July 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm
Thanks, Tom!