“Theodicy, the attempt to reconcile ones belief in a loving and powerful God with the suffering present in our world, is a key element in providing care to those in need. Our disappointment with God in the face of suffering, tragedy, or injustice typically stems from our assumptions about how God is supposed to work in our world. When God does not meet our expectations, we are disappointed, disillusioned, and confused. The sweeping message of the Bible is not a promise that those who believe and do good will not suffer. Instead the Bible is largely a book about people who refused to let go of their faith in God in the face of suffering.” P., chaplain and counselor.
My wife and I have argued in the past over the presence of God in tragic circumstances. We agree that the Bible shows a variety of divine rationales for suffering and pain: punishment, discipline, human sin, etc. We agree that nothing happens without God’s allowing it to happen. We also agree that no matter what, God’s will cannot be thwarted.
That’s pretty much the end of our consensus.
Stacy says God’s hand is in all things, even pain and tragedy. By this, she usually means that on some level God caused the terrible event, or willfully and actively permitted it to happen. His permission is active, not passive. His will and plan extend not only to the overarching spread of history, but also to broken shoelaces and stubbed toes.
I contend that God’s hand is in all tragic things in that He granted free will to humanity; true free will allows for the commission of bad acts. As a result of a fallen humanity, we all do bad things and we live on a globe that reacts to the corrupting influence of sin. On the average, I hold to the position that while God does, in fact, actively cause some suffering, by and large the pain we all experience is simply the result of the cause-and-effect nature of free will that He ordained.
Regardless of our divergent positions, we’ve never really struggled with the question, “Why, God? Why?”
For as long as I can recall, I’ve viewed tragedy as being largely the result of free will. Lung cancer? You smoked, dude. Divorce? You failed to forgive and respect one another. Paralyzed after a car accident? The other guy shouldn’t have driven while stoned. Earthquake? Adam’s decision messed up everything.
Seems reasonable, I think.
What does our approach to the notion of theodicy say about the strength or character of our faith? I always thought my approach meant my faith was pretty solid; after all, if you never end up questioning God about things, that would seem to imply that you’re rock-solid, yes? I trust that He will take care of everything in the end, and that suffering is in no way His fault.
If my debates with my wife have shown me anything, it is that she places far more faith in the concept of God’s presence in this world that I traditionally have. On the other hand, I place more weight on the notion that God has created a system that relies on Him yet has self-governing rules and results. Even so, for each of us the question remains: what does our position on the matter say about our faith?
Let’s take a moment to speculate a bit…
Taken to a logical positive conclusion, I think Stacy’s philosophy could end with, “I trust God, even when He hurts us. Period.” Taken to a logical negative conclusion, though, I believe her thinking could be summarized as, “Ultimately, this is all His doing and therefore His fault. He’s the one to blame for my pain.”
If we apply the same approach to my (more enlightened) view, a positive result would be, “God is omniscient and has designed a system filled with free-will that will still result in His goals.” The flip side would be, “God wound up the world like a clock and it’s just going to run along all by itself until He says we’re out of time.”
Hmm.
Seems to me I asked the wrong question. Theodicy does, indeed, show the character of our faith. A more important perspective, though, is that our faith and our theology inform our theodicy. If we truly trust God, we can hold to either position presented here and still potentially have a proper view of God’s actions in this world. And if we truly do not trust in the presence of a personal God, we’ll end up marginalizing Him and His character.
P.S.
Going back to the introductory quote, I realize we each make assumptions about how God is supposed to do things, and that those assumptions will likely determine whether we are content in suffering or outraged at its existence. Assumptions do not spring into life from nothing, though; they come from our beliefs and our view of the world.
You want to talk to someone about suffering versus the existence of a loving God? Find out what they assume, then find the story behind it.
Sounds a little like defining sovereignty as a part-time job.
I see your point.
I think the crux of the matter as you’ve proposed it lies in defining sovereignty. If we say the concept means active, willful control over every single aspect of everything that happens, then yes – I’ve accidentally proposed sovereignty as a part-time job. However, if we define it as control through establishing cause-and-effect even while knowing exactly how that system will play out, then all I’ve dreamed up is divine control through divinely-ordained processes.
“active, willful control over every single aspect of everything that happens . . . [vs.] . . . establishing cause-and-effect even while knowing exactly how that system will play out.”
Jeremy:
While the original post itself is certainly an interesting read, I find this particular response to Bob’s comment most intriguing. In particular, I’m very interested in the way you’ve formulated these two potential alternatives. I’m curious: do you see these two formulations as morally equivalent on God’s part?
