One of the wrong ideas about suffering is that God is sitting in heaven somewhere, looking down on us in our suffering, smiling benignly at us, but really having no idea what we are going through. This is not the Biblical idea of God. The Bible says that He has come down and has become a Man and has suffered with us (Hebrews 2:9-18; Philippians 2:5-11; John 1:1-18). Further, He did this for our sakes, to save us from our sin (1 Peter 2:24,25; Colossians 2:13,14; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Further, the Father also loves us, being willing to send His Son to save us (John 3:14-18; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 4:9,10). This does not provide an intellectual answer for the problem of evil. We might even ask why it was necessary for God to do this. Why was there not an easier way? But it does show that God is not someone who stands at the sidelines, shaking His head over what He sees happening in the world. And this can change our attitude toward God and suffering. For if God calls us to suffer, at least He is willing to lead the charge.
Not sure that I would say that God call us to suffer but rather that he calls us to follow him when we do suffer.
ReplyDeleteWhether God calls us to suffer involves the question of to what extent God in in control of the world. We have discussed this issue to some extent in the past, but if you want to open it up again we can.
ReplyDeleteNever have been a fan of micromanagement - human or divine.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what you mean by micromanagement in this context, but if God does not manage to universe who does. What is the distinction between micromanagement and legitimate management.
DeleteIn my view, God manages but does not micromanage. If he micromanaged humanity then he would be responsible for sin.
ReplyDeleteI would agree human sin is our own choice. Though I am not sure if we are saying the same thing. But the original question was about bad things that happen to people, which seems to me to be a different issue.
DeleteI was responding to the extent of control that God exerts when we suffer. I resonate with the idea that He is there in comfort but not as some sort of pain manager.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I am clear on what you mean by a pain manager. I do believe God is in ultimate control of the amount of pain that enters our lives. If God is not in control of the universe, who is?
Delete"I do believe God is in ultimate control of the amount of pain that enters our lives."
ReplyDeleteUltimate control of the Nazi death camps? Ultimate control when children are abused? Interesting image of God that you paint.
Here is my view of sovereignty. http://www.kansascitybob.com/2013/02/is-god-micromanager.html
God allows people the option to choose evil. The alternative is to punish all evil which means all who have not trusted in God's grace would be immediately judged. One one day God will do that, but He has in His grace allowed time for people to turn to Him. It is easy to focus on extreme wrong doing, but God sees ordinary wrong doing by ordinary people as just a lesser example of the same thing.
DeleteBut God does control what wrong doing occurs and uses it, often in ways we do not understand to accomplish His purposes. The alternative seems to be to hold there is something stronger than God, which prevents Him from intervening.
"God does control what wrong doing occurs"
ReplyDeleteThen God is complicit in the wrong doing.
"The alternative seems to be to hold there is something stronger than God, which prevents Him from intervening."
Or simply that God has ceded a bit of his sovereignty to humans when he made us in his image. See my post for more info.
And if God cedes an incredible amount of sovereignty as you claim is He not responsible for letting these things happen by taking His hands totally off.
DeleteHuman beings are responsible for their choices. I admit that it is difficult to see how God can be in control of the world and still allow people to make those kind of choices. But I do not see how your concept makes it any easier. It pictures as standing by and doing nothing to deal with the situation.
Never said that he takes his hands off - I am no Deist. The level of sovereignty that I see is where God brings beauty from ashes (ashes created by US) and works all things (even OUR mistakes and sins) together for our good. He is able to exert his sovereignty over all things but chose to create us in his image and therefore gave us sovereignty or dominion over earthly things (Genesis 1:26).
ReplyDeleteI do not disagree with much of anything of what you have said, but I am under the impression that your idea of how God does this is much more hands off than mine.
DeleteDo not see God as "hands off" because his hands are always at work helping us when WE blow it and comforting us when WE are hurting. That said, I do understand that He ceded a bit of his sovereignty when he gave humans dominion over the earth.
ReplyDeleteMy main point I was trying to make is I did not see how God got out of being responsible for evil by being hands off or delegating authority. If God puts people in charge or simply stands by and does nothing is He not still responsible for what happens.
DeleteThe only answer that I can get is that God loves people so much, He gives them the ability to make choices so that they may have the opportunity to come to repentance. In this context it makes more sense to me that He manages events to help bring about that end rather then just sitting back and letting them run their course.
”If God puts people in charge or simply stands by and does nothing is He not still responsible for what happens.”
DeleteIs a father responsible for the acts his children do? Is a manager at fault when an employee, with delegated authority, makes a mistake? Is honoring his word to delegate dominion or sovereignty to humanity mean that God is evil for not intervening when anyone sins? In essence was Adam justified to blame God when he ate of the forbidden fruit?
