Like Button

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Are you calling evil good?

What possible purposes could God have for evil? Why would He allow suffering? The accusation is that all suffering is bad and any suffering at all is capricious, gratuitous, unnecessary, and, of course, wrong. Is that so? Well, first, in answering that question, you have to realize that the accusation is wrong-headed, assuming that humans are the ultimate value. In truth, all creation is contingent. All creation is based on God, is held together by God, derives any value it might have from God. If we make the mistake of applying our standards (which, by the way, seem to be varied and arbitrary), then we stand in judgment of the Creator to whom we owe our very existence. But is there any reason to think that suffering and evil is anything but capricious? Is it possible that there is actual value in suffering?

I think we can suggest a few possible gains from suffering, but I need to start with the reminder that, in the final analysis, it's not about us. The question comes from the perspective of "Why would God make a world that includes evil?" and the answer is in God's hands. If God is Sovereign and if God is good, we can trust that this is the world God intended to accomplish His purposes, and some of those purposes are not about us. Still, I think we can find some value on our end.

One of the top reasons that we should appreciate suffering in this world is that it keeps us from getting too comfortable. It's a real problem with humans, actually. We get comfortable in life and we, oh, so easily, tell God in word or deed, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." I mean, think about it. If all we had was happy all the time, who would need God and who would want to leave? Heaven would be almost moot.

Another value in suffering is that it seems to bring out the best in people. We may be bickering and fighting and pounding the table for having things our way, but have someone in the room suddenly cry out in pain and all of our selfishness seems to slip away. We want to help. Look at the horror that is the earthquake in Haiti and look at the response from a world that is intrinsically evil. Help came from everywhere because people, normally bent on their own interests, suddenly found a good reason to help others.

Suffering is a good tool for building appreciation. Every parent that has ever taken small children to the mall likely knows how this works. For a moment you lose sight of that little one while you're distracted. Whether he or she is actually missing or only missing in your mind for a moment, that little one is suddenly of supreme value. Shopping, entertainment, exercise, all that you might have gone to that mall for are gone. And when you find that that little one, you are so grateful. Expand that to so many other applications and you'll see what I mean.

One thing that suffering certainly does is make us dependent. We must not say, "It's alright, God. I can take it from here." There are too many problems in this world to chance that. We need to be connected to a higher power to get through these difficulties.

I know in my experience painful events have served as a purification process. So often I've lost things dear to me only to discover that they were more dear to me than they should have been. I've allowed them to come between me and my God. Or perhaps it is a process of correction. Sometimes suffering is a result of judgment, what the Bible refers to as chastisement from our heavenly Father. That correction, the Bible says, isn't pleasant, but "later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb 12:11).

Another useful outcome of suffering is what is called by some "a pool of pain". As an example, a parent who has never lost a child is not as well equipped to comfort a family who has lost a child as a parent who has. Or, here's how Paul puts it:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God (1 Cor 1:3-4).
Suffering, then, builds sympathy and actually can serve to connect us to people with whom we may not have been connected.

One of the clear biblical reasons for suffering is that it associates us with Christ. In 1 Peter 4 he writes, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed" (1 Peter 4:12-13). When we suffer for being Christ's followers, we share in Christ's suffering. According to Peter, this is the will of God for us (1 Peter 4:19). Paul considers suffering for Christ's sake a gift (Phil 1:29).

I'm just scratching the surface here, and these are just about benefits to us. God has designed this world to accomplish His purposes. Because He is gracious, even when others intend it for evil, He intends it for good. The world may not like it and we certainly won't be able to always point to good reasons, but the bottom line is always the same. God is good. God is Sovereign over all that happens. Therefore, all that happens is good. If you don't see it that way, the problem isn't God; it's your (or my) perception.

10 comments:

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Stan,

I want to compliment you for tackling the subject as you have been. I've been keeping up the best I can. I'd just like to add on to my comments in the previous post, insofar as regards speaking about God.

Aquinas talked about 3 types of language: univocal, equivocal and analogical. Talking about God, he said, could only be analogical. This means we cannot talk about God's nature, His thoughts, actions, intentions, etc. in a way that is like that which applies to humanity but only by way of analogy.

You made a good analogy with the parents and the missing child, I have heard others about the creator and developer of a game or program who determines how the mechanism will work and interacting periodically at his/her discretion and then an end user complaining about the process or intervention being immoral or wrong.