Please don’t think I’m trying to trick you or make a point by asking a loaded question. I genuinely find these issues fascinating, and I genuinely am curious as to your thoughts.
I’m not sure if I could define them as morally equivalent mainly because I’d be evaluating God’s approach to His own sovereignty. I know that sounds like I’m dodging the question, but really – if He has determined to control things through either option I’ve presented, then that is the very definition of morality despite anything I might say.
I just don’t know. And maybe, that’s part of the entire subject: we are attempting to define how He defines His role.
Jeremy
Thanks for the reply. I agree that it’s a nuanced subject, so I appreciate you taking the time to think through these things.
And what about the sinless world to come? Will we have free will in that world? Will such free will mean that we will have pain?
Blessings,
Stephen
Stephen, what a great question. Personally, my thoughts are that God will not “lobotomize” our ability to make choices, so much as remove all opportunity/ability to sin. Choosing any thought or action outside of God’s glory will simply no longer be an option. I am under the impression that this is the state that His angels currently live in.
I have absolutely no way of proving this or offering any evidence to this affect, just a theory.
Blessings.
This is something I believe, which I’m sure will cause some people’s heads to explode. God is ultimately responsible for all that occurs. How can He not be? However He need not be in minute control of every occurrence, for the simple reason of the law of cause and effect. He created a universe in which physical bodies attract each other in proportion to their mass. Therefore He does not need to actively pull things to earth when we drop them. He can interfere with that process, but that is a different issue.
I know some people cannot separate responsible from guilty, but unless one is an open theist, then foreknowledge requires that God be responsible for all that occurs, even if He doesn’t like the occurrence.
Bill, you make a good point. However, I’m wondering why you do not separate “foreknowledge” from “responsibility”? It seems to me that God’s simple foreknowledge of an event does not necessitate his responsibility for that event. For example, a father might know in advance that his son will fail an exam because the father knows that the son that has not spent any time preparing. Does this make the father responsible for the son’s failing grade? I think not.
TK: I also see your point. I guess I would put it this way: If, before his son was even born, the father knew all that the son would do, even the bad things, then the father is in that sense responsible (not guilty) for all that his son does. That does not imply causality. The father does not cause his son’s failing grade. I think of it this way: The captain of a ship is responsible for all that occurs on that ship. He does not cause all things to happen and he is not guilty of the possible misdeeds of those under his command, but he is ultimately responsible. That is a common standard that we hold people to and they are not omniscience nor omnipotent.
Bill, I like where you’re going, but when we say that a captain of a ship is responsible for all that happens on board, I feel like that includes the idea that he can be “held accountable”, whether or not he is at fault. It also includes the idea that he can be blamed for anything bad that happens on his watch. I don’t think God can be held accountable for anything by anyone.
I think the analogy of the son is a better analogy – which is to say, that by giving rise to the son, he is indirectly responsible for what his son does, because there would be no son if not for his decision to have one. But that does not mean that he is immediately responsible for all that his son does.
In like manner, I believe that God in a certain sense is indirectly responsible for all things which happen, because God created the conditions by which all things that do happen could happen at all. I do not believe that God is directly responsible, or let’s say, the immediate cause, for all things that happen.
What do you think?
RG: I agree that the Captain is in some sense held accountable for his charges. However the whole notion of accountability implies a higher authority, of which there is none for God. Job tried to hold God accountable for what happened to him, and of course in a very real sense God was responsible for what happened to Job. Job himself acknowledges it. But when God answers Job, He essentially tells him that He (God) does not answer to Job. He does not do this in a “neener, neener, you’re not the boss of me” kind of way. Rather He tells Job that he cannot possibly understand the working of the universe and its creator.
I explain it to my students this way. Stand 4 inches away from a wall sized tapestry, and the most you will see is a few threads. From that distance it is unlikely to have any form at all, and is even perhaps dark and ugly. That is how we see. Step back 15 feet and view the whole thing, and it is a thing of beauty, with the dark and ugly threads woven in to the whole to create a masterpiece. That is how God sees, and how God weaves.
That sounds more authoritative than I mean it to be, as if I have figured out God. But that is my best explanation.
Sovereignty exists in both scenarios. God has sovereignly chosen the kind of sovereignty that he desires in the Creator-creation relationship. Is God omni-causal or does he govern all occurences without causing all of them? I’ve found that the use of the phrase “sovereignty of God” always needs further clarification in internet discussions and rantings.
Does God cause or actively permit marital affairs?
An essential issue is not just the power of God but also the character of God. Can God be good if he is omni-causal?