”In this context it makes more sense to me that He manages events to help bring about that end rather then just sitting back and letting them run their course.”
Perhaps the point of life is that God has designed it to show us our need for him? Perhaps He has designed life to do that and does not need to micromanage the events at all?
I want to be sure I am not misunderstanding you here. What seem to saying is God meets us spiritually and psychologically to help us and comfort us (which I totally agree with) but does not control any of the physical events. I would not consider this Deism, but I would certainly consider it fairly hands off. If I am misunderstanding you please clarify.
ReplyDelete"fairly hands off"
DeleteInfluencing our lives in such a way to conform us into the image of Christ is hardly hands off.
Nonetheless I believe God uses the circumstances of our lives to do this. The picture I get from your view is a world that completely out of control, under the influence of it is not quite clear what. I do not see why allowing for human responsibility requires such a picture or what else would produce it.
DeleteThe world is out of control if one has cancer or a disabling disease. Why pretend that all is fine and God is in control of such things? Why see God as able but unwilling to help such people? Why not admit that bad things happen but God does not cause those bad things. Why not see a sovereignty that is able to use things that he does not control to bring beauty from our ashes?
ReplyDeleteIf God is not in control of the universe who or what is? And what is it that prevents God from being in control? Is there something bigger than God?
DeleteNever said God is not in control of the universe. That said, I believe that he is not in control of the actions that humans make. He ceded dominion to humans over some earthly things. Even so, he works in and through us to work things together for our good. He even does the miraculous in response to our prayers and gifts. Yet he is not controlled by humans as he answers our prayers according to his will. I find this view to be representative of an image of God that is both good and loving.
ReplyDeleteWhat about natural calamities that are not the result of human action?
DeleteI agree that has allowed humans to make choices and be responsible for those choices and does not cause them to make those choices. But I do believe that as Scripture repeatedly teaches that Gods controls those events to serve His purpose. I do not see how we can get out of the problem of God being responsible simply by having Him not in control of events. The charge here of neglect seems hard to avoid. The only answer I have is that God's judgment requires sin to have consequences and His love holds off the full impact of judgment to give time for people to repent. This implies that God is in control or events are not the result of God's love or judgment but simply accidents. I do not claim to know how this balances out in every case, for instance why God did not zap Hitler. But if God works miracles and I agree He does, I do not see any reason other then the balance of love and judgment He does not intervene to prevent all evil events.
A lot of issues there Mike. I will try to address each.
ReplyDelete1) God is the architect of the universe. Things like earthquakes and hurricanes have scientific explanations. No need to blame God for calamities because he designed the earth to have the ability to release built up pressure. Also hard to blame him for folks who build their houses in places that are prone to such events or do not take precautions when. We are no longer ignorant of such things and should not embrace simplistic theologies concerning calamities.
2) If you believe that God allows humans to make choices (i.e. exercise sovereignty) then we may not be that far off. I think of myself as a violinist in a great orchestra playing a beautiful symphony. I (humans) have a role as the musician, the conductor (governments and corporate groups) have a role as one who leads the musicians and the composer (God) has the greatest role in determining the notes, tempo and melody. Imperfect example but perhaps it communicates the idea?
3) You and I have different views of judgment. I see it as a means to restoration and reconciliation. You see it as a means to punish.
4) I take no issue with God withholding judgment for the sake of love.
I do not know whether this clarify things or not, but I see two major things involved under the heading of evil. One is evil human choices and the other is evil events, what I would call suffering. This can be the results of human action, for instance being shot by a bank robber, or natural forces, a hurricane for instance. Now I can understand moral evil existing because God allows people to make choices. But I would understand suffering being in the world as a result of God's judgment on moral evil. Now once it exists it may not always be fair. God may allow bad things to happen to good people to make them better people. He may allow bad things to happen to outwardly moral people to show them they need Him. He may hold off judgment from obviously evil people to give them an opportunity to repent. But seeing it as a result of God's judgment on sin is the only way without resorting to the end justifying the means I can explain its existence.
DeleteSurely God could prevent us from being harmed by others evil choices. He could make the bullets vanish or make us invulnerable like Superman. He could even find a way to change the physical laws so He would not have to be constantly working miracles. The fact that He does not indicates to me that He has a purpose for the existence of suffering in the world.
"But I would understand suffering being in the world as a result of God's judgment on moral evil."
ReplyDeleteI see suffering as something that comes from within creation and not from the Creator. Why blame God for cancer?
"Surely God could prevent us from being harmed by others evil choices."
The fact that he does not support the idea that he has chosen to limit his sovereignty in the world.
"I see suffering as something that comes from within creation and not from the Creator."
DeleteI am sorry but I have no idea whatsoever what this means. I understand the idea of God allowing moral evil to allow people the ability to choose. I even understand idea, though I do not agree with it, of God not controlling human choices out of respect for their free will. But why would God defer to tectonic plates. Why would the creation not behave the way the Creator intended it to behave, if it has no will to rebel against Him. Is God somehow subject to the physical laws which for some reason require suffering. Is there something or someone greater than God that He has to answer to.
I understand, though again I do not agree, with the idea of God surrendering His sovereignty over human beings so they can make free choices. But I see no reason He should surrender His sovereignty over the inanimate, material universe or who He would surrender it to. Can you explain?
I think that you know what it means as you touch on it in your post. And I am not sure why you feel a need to question the way that God made the earth just because it does not fit into your idea of sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteI am not clear what you are referring to.could you explain?
DeleteSuffering as something that comes from within creation is the kind that comes from the choices of our ancestors and our contemporaries.
DeleteAgain, how does the choices of our ancestors and contemporaries affect earthquakes, hurricanes and disease?
DeleteAnd if God does not have a purpose in it, why does He let the affects of our choices harm others. Granted it would be frustrating to the shooter if bullets just bounced off. But it would not take away his free choice.
A clip from our pastor:
ReplyDelete"Why did the earthquake and tsunami occur in Japan? Was it the act of an angry God? No, it was the result of the movement and collision of the earth's tectonic plates -- a process driven by the earth's need to regulate its own internal temperature. Without the process that creates earthquake, our planet could not sustain life. "
Suggest you read his piece at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hamilton/was-japans-earthquake-the_b_837324.html
The idea of God "letting people sin" is an allusion to God as a micromanager - a concept that I have previously discussed ... a more accurate way to describe it is that God "endowed people (made in his image) with choice".
I do understand the difference between allowing people to sin and endowing them with choice. Can you clarify.
DeleteI do not see how the tectonic plates are any explanation at all. Was God somehow forced to create the world with tectonic plates and was there no other way to create it. And is it impossible for God to somehow shield us from their effect. Why? If we lived in a world where people consistently followed God would it still be a world full of suffering, pain and death? Could a good God create such a world?
We are made in the image of God and therefore are endowed with the divine ability of choice. Commensurate with that endowment humans often sin. In my view one cannot blame God for wrong doing simply because he gave humans the ability to choose to do good (love) or to do bad (hate). Do you believe that God should have made us like robots with only the ability to love? Do you question the idea that we are made in his image? Are you upset because God's creation is not perfect?
ReplyDeleteAnd if I am hearing you correctly, you think that God could have done a better job when he created the earth. You seem to think that God uses natural phenomena like rain (which occasionally causes floods) to bring divine judgment on humanity. I reject this for the simple reason that both the faithful and the faithless are affected by such natural phenomena. The post by our pastor speaks more to that idea if you are interested.
I make a distinction between God creating humans (and the earth) and the bad things that happen. Of course, I imagine that it is possible to blame Henry Ford for all of the traffic fatalities simply because he created the first car. I imagine that he felt that he was blessing humanity and never imagined that he would be blamed when automobiles killed people.
And yet I can hear you thinking that Ford is not sovereign and cannot be blamed. And yet, bad things have always happened to the faithful. And folks often mock God by blaming him for allowing such things. In my view, miraculous intervention is not the norm. Perhaps you feel that miracles are the norm? I accept that the rain falls on the faithful and the faithless. Prayers are unanswered. The difference in my view is that the faithful have the presence and power of the Holy Spirit to help them when God does not miraculously intervene. We who name the name of Jesus are able to relate to suffering people and witness godly character to them simply because the proverbial rain falls on us. We are not called to escape suffering but to be a shining light to the lost when we do suffer.
So why shake our fists and blame God simply because the rain falls?
I do not question that God has allowed people to choose which has resulted in sin. I just do not see what the difference between your statement and mine. They seem to be different ways of saying the same thing.
DeleteAs I said before God allows bad things to happen to godly people to make them better people. He allows good things to happen to moral people that they may realize their morality is not enough. He allows bad people to avoid immediate punishment to give them opportunity to repent. But we are all sinners and none of us except Jesus (who undertook it voluntarily) can claim we are so righteous that we do not deserve to suffer. And none of us (by God's grace) receive in this life everything we deserve in terms of suffering. But God uses the things we do suffer to serve His purposes in our lives and those purposes are higher and more complicated then simply giving us everything we deserve for if He did apart from God's forgiveness we would all be destroyed.
But you seem to think that God cannot control even the inanimate creation to remove suffering. I do not see why this should be so. I do not think the Henry Ford analogy is a good one, because Ford is limited in power and knowledge and God is not. I do agree that suffering happens to the faithful. But it makes more sense to me to believe God has a purpose in it then that He simply cannot stop it.
(For the record I did read your pastor's article. I did not see that it contributed anything beyond what had already been said.)
"As I said before God allows bad things to happen to godly people to make them better people."
ReplyDeleteHow does cancer, child abuse, or genocide make anyone a better person?
Methinks that you are speaking at the cliche level and not in agreement with me at all.
"But you seem to think that God cannot control even the inanimate creation to remove suffering."
My point was that miracles are not the norm. God can do anything but rarely does miracles.
"How does cancer, child abuse, or genocide make anyone a better person?"
DeleteIt can if we trust God though it. Our problem is we have too much self-dependence. It would be nice if we could learn to be dependent on God in good times, but we seldom do. Therefore we need suffering to make us put aside our pride and cause us to trust in God. This is not a cliche, but something I have found true in my own life, over and over again.
I was not so much thinking of miracles, but of God designing us and the creation in such a way as to avoid suffering. I would agree God seldom does miracles, but I believe that is because God has a purpose in our suffering and therefore does not generally remove it by doing miracles. But I see no reason why God could not frequently work miracles if it suited His purpose. If God had no purpose in suffering, I see no reason why He would not frequently work miracles if that is what it took to avoid it.
I simply cannot call things like cancer, child abuse and genocide good. I cannot enter into such rationalization. Cannot see scriptural support for calling evil good. So I will continue to thank God 'in' all things but not 'for' all things.
ReplyDeleteRegarding miracles, no one really knows why they are so few in number. But I do know that God is not a genie in a bottle and prayer is not like rubbing Aladdin's lamp. We pray and he works according to his own will. And in the mean time we are called to trust Him with all of our heart and not rely on our own rationalizations.
I did not say such things are good but God causes them to work together for . But I do not see how these things can work together for good unless they in spite of being evil can have a good effect on our lives. Scripture repeatedly says they do (Romans 8:28; 5:3-5; James 1:2-4).
DeleteI certainly agree we should trust God in time of suffering. But for me that trust is grounded in the idea that God has a purpose for putting me through suffering even if I do not understand it. What trust am I supposed to have in a God who has no purpose in suffering, but nonetheless refuses to eliminate it?
"God has a purpose for putting me through suffering even if I do not understand it."
ReplyDeleteGod is not putting you (or me) through suffering Mike. Why blame him for your flooded basement simply because the rain fell. Why blame him for ebola when the origins of the disease had nothing to do with God? Why see him as the psychopathic oppressor who comforts the one suffering from his abuse? Why malign the image of God in this way?
Is there than some power in the universe that is greater than God? Some force He cannot control. I do not find that comforting, but frightening. .
DeleteI do not see God has the immediate cause of evil, but One who is bigger than evil and could do away with it if He chose to. To relieve Him of responsibility you seem to be making Him helpless.
Is there some force that He cannot control? No but he has chosen not to control the actions of humans but to give us dominion over the earth. This delegated sovereignty/dominion has created much suffering. But without it we would be robots and not people made in his image. And in rare instances he overrules our sovereignty and works in miraculous ways.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I feel that our desire to see God as a sovereign micro-manager has blinded us to the wonders of his providence. Though people mistreat us, his providential care comforts us. Though people plan evil against us, he stands with us working through us and the saints to cause all things to work together for good.
I understand the basic free will argument and while I do not believe God being in control of human choices makes them robots, I understand the concept. But I do not see how God's eliminating suffering, the consequences of evil choices or even natural events makes people robots. In all this discussion I get the feeling there is something you are assuming that I am not grasping. It is not simply that I disagree, though I suspect I would, but I am not sure I understand where you are coming from.
DeleteWhat is meant by providence or God's working things together for good mean if He does not control events? Could you clarify?
"What is meant by providence or God's working things together for good mean if He does not control events? Could you clarify?"
ReplyDeleteDoes not a Chess Grand Master anticipate the moves of a novice? Is he not able to counter each move that the novice makes? How much more does God, who exists outside of time, anticipate and counter human actions?
That said, it is doubtful that I could say anything more to help you understand where I am coming from.
And perhaps we have exhausted every means possible in this medium to express our views? Maybe it is best to simply agree to disagree?
I am not sure I fully understand your analogy, but perhaps it is better to leave this one here. We have to a large extent worn the subject out.
DeleteA very simple and straightforward analogy Mike. But I am okay to agree to disagree.
ReplyDelete