My point is pretty broad but very important, in that in all our thinking and discussion about God we don't project onto Him, or assume the same either equivalent or even contextually similar arrangement that we have as the created. We speak about God by analogy (in conjunction always with those instances in which God has revealed Himself in scripture) and in cases where things don't make sense or seem confusing we take comfort in the knowing that the God of all creation will do that which is right.

Hope that made at least some sense.

Thanks again for tackling the topic, Stan. It's a hard subject.

Blessings.

Stan said...

Quite true. When the Bible refers to God as "holy", it's primary meaning is "other". We think of it as "separated from sin", but it is more accurately "separated". God is, therefore, different from us. In all things, then, it is important to go from the known to the unknown. We learn that 3 + 3 = 6 and then we can learn that 2 x 3 = 6. We know what a king is and then we can get a sense of "the King of kings" means. God is holy (most accurately, "holy, holy, holy") and we can only relate to Him by analogy. If we don't start with the realization that the finite can never fully grasp the infinite, we'll never get anywhere with a comprehension of God.

Lee said...

A year or two ago at Costco I bought Bart Ehrman’s book titled God’s Problem. Ehrman concentrated on human suffering. I wonder what he makes of suffering among non-human creatures.

Here is part of an entry I posted last year at Andrew Tallman’s part of the KPXQ Christian radio website:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are not planning on sitting down to eat a meal soon, take a look at this photo of heartworms that have infested a dog’s heart:

http://www.dierenartsenvechtenvenen.nl/foto's/heartworm.jpg

Can a Bible believer bring himself to pray the following prayer, or as an alternative to that, tell me why it would not be a suitable thing to pray?

”Lord God, You are the Intelligent Designer. I imagine that You originally designed heartworms to feast on plant material, or maybe on fungus. When Adam and Eve disobeyed You, You could have changed the environment in such a way that only humans would suffer. It would not be a violation of logic for You to have done so. But You deliberately chose to change many of the behaviors of organisms, including the heartworm. You redesigned it specifically for it to make its living by parasitizing dogs. I know that dogs are not guilty of Original Sin, Lord. And I know that if a human deliberately infested a dog with heartworms, our court system could find that human guilty of animal cruelty and could arrange punishment for the human. But the Bible says that Your ways are not man’s ways. In some way that we do not understand, Intelligent Designer, Your decision to redesign heartworms was not only good, but the very best thing that You could have done. Your Word says we are to praise You in all things—no exceptions. So I give You praise, Intelligent Designer God, for what You did in redesigning heartworms in the way that You saw fit to do. I have no expectation that praying for You to return the heartworms to their original plant-based diet would induce You to do such a thing, and I humbly accept that. Amen.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andrew did not give a direct answer to my prayer challenge.

Stan said...

It's interesting to me that "non-human creatures" would be such a problem. You said, for instance, "if a human deliberately infested a dog with heartworms, our court system could find that human guilty of animal cruelty." Maybe. But no one bats an eye if I take a can of Raid and annihilate an entire village of ants. So at what point is it "cruelty" and at what point is it "so what?"? But that's not the question, is it?

You know, I'm sure, the famous Sherlock Holmes (technically, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) quote: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." So I would address the question in reverse. Is it remotely possible that God made a mistake? Is it remotely possible that it happened outside of God's control? Is it remotely possible that God intended it for something that I don't understand? Of the three questions, only one is remotely possible, so it must be the truth, no matter how improbable.

Of course, I wouldn't bother making such a prayer, but, hey, if that's what you're grateful for, by all means ...

Lee said...

I am indeed familiar with the Doyle quote. To Ehrman and I when we were young, and to you now, it is impossible that our world lacks a personal deity who loves living things. That would leave just the three improbables, as you point out.

By the way, though Andrew Tallman did not give a direct answer to my prayer challenge question, he did react to my question. What he wrote seemed to boil down to: “Lee, the fact that you feel it in your bones that the God of the Bible is less than all good if He exists is evidence that the God of the Bible exists. How could you realize His shortcomings unless He made you realize them?”

I will certainly read your ongoing series on this important topic.

Stan said...

Lee,

I have a question. If you (generic "you") are going to argue that "There is no God" on the basis that such a God doesn't measure up to your set of moral standards, on what basis can you apply those moral standards to anyone but yourself? (If the question is unclear, let me know and I'll try to ask it more clearly.)

Lee said...

My Net access is whenever I stay after hours at work, so pardon the long delay.

I may have more to say later, but for now I will answer in a rather indirect way. Ephesians 5:20 commands you to praise God in ALL things, and yet your response to my challenge for you to praise God for His fine-tuning of heartworm behavior was, “Of course, I wouldn't bother making such a prayer.”

That says something really good about you, Stan. You have found somewhere within you a source of morality that transcends what the Bible tells you. I wonder if that place you are reaching into is the same place I am reaching into—something perhaps endowed us by our evolution as social primates?

“So Ephesians tells me to do thus and so. Nope. Not gonna do it. I hold myself to a higher standard than the standard the Bible sets.” That is what I hear you saying. I am betting that your views on the morality of slavery are at odds with the Biblical views as well.

Years ago there was a Christian radio show hosted by Bob Larson. When he was unable to be in the studio, he had Bonnie Bell substitute for him. About ten different times I heard her say, “You can’t take A, B, C and E from the Bible and say, ‘I am going to do those things. But I am not going to do D.’ It doesn’t work that way.” Your thoughts?

By the way, do you suppose Bonnie Bell abides by the commandment to “suffer not a witch to live”?

If you will pardon me for straying further from your question…

About a year ago I heard someone—possibly Andrew Tallman—say on Christian radio that, “God loves humans infinitely more than he loves the [nonhuman] animals.” As you know, there is in the western United States a history of mountain lion attacks on people. Would you pray that God will stop mountain lions from doing this in the future?

Maybe the lack of human protein consumption would cause some mountain lion to die sooner than it would have if it had it been allowed to attack a human. But if God loves humans infinitely more than he loves lions— well, I think you see where I am going with this.

Stan said...

Sorry, Lee. I didn't realize you were such a hardcore literalist.

When I said "I wouldn't bother making such a prayer", I simply meant that there is so very much else for which to be grateful that getting around to thanking God for heartworms likely wouldn't make the list in my lifetime. Of course, if it is your understanding that the mandate of Ephesians is that we thank God for everything in the most bare, blatant sense, then it is unlikely we'll be able to do anything else at all, will we?

And I'd be interested in your source on my views of slavery. I suspect that your goal here isn't to ask questions, but to attack my beliefs ... but, hey, I could be wrong, right?

No, I'm not wrong, and you know it. Your approach, in fact, makes it impossible to discuss. Your aim is not to have an exchange of ideas, a logical discourse. You simply assume that theists can't be right and must be fairly stupid.

I'll be glad to have a friendly, intelligent conversation with you. I'm happy to explain why I believe what I believe or answer questions you might have. I don't need the sneer. Serves no purpose. Thanks.

Lee said...

Stan wrote: “if it is your understanding that the mandate of Ephesians is that we thank God for everything in the most bare, blatant sense, then it is unlikely we'll be able to do anything else at all, will we?”

Fair enough. But the heartworm prayer could be a one-time thing, 20 seconds long, while waiting for dessert to be put on the dinner table.

Stan wrote: “And I'd be interested in your source on my views of slavery.”

I can’t recall reading anything by you on that topic. But my suspicion is that your views are pretty standard 21st Century Western World views. Holding slaves, returning an escaped slave to its master, punching holes in the ear of a slave— those things would likely by unacceptable behavior by your standards of morality.

Stan wrote: “You simply assume that theists can't be right and must be fairly stupid.”

They say you lose x many brain cells per decade. If so, I would have had higher intelligence as an adolescent theist than I do now as a graying agnostic. But I hope that when it comes to figuring out how things work (the universe and whatnot), I more than make up for the loss of brainpower with the wisdom and knowledge that come from maturing. I meant nothing derogatory about your intelligence. Your writing skills are superb. Your inventiveness in coming up with new material every day is impressive.

Stan said...

Actually, biblical slavery and the slavery of the last century were very different things. Oh, and "punching holes in the ear of a slave" was a voluntary thing viewed as a mark of honor in their culture. The Jewish version of slavery was a means of paying a debt and was forbidden to last beyond 7 years. (Just a couple of differences.)

Since I don't have a dog and have no interaction with heartworms, it will still likely remain low on the list of things I'll be thanking God for.

And I like to think that my maturity has had a similar effect. Oddly, it is the opposite (in direction) of yours. ;)