God allows everything to happen.
He does not give children cancer or does not place the Hitlers of this world in power.
But He somehow uses the bad and evil in this world for His purposes.
Yes we can speak of God being in charge of everything , true enough, but so many of these questions reflect a theology of ‘glory’. Wanting to be able to know everything and figure it all out.
I think it’s best to leave some things as mysteries that we cannot explain and preserve the goodness of God without alienating people from Him (telling the mother or father that their little 4 year old died of cancer because ‘it was God’s will’. I don’t think that is helpful.
Thanks.
Perhaps the most important thing you said was, “I realize we each make assumptions about how God is supposed to do things, and that those assumptions will likely determine whether we are content in suffering or outraged at its existence.” You call them “assumptions,” I call them “presuppositions,” same difference. They not only frame our view of suffering, but of virtually every mental process. Usually, presuppositions are not recognized, as they are typically unarticulated. Many of the different opinions I see here on come about through different presuppositions, and I find it very difficult to get some people to recognize their own–just as it is difficult for me to recognize mine. But I applaud your efforts, and hope that you, like me, will continue to examine ourselves to understant why–why REALLY–we come to some of the conclusions we come to. It might just make a difference!
John
a saying from the ancient Greek philosopher, Aeschylus,
this:
“He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep
pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us, by the awful grace of God.”
For what it is worth, In Eden, that glorious and wonderful place, Adam sold us out. As a result of that awful sin, death entered into the world.
All manner of sickness, cancer, blood disease,blindness, and any other disease you can think of. All this was passed on to the human race.
Because of one man’s sin, all were made sinners.
God with his foreknowledge, knew exactly what Adam would do. This is why God made a provision before the world was even created. This provision was God’s own son, Jesus the Christ. Adam sold us out, Jesus
buys us back by his precious blood.
God in his foreknowledge knew all the stupid mistakes, all the wrong decisions, and all the sin that man is going to commit today. God knows the suffering of man kind, this also includes babies with cancer, and all the things we don’t want to even think about. God knew that man would invent a two ton piece of metal that was capable of cruising at seventy miles an hour and crashing into another piece of metal of the same weight and speed. We ask God, why? look to Adam my friend. Let’s not look so Holy, if one of us were in Adams place we would have done the same thing because Adam had free will.
There are some things that is not our choice to make, It’s Gods choice.
There are some things we don’t know, some things we don’t need to know, and some things that are none of our business.
I’m with Stacy. God is good in everything He does. In other words, He is not being malicious when He actively allows pain and suffering.
“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Rom. 11: 36)
That is plain enough. We may not like it, may have problems with it, but it plainly says “all things” are “of” God. He is the first cause of all things and in that sense is the cause of all things. Aristotle spoke of four major kinds of cause. Most people use the word “responsible” in the sense of “blame,” but often it is used in the sense of “cause.”
God is accountable to none and is not guilty of anything because he is not under law to any.
A word of about God’s permissive will. In a sense, God permitting a thing is a cause of that thing. If we admit that nothing can occur apart from God’s permitting it, then his permitting it becomes a cause.
Also, if we admit that God is a knowing first cause of all other causes, then he is responsible, as a cause, for all things.
Blessings,
Stephen
So, you are saying that God is the first cause of all sins. And the insuring determiner of all stages in between to the actor of the sin. Are the thoughts of the sinner caused by God also?
How does James 1:13 fit into this? Is God actually the first cause of temptation?
David (Not the Other One, or Two),
You rightly point out the absurdity of applying human definitions to God.
Paul (Romans) addresses this same issue of making God the Author of sin, as does James.
The greatest theological errors it seems to me is to stretch a verse into a shape that is unrecognizable to the Author.
Dear David:
I simply cited a verse. Do you disagree that “all things” are “of” God? Do you interpret “all things” to simply mean “some” things?
Blessings,
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
The verse Romans 11:36 is doxological in form with the intent to exhort praise of God. I do not think it is intended to provide a systematic philosophically comprehensive statement that God is the ultimate cause of sin. I suggest that doxology by its nature is hyperbolic and broadly expressive of adoration with regard to the adored. The use of the language has no intention of didactically providing a comprehensive philosophical understanding of the subject. The statements of praise are to evoke from the reader a worshipful sense that God indeed has mysterious ways of accomplishing his plans. Is God the cause of sin? May it never be!
If we were to take everything as plain simple comprehensive statements then we would have to conclude from Romans 11:33 that we can know ABSOLUTELY nothing about God’s judgments and his ways, because they are “unsearchable” and “unfathomable”. The only conclusion from that is that we can’t even understand anything about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Certainly that is not what Paul is teaching since this whole letter is his attempt at explaining some of God’s ways.
Blessings also to you,
David
Dear David:
It may be doxological, but doxology is a statement of why we praise and glorify God, or is based upon truth about God.
I do not believe Paul is exaggerating (using hyperbole). Again, you say this because you cannot accept that “all things” means all things, but want to make it mean “some things.”
Further, the context of Romans 11: 36 is doctrinal, it sums up the doctrine contained in the previous chapters.
Yes, God’s judgments and ways are unfathomable, but Rom. 11: 36 is not beyond comprehension.
Besides, this is not the only verse that says that all things are of God. Notice these verses:
“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Heb. 2: 10)
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (I Cor. 8: 6)
“For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (I Cor. 11: 12)
“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” (II Cor. 5: 18)
Blessings,
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
I say it is hyperbolic because of the purposeful semantic nature of doxology and because the implications of contradiction when James 1:13 is brought into the picture. God cannot be the cause of all things and also not be the causal source of temptation as James 1:13 teaches.
In my opinion, you are overreading the implications by not paying enough attention to contextual clues and the dynamics of communication.
All of God’s ways have to be incomprehensible, that means ALL of them, if we take the hermeneutical principle you are suggesting. Romans 11:33 says God’s ways and judgments are “unsearchable” and “unfathomable”. How can you say you understand any one thing about God since Paul clearly says that these things are not understandable? Contextually it is clear that Paul is being doxologically hyperbolic which is a cultural way of speaking and praising God. Western civilized communication has become hyper-literal and has misunderstood how ancient cultures convey their ideas and passions.
The other passages you mentioned have either doxological phrasings or contextual parameters of reference.
Please explain how James 1:13 works in the omni-causal system of understanding God.
Enjoying the interaction,
David
Dear David:
You said: “God cannot be the cause of all things and also not be the causal source of temptation as James 1:13 teaches.”
That is simply not true. Again, you do not believe that “all things” mean “all things.” If Paul meant “some things” he would have said “some things.”
I said that Aristotle spoke of at least four different kinds of causes. He spoke of the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. I suggest to you that these causes are involved in Romans 11: 36. All things are “of” God as the formal and first cause. All things are “through” God as the efficient cause. All things are “to” God as the final cause.
Now, of course, there are other kinds of causes, which is why we speak of primary cause, instrumental cause, direct and indirect cause, mediate or immediate cause, contributing cause, etc. In the case of temptation, where James says that temptation is not “of” God, James is saying that God is not the immediate or direct cause of temptation. James is not denying that God is in some sense a cause. Take the temptation of Jesus. The immediate cause of it was the Devil. But, Jesus was led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Thus, the Spirit was an indirect cause. The same with the trials of Job. Satan was the immediate cause, but God was also a cause, as Job even acknowledges.
Blessings,
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
And we return to saying that God is the first cause of all sins. And the insuring determiner of all stages in between to the actor of the sin. It must be also that the thoughts of the sinner are caused by God also. If God is the first primary cause, all other “causes” are better described as progressive chronological conditions. They actually contribute nothing to the chain of causation other than being the channel of the first cause’s action.
And in my evaluation, the holiness of God is now suspect, and God is now unknowable with regard to his attributes of goodness.
This Thanksgiving they will show the Godfather movies on AMC. In the second one Michael Corleone is being investigated by a Senate committee as being the head of a Mafia family. The committee questions one of the “buttons,” one of the low level hitmen of the family. He did not directly receive orders from Michael Corleone to kill someone, because there were a lot of “buffers” between him and Corleone. And yet even though there were “buffers” no one then thought to excuse and dismiss the investigation because Michael Corleone did not directly instruct the individual “buttons” to do the evil they did. In fact, indicting Corleone was the whole purpose of questioning all the others in the chain of causation. The head of the family, the one with the most power, the one directing the whole of the business, is the most guilty of all.
I have a hard time believing that the Father of the Christ is the ultimate Corleone.
Blessings even in the midst of disagreement.
David
Jeremy, I think you are barking up the right tree on this one. Faith is not simply believing the right things, but believing rightly. It’s the difference between the positive and negative versions of both you and Stacy’s take on God’s sovereignty. It’s not faithful to blame God for difficult situations or deny that he has any power in the situation. It’s faithful to say, “God, I deserve far worse. You are good and I will trust that you will bring good from this situation even if I never see it in my lifetime.”