March 11, 2009
Type of Theodicy:
In trying to define my personal theodicy, the question of the creator’s relation to humanity keeps turning around inside my brain. While I am certainly concerned with keeping scripture as my highest source for building a foundation for theodicy, I cannot ignore the fact that in my own life I do have personal biases. These biases leave me vulnerable to swaying scripture so that God may fit with what I am comfortable with, rather than transforming my own mind and heart to the truth found in scripture. It is with a cautious and humble heart that I try to state anything for certain pertaining to the justice of God and by doing so also try to explain evil and suffering (or its opposite of goodness and healing). However, it is good to ponder the realities of God and our relationships with our Creator, so here is my attempt to wonder and interpret something about God, scripture, and humanity.
In the church today there seems to be the idea of meticulous providence, mostly connected to Augustine because many Baptist are Armenian (at least in my circles) and would despise being associated with John Calvin by stating they might have or lean towards some Calvinist theodicy, whether it involved predestination specifically or not. While the church cries free will from its pulpits and pews, there is an underlining theme of God’s will as fate or destiny, something other than the free will many claim. A person may say that one has free will to choose; yet when tragedy happens, they are told that it was the will of God for that person to be taken, that there is some divine reason or purpose, and perhaps even a lesson to be learned through suffering. While these answers may be true in some instances, usually people use these phrases as cliche statements to help others in their suffering. What people may not understand is that by stating such things that are agreeing with meticulous providence rather than the non-meticulous free will they have otherwise stated. In summary, these people statements of belief are quite contrary to the actions and words they use in daily life. Another example appear in instances when members in the church do not attend visitation or meetings and the leadership declares that it must not be God’s timing nor will, that ministry will begin when God desires and not when and how we desire. To both of these instances I claim fraud. In both instances, we are taking an uncomfortable situation and putting the responsibility of the shoulders of God when the responsibility to minister and enact the Kingdom of God in this world is our own. God reveals and we bear witness to that revelation. The church was called to bear witness and so bears the responsibility of helping those in need and sharing the good news of the Kingdom of God to Judah, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). God’s will is not something we find but something we do as Christians, as the church. The sooner Christians realize God’s will is that they obey scripture by being and becoming Christians, the less we must worry about being out of his will. Then the church can worry about acting out the Kingdom of God instead of merely seeking it, waiting for some sign to fall out of the sky and knock us unconscious before we take a step of trust and faith. This is not to say that God does not speak to his people, rather it states that God has already spoken to his people through scripture and provides us with religious, moral, and ethical norms (and natural laws) to follow rather than laying out the fleece every time we have the smallest choice to make. Sometimes we must remember that God gave us logic and reason, as well as, spiritual discernment and the feeling of being swayed or lead by the Holy Spirit.
If my view does not seem obvious by now I will state it simply, I believe my theodicy is Irenaean and non-meticulous providence with some spice of Augustine and Calvin. I believe saying to myself, or to the church, that we are not influenced by or do not express some of Augustine or Calvin beliefs would be a lie. The truth is that the church likely wishes to be Irenaean in practice, the church longs for people to take hold of the Kingdom of God with both hands and offer it to the poor, sick, needy, and hopeless people of the world. For were not we all (and in some instances still) once needy and hopeless ourselves (Romans 3:23)? I believe that people use meticulous providence as an excuse to take responsibility off of themselves as Christians; leaving the call for obedience, commitment, servant hood, and sacrifice to those who are called to such things, because it is God’s will for some and not for others. The truth is that all Christians, the whole church, is called to take responsibility and called to sacrifice (Philippians 2:1-13). The spice of Augustine and Calvin comes in because I believe there are specific instances where God does enter into creation, into time, and performs revelation and miracles that are unexplainable and that once again reveal that there is something more than what we know physically and tangibly. Most times in history God chooses to work through his creation to express truths about himself; yet there are those times (in reaction to his creation) when the laws of nature that we put in place at creation are broken, and whom is justified to break the rules of creation if not the Creator God’s-self.
Moral and Natural Evil:
When it comes to evil, there seems, for me at least, no real way to claim that evil stems from God. However, one may be able to state that evil is caused by rebellion to the goodness, love, and perfection found in God. This view would seems consistent with Augustine’s evil as non-being, meaning that love and goodness were created by God; and that evil and suffering only exist apart, in distortion, or opposite of the norms in which the world was created. Moral and natural evil somehow seem connected, while one cannot be certain that natural evil; such as earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes happened before the fall; certainly, there seems to be evidence that it has existed since the fall. There seems to be some consistency in nature that many see as evil because natural disasters cause destruction. These instances, I would state, are not meticulously planned by God or caused to punish. There may be some times in which God may still choose to judge through such means but I will not be the one to claim which disaster is judgment and which disaster is merely the laws of nature being played out in creation. In addition, since I am more inclined toward Irenaean thought, I say human responsibility and natural law are the norms with God intervening supernaturally, working outside the normal parameters of creation, sometimes. There are also the natural evils that comes from sickness and disease, which I have already explained I believe are not meticulously given by God in every, if not most, instances. This type of suffering is part of the fall and natural law that now plagues humanity, the earth, and the animals that roam the planet.
Now, when it comes to moral evil, human sin and atrocities of war, the holocaust, crusades, inquisition, neglect or abuse of the poor and needy, and much more, I find that these stem from the human tendency and plague of sin. Previously, I was convinced humanity was created perfectly; yet now I am more inclined to believe that humanity was created good and perhaps even morally neutral in its original tendency. However, how we live now is not good or perfect but drawn towards sin, so our present condition is in relation to sin and not humanity’s original created nature (perfect, good, or morally neutral). Thus, I am more concerned with whether sin is something that is passed on genetically or something that is chosen, meaning we begin life innocent, like a clean slate, and later become sinful at the time when consciously we choose to sin and rebel against God. Personally, there seems to be something to be said for innocence, while other times there seems to be clues in our nature to believe we are sinful at conception and birth. I am inclined to say that humanity lives in a fallen or sinful state (physical state that makes physical death possible and perhaps inclines toward sin?) and later in life perhaps become spiritually sinful (this rebellion sets us in hell, turning to God toward heaven after our physical death). Still, perhaps there is a time between birth and the time we gain conscious choice and become aware of our free will that our physical death may not mean our spiritual death if we have not taken those steps toward rebellion (nor acceptance). Oddly enough, some may state the same reasons for those, who have no specifically heard the gospel of Jesus, to be judged by God on a separate scale than if they have rejected or accepted Jesus Christ as the one and only son of God (John 3:16).
Eschatology:
The Eschaton is known as God’s final stand and expression of divine justice to eradicate evil and suffering, establishing goodness and health for eternity. If one does not believe in meticulous providence then how will the end ever come if God is not constantly forming creation toward his will (by persuasion or force)? First, I believe that God does interact with humanity but that humanity still holds most of the responsibility. Our view of the end also depends on our view of creation and our views of heaven and hell. Is heaven a place where the righteous go for eternity or is it a place that is (1) A holding place until the Kingdom of God comes down to earth (Revelation 21) or (2) Is Heaven a place where the holiness of God (spiritual) finally collides with the material (physical) once sin is no more? To this question, I do not have a definite answer, especially since interpreting the book of Revelation is such a daunting and seemingly impossible task. Will Christians leave the earth to meet God in the sky or will evil be wiped away and God comes down to earth to meet his people? What is for certain is that God and those who have chosen to be his people will live in relation for eternity, with no barriers, distance nor suffering. If Revelation 21 is the way in which the Kingdom of God will be felt in reality (not merely as an image) than I am inclined to believe that humans will have a larger part in the end times than we may realize. In addition, with nuclear weapons that can destroy humanity (if not the world), with technology that is bringing the world together, and with the evil that still seems to prosper over peace; there seems to be a lot of involvement humanity may have in helping bring along plagues, droughts, fire, and other disasters upon the earth. Many would say that these atrocities are caused directly by God’s hand in the end times. Perhaps, but could it also be that humans may bring about judgment on themselves by their own hands, there own sinful ways. Others may believe that the Kingdom of God on earth will eventually grow (like the mustard seed) and the world will come to the gospel. In this view, evil is wiped out and humanity ceases to be evil, then Jesus returns and completes the Kingdom. Still, one may wonder how the book of Revelation would relate to such a view. Unless after the tragedy, humanity in unison all turns to God for answers, which if we take our fallen and sinful nature seriously seems an impossible reality.
Objection:
One serious problem with the belief that there is no meticulous providence is that there exists no certain future (or at least it may take an infinite eternity to act out). In emphasizing humanities responsibility, it may seem to take away from God’s power, authority, and control. In fact, this view could be seen as questioning the current divine-human relationship. If humans have primary responsibility for the outcome of creation then why care about the gospel or prayer as long as love and peace are promoted over evil and suffering? I believe this is an extreme and is not where my beliefs lay. There is some connection, some working of God and humanity through his church, awakening and building the Kingdom of God, here and to come, that I cannot comprehend. (Professor’s Note: The Irenaean view does not mean that God cannot end all things at any time; that just means, though, the end of the world. God in that sense is never “out of control.” )
RESPONSE TO ROBINSON:
The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism by Michael D. Robinson [FYI: Best book so far I ever read on the subject/interpretation(s)!]
View of Freedom:
Under the banner of freedom, I would say I lean toward Arminianism because it emphasizes free will and leaves God sovereign, especially as explained by Robinson. Calvinism does not leave freedom, as I view it, to humanity and puts all the responsibility (and blame) on God for the sin in humanity. However, Open Theism, while having freedom, also gives this freedom to change his divine character to God, who might not even be sure how eternity may turn out in the end because the divine is changing himself in time with humanity. (Professor’s Note: Open Theists usually do not believe that God’s character change; they believe that God’s purpose for eternity does not change.) I could cover more; however, I believe most of my response to freedom has been covered in the previous sections. Humans have responsibility; God created and intervenes at certain times, perhaps by persuasion but almost never by direct force.
God's Interaction with the World:
In response to God’s interaction with humanity I have stated previously that I appeal to some mystery of God, being both timelessness and atemporal. However, if pressed I would say that on the issue of divine-human interaction the view of Open Theism fits best with my beliefs because it speaks of a God who is both divine and also personal, a God who is reacting to creation and humanity and not just pulling the strings in eternity. However, on this point I would say I am Open Theist-Armenian while overall I would say I am Armenian-Open Theist. Sorry Calvin. Calvinism does have God interacting with the world as a writer is involved in a play; yet Calvinism does not really answer any vital questions for me but leaves me with more questions and feeling more depressed than full of hope for my future, if not the future of humanity in general.
Greatest Weakness:
The greatest weakness I see is making an appeal to mystery to explain how God is both timeless (Arminianism) and atemporal (Open Theism, Professor’s Note: they see God as temporal). Appealing to mystery just seems like a cheap way not to answer serious questions. However, I find there is a difference in appealing to divine mystery in some instances where is may be allowed and others where it just seems more of an excuse. For example, the Calvinist view appeals to divine mystery in stating that God is sovereign and there is a divine mystery of who he predestines to heaven and hell or why some suffer while other do not. I do not believe using the divine mystery as a claim is valid here because scripture has so much to say about the love of God, free will, choice, God wishing none to go to hell, God’s personal relationship with humanity, and so forth. However, there does not seem to be many instances in scripture that specifically state God as timeless or temporal (or both). There are scriptures that allude to both in some instances but nothing clear in the form of doctrine of character.
Conclusion:
Overall, I have attempted to express my beliefs and pray that they are built upon the foundation of scripture and how my faith has expressed itself in my personal experience of life. I do not claim that this theodicy will be the same when I am older; yet it could stay the same while living these beliefs out gives them a greater expression and understanding in my life. In the end that is theodicy to me, it is what we live out in our life by both our actions and our words. As Christians, we may claim something about God through tradition, our pulpits, or our pews; but the truth in our life is how we connect belief with action. The truth of our theodicy is seen in how we define our self and express our faith, how we react to those who suffer and how we relate to God in our own suffering (and even perhaps in our joy).
~ Daniel
Pic:
http://st-matthew.org/pastordion/uploaded_images/tornado-721965.jpg
