God and Evil

All week I've been on this topic of God's Sovereignty and human suffering. The accusation is that a good God would not allow all the evil (either moral evil or simply unpleasant events) we see in the world. I've worked at pointing out 1) that God is Sovereign and claims for Himself both good and evil, and 2) there is value in suffering. Still, I'm sure the accusation hangs in the air.

If there was ever a case for gratuitous, capricious suffering being imposed by God, it would be the case of Job. According to the biblical account, Job was "blameless". At first glance it appears that Job suffers the loss of all he owns, his own family, and his very health to what seems to be a silly bet between God and Satan. "Have you seen my servant, Job?" God asks. Satan responds, "He only serves you because you've protected him." So God allows (it is important to note that every step of the way was permitted and limited by God) Satan to intervene in Job's life. Sounds gratuitous, doesn't it? Well, we can debate it from our own perspectives, but I would think that the best source of evaluation would be the participants. What did Job think?

When Job lost everything, what was Job's response? It is the very famous, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." Job ... get this ... "fell on the ground and worshiped." And when he was sitting in ashes scraping at sores and his wife urged him to curse God and die, what was Job's response? "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" Contending with his friends he said, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." But he was pushed to the limit. He rose up and demanded an audience with God. He accused God of being unfair. The pot demanded of the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?!" And God answered. Except God didn't answer the accusation. God simply (yeah, right, "simply") asked Job, "Where were you when I created everything?" Part way through this Grand Inquisition, Job raised his hand. He didn't say, "Look, God, you're not answering the question. All this is well and good, but it's still not fair." No, his response was, "I lay my hand on my mouth." God's series of questions showed the difference between Man and God, that Man was finite and God infinite, that Man was creature and God Creator. More importantly, when it was all over, here's Job's conclusion: "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You." You may call it capricious if you like. You may say it was all a silly bet between deities. But Job concluded that he knew God in a way he never did before. Argue all you want about the evils of suffering. Deny the goodness of God to your heart's content. When people like Job go through intense suffering that some would call "capricious", "gratuitous", or "non-redemptive" and come out the other side better off in their own view, it makes it impossible for me to argue that suffering is, by definition, evil. And that's just looking at it from the view of the benefit to humans.

There are a few possible positions to take on suffering. One far side says, "The evil in the world proves that there is no such being as God." There is a fundamental problem with this view. If there is no such being as God, then there is no valid, overarching means with which to measure "good". We're left to our own opinions of good and bad, and all without any solid basis. The more middle ground would say, "If this is what God is like, then I want no part of Him." This is perhaps a more startling and frightening position to take. "Yes, I admit that such a being exists. He simply doesn't measure up to my definition of God. I have weighed God in the balances of my sense of right and wrong and found Him wanting." Seriously? I wouldn't want to be around when, standing in front of the Judge of all the Earth, you try out that defense. The other side, then, would be to start with God. God is good. All that happens is under His control. Therefore, God ordains all that happens for His good purposes. What about all that stuff we don't really understand and can't really explain? In these cases, we would have to defer to the infinite God. We would conclude that humans have neither the ability nor the right to pass judgment on God. We would conclude, instead, that if we still see these things as evil and wish to bring an accusation against God, it's because we are faulty in our perceptions, not God. The choice is yours.

There is one thing that you should consider when coming to your conclusions on God, His Sovereignty, and the existence of evil. If you are going to accuse God (not question, but accuse), you are going to do so from your own opinion. The atheist or the one who wants nothing to do with "that sort of God" are drawing conclusions from personal opinions. It's not from hard facts ("Here is the clear core of moral values") or basic, verifiable, universal morality. A Supreme Lawgiver alone has the ability and right to present basic, verifiable, universal morality, and to decide against that Supreme Lawgiver requires that you do so based on your own opinion, not on anything solid. Are you going to decide that your opinion is infallible or are you going to rest on the certainty of God? Yes, yes, that would be an "opinion" as well, I suppose, but it is an opinion based on a much broader footing than "my personal viewpoint". But if you decide to trust God and wonder about the accusations of others, remember ... they're offering personal, human opinions against the Sovereign of the Universe. You decide how much weight you give them.