“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